Citations

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesRecent studies have reported acceptable outcomes after arthrodesis takedown and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, there are no reports on outcomes after oncologic resection, which are inherently complex and may portend poorer outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the surgical and functional outcomes of patients who underwent prior hemipelvectomy for tumor resection and were later converted to THA.MethodsAll patients who had prior iliofemoral arthrodesis after oncologic resection that were later converted to THA at a single institution were examined. Charts were reviewed for demographic information, operative information, functional outcomes, and complications/reoperations.ResultsAll three patients in this study were males who underwent internal hemipelvectomies for chondrosarcoma. Patients were converted to THA at a mean of 26 years after arthrodesis. Mean follow‐up after conversion to THA was 7.4 years. During this follow‐up period, two of the three patients required revision surgery. At last follow‐up, the mean Harris Hip Score was 81 and the mean Mayo Hip Score was 67, and all patients were ambulatory without significant pain.ConclusionsOverall, patients who undergo iliofemoral arthrodesis after oncologic hemipelvectomy and are later converted to THA can expect to have a reasonable outcome, despite a high rate of complications and revision surgery.

Objectives The objective is to examine utilisation of cardiovascular preventive services in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), compared with a non-RA population, and to examine cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening rates among RA patients without diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension or hyperlipidaemia to non-RA patients with one of these diagnoses. Methods All ≥18-year-old patients with an RA diagnosis living in one of eight Minnesota counties on 1 January 2015 were included and matched (1:1) by sex, age and county to non-RA comparators. Rates of screening for CVD risk factors, including DM (ie, glucose), hypertension (ie, blood pressure) and hyperlipidaemia (ie, lipids), were compared between groups using Cox models. Results The study included 1614 patients with RA and 1599 non-RA comparators. DM screening was more common among patients with RA (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.19), as was hypertension screening (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.52). Hyperlipidaemia screening in RA was similar to comparators (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.10). Conversely, patients with RA and no CVD risk factors had a lower probability of undergoing diabetes (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.78) and hyperlipidaemia screening (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.79) than non-RA patients with only one CVD risk factor diagnosis. Hypertension screening was similar between both groups. Conclusions RA patients undergo CVD preventive screening at rates at least comparable to the general population. However, patients with RA as their sole CVD risk factor were less likely to undergo screenings, despite an equivalent-to-higher risk as the traditional CVD risk factors. These findings demonstrate opportunities for improvement of RA patient care.

Newer management strategies are being evaluated to treat obesity, which continues to increase worldwide. After 12 h of fasting, the body switches from glucose to fat metabolism, regulating protein synthesis and autophagy. These cellular responses are central to the metabolic benefits of time-restricted eating (TRE), independent of calorie restriction and weight loss, and they have heightened interest in TRE regimens. Controversy remains, however, regarding the benefits of TRE regimens. We reviewed the current literature and concluded that TRE is equivalent to calorie restriction for weight loss and has positive effects for patients with diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has rapidly emerged as a promising modality of physiologic pacing and has demonstrated excellent lead stability. In this retrospective study, we evaluate whether this pacing modality can allow concomitant atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation and same-day dismissal. Methods: Twenty-four consecutive patients (female 63%, male 37%) with an average age of 78 ± 5 years were admitted for pacemaker (75%)/defibrillator (25%) implantations and concomitant AVN ablation. Device implantation with LBBAP was performed first, followed by concomitant AVN ablation through left axillary vein access to allow for quicker post-procedure ambulation. The patients were discharged on the same day after satisfactory post-ambulation device checks. Results: LBBAP was successful in 22 patients (92% in total, 20 patients had an LBBP and two patients had a likely LBBP), followed by AVN ablation from left axillary vein access (21/24, 88%). All patients had successful post-op chest x-rays, post-ambulation device checks, and were discharged on the same day. After a mean follow up of three months, no major complications occurred, such as LBBA lead dislodgement requiring a lead revision. The LBBA lead pacing parameters immediately after implantation vs. three-month follow up were a capture threshold of 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms vs. 0.6 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms, sensing 9.9 ± 3.9 mV vs. 10.4 ± 4.1 mV, and impedance of 710 ± 216 ohm vs. 544 ± 110 ohm. The QRS duration before and after AVN ablation was 117 ± 32 ms vs. 123 ± 14 ms. Mean LVEF before and three months after the implantation was 44 ± 14% vs. 46 ± 12%. Conclusion: LBBA pacing not only offers physiologic pacing, but also allows for a concomitant AVN ablation approach from the left axillary vein and safe same-day hospital dismissal.

Biodegradable and all-natural gelatin-based nanoemulsions encapsulate and stabilize antifungal essential oils to provide efficient penetration and eradication of drug-resistant fungal biofilms without resistance generation.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data about changes in cardiac function (cardiac reverse remodeling) and heart failure indices after transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve replacement (TT-VIVR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate cardiac reverse remodeling and temporal changes in heart failure indices after TT-VIVR in adults with congenital heart disease. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adults with congenital heart disease that underwent TT-VIVR and had >6 months of follow-up (January 1, 2011, to April 30, 2023). Echocardiographic indices of cardiac remodeling and heart failure indices (New York Heart Association class, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide), glomerular filtration rate, and model for end-stage liver disease excluding international normalized ratio score) were assessed preintervention and at 1-, 3-, and 5-year postintervention. RESULTS: Of 39 patients (age 39 [32–46] years), 14 (36%) and 25 (64%) received Melody valve and Sapien valve prosthesis, respectively. At 1-year post-TT-VIVR, there was a temporal improvement in right atrial reservoir strain (17±8% versus 22±8%, P <0.001), right atrial volume (81 [59–108] versus 63 [48–82] mL/m 2 , P <0.001), right atrial pressure (12±4% versus 6±4%, P <0.001), and right ventricular global longitudinal strain (−15±7% versus −20±7%, P <0.001). Similarly, there was a temporal improvement in NT-proBNP, glomerular filtration rate, model for end-stage liver disease excluding international normalized ratio score, and New York Heart Association class. The temporal improvements in heart failure indices and valve function were maintained at 3- and 5-year post-TT-VIVR. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the significant mortality risk associated with reoperations for tricuspid valve replacement, these data suggest favorable outcomes after TT-VIVR, and support TT-VIVR as a viable alternative to surgical tricuspid valve replacement, especially in high-risk patients.

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework—participants (P), interventions (I),comparators (C), outcomes (O)—and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia.

AbstractIntroduction/AimsFemoral neuropathies can cause severe, prolonged debility, yet there have been few clinical and electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies addressing this condition. The aim of this study was to better understand the etiologies, EDx features, and clinical course of femoral neuropathy.MethodsWe identified patients evaluated at Mayo Clinic Rochester between January 1, 1999 and July 31, 2019, with possible new femoral neuropathy ascertained via International Classification of Diseases‐versions 9 and 10 diagnosis codes presenting within 6 months of symptom onset.ResultsA retrospective review of 1084 records was performed and we ultimately identified 159 patients with isolated femoral neuropathy for inclusion. The most common femoral neuropathy etiologies were compressive (40%), perioperative stretch (35%), and inflammatory (6%). Presenting symptoms included weakness (96%), sensory loss (73%), and pain (53%). Presenting motor physical exam findings demonstrated moderate weakness (34%) or no activation (25%) of knee extension and mild (32%) or moderate (35%) weakness of hip flexion. Seventy‐two percent of patients underwent EDx testing, including 22 with femoral motor nerve conduction studies. Treatment often involved physical therapy (89%) and was otherwise etiology‐specific. In patients with follow‐up data available (n = 154), 83% had subjective clinical improvement at follow‐up with a mean time to initial improvement of 3.3 months and mean time to recovery at final follow‐up of 14.8 months. Only 48% of patients had nearly complete or complete recovery.DiscussionIn our cohort, the most common etiologies of femoral neuropathy were compression or perioperative stretch with high initial morbidity. Although motor recovery is common, improvement is often prolonged and incomplete.

In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia .