Popliteal block with transfibular approach in ankle arthrodesis: a case series

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Ankle arthrodesis is primarily undertaken to control severe pain in the ankle joint. Immediate postoperative pain is usually treated using oral analgesics, intravenous opiates and regional anaesthesia. The outcomes of ankle fusion, including patient satisfaction studies, are well documented in the literature. However, the advantage of popliteal block in the management of early postoperative pain after ankle fusion for osteoarthritis has not been widely reported. This study aims to determine the role of popliteal block using ankle fusion in the management of ankle osteoarthritis.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>Ankle arthrodeses were performed in 27 patients over a five-year period. Eighteen patients were males (one had bilateral arthrodesis) and eight were females. Their mean age was 56 years and they were all Caucasians. The notes and radiographs of the patients were reviewed in retrospect for the duration of their hospital admission, time to union and complications.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Popliteal block is a safe and effective technique for postoperative analgesia in ankle arthrodesis. By using this technique, we achieved a significant reduction in the duration of hospital stay for our patients after ankle arthrodesis. The resultant cost saving was GBP717 for each patient.</p

Early Results of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis for Fractures of the Distal Tibia: A Retrospective Case Series and Review of the Literature

Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis was developed on the concept that preservation of the soft tissue envelope during surgical management of distal tibial fractures is of paramount importance. We report on our early experience using this technique over a 1-year period with 14 such injuries that were treated by a locking compression plate via minimally invasive surgery. The surgical reduction was excellent in most of the cases and all fractures healed uneventfully. One superficial infection and a wound slough were the only complications recorded. The mean follow-up was at 15 months, and all patients were satisfied with a mean ankle-hindfoot score of 84. Early results of such management are very encouraging

Quality of life after breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant radiotherapy for non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): 2-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundBIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 is an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial evaluating tumour bed boost and hypofractionation in patients with non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast radiotherapy. Here, we report the effects of diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 2 years.MethodsThe BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 trial is ongoing at 118 hospitals in 11 countries. Women aged 18 years or older with completely excised non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ were randomly assigned, by use of a minimisation algorithm, to tumour bed boost or no tumour bed boost, following conventional whole breast radiotherapy or hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy using one of three randomisation categories. Category A was a 4-arm randomisation of tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks) versus hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions over 3·5 weeks). Category B was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy, and category C was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy. Stratification factors were age at diagnosis, planned endocrine therapy, and treating centre. The primary endpoint, time to local recurrence, will be reported when participants have completed 5 years of follow-up. The HRQOL statistical analysis plan prespecified eight aspects of HRQOL, assessed by four questionnaires at baseline, end of treatment, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after radiotherapy: fatigue and physical functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30); cosmetic status, breast-specific symptoms, arm and shoulder functional status (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale); body image and sexuality (Body Image Scale); and perceived risk of invasive breast cancer (Cancer Worry Scale and a study-specific question). For each of these measures, tumour bed boost was compared with no boost, and conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy, by use of generalised estimating equation models. Analyses were by intention to treat, with Hochberg adjustment for multiple testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00470236.FindingsBetween June 1, 2007, and Aug 14, 2013, 1208 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive no tumour bed boost (n=605) or tumour bed boost (n=603). 396 of 1208 women were assigned to category A: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=100) or no boost (n=98), or to hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=98) or no boost (n=100). 447 were assigned to category B: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=223) or no boost (n=224). 365 were assigned to category C: hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=182) or no boost (n=183). All patients were followed up at 2 years for the HRQOL analysis. 1098 (91%) of 1208 patients received their allocated treatment, and most completed their scheduled HRQOL assessments (1147 [95%] of 1208 at baseline; 988 [87%] of 1141 at 2 years). Cosmetic status was worse with tumour bed boost than with no boost across all timepoints (difference 0·10 [95% CI 0·05–0·15], global p=0·00014, Hochberg-adjusted p=0·0016); at the end of treatment, the estimated difference between tumour bed boost and no boost was 0·13 (95% CI 0·06–0·20; p=0·00021), persisting at 24 months (0·13 [0·06–0·20]; p=0·00021). Arm and shoulder function was also adversely affected by tumour bed boost across all timepoints (0·08 [95% CI 0·03–0·13], global p=0·0033, Hochberg adjusted p=0·045); the difference between tumour bed boost and no boost at the end of treatment was 0·08 (0·01 to 0·15, p=0·021), and did not persist at 24 months (0·04 [–0·03 to 0·11], p=0·29). None of the other six prespecified aspects of HRQOL differed significantly after adjustment for multiple testing. Conventional whole breast radiotherapy was associated with worse body image than hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy at the end of treatment (difference –1·10 [95% CI –1·79 to –0·42], p=0·0016). No significant differences were reported in the other PROs between conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy.InterpretationTumour bed boost was associated with persistent adverse effects on cosmetic status and arm and shoulder functional status, which might inform shared decision making while local recurrence analysis is pending

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field