Search

PURPOSE: Nonclinical factors and cognitive biases have been shown to significantly affect clinical decision making. In this study, we aimed to identify clinical and environmental factors that might influence the decision to approve or reject image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) images in a large multisite institution. METHODS: We identified all IGRT image approval and rejection decisions recorded within an electronic imaging system from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. For each decision, we tabulated the following parameters: the attending physician of the patient, the physician reviewing the image, total images reviewed by the physician that day, time of day, day of week, treatment site, and imaging modality (kilovoltage or cone beam computed tomography [CBCT]). We created a binary multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors associated with IGRT image rejection. RESULTS: Overall, of 51,797 total image records evaluated, 881 (1.70%) were rejected and 50,916 (98.30%) were approved. Univariable analysis revealed that images reviewed by physicians with high rejection rates (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001) and by physicians reviewing fewer IGRT images (OR, 0.99; P = .024), images from various anatomic sites (particularly skin, breast, and head and neck), and CBCT imaging compared with kilovoltage imaging (OR, 1.49; P < .001) were associated with the increased rate of rejection. On multivariable analysis, images reviewed by physicians with high rejection rates (OR, 3.28; P < .001), images from specific anatomic sites including breast ( P < .001), and CBCT imaging ( P < .001) persisted as independent predictors of image rejection. CONCLUSION: These data provide important insight into the clinical, cognitive, and environmental factors that might influence the routine clinical decision of IGRT image approval. Recognition of these factors may not only improve the quality of individual decisions but also identify opportunities for systems-based quality improvement in IGRT.

Purpose of Review The purpose of this systematic review is to discuss emerging evidence in the field of viscosupplementation for chronic knee pain secondary to Osteoarthritis (OA). This review focuses on types of viscosupplementation that are clinically available currently, evidence to support their use, contraindications, and adverse events. Recent Findings OA, also known as degenerative joint disease, is the most common form of arthritis in the United States, affecting 54.4 million, or 22.7% of the adult population. The knee is the most common joint affected in OA, with up to 41% involvement, 30% in the hands, and 19% in the hips. The pathophysiology of OA is complex, with contributing factors including mechanical stress to the joint, as well as many person-specific factors such as genetic susceptibility, ethnicity, nutrition, and sex. Treatment modalities include weight control, exercise, non-steroidal and steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, intra-articular platelet-rich plasma, placebo, corticosteroid injection, intra-articular viscosupplementation, and surgery. Viscosupplementation consists of injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) into affected joints, intending to restore the physiologic viscoelasticity in the synovial fluid (SF) in the absence of inflammation. HA has also been shown to downregulate pro-inflammatory factors, such as PGE2 and NFkB, and proteases and proteinases known to break down the joint matrix. The contraindications for HA injection are similar to any other injection therapy, and adverse events are usually mild, local, and transient. Viscosupplementation (VS) is effective over placebo and more effective than NSAIDs and corticosteroids in pain reduction and improved functionality; however, guidelines recommend neither for nor against its use, demonstrating variability in the existing evidence base. Current VS options divide primarily into native vs. cross-linked and low-molecular-weight vs. high-molecular-weight. Current treatment options include Hylan g-f-20, Sodium Hyaluronate preparations (Suparts Fx, Euflexxa, Gelsyn-3, Durolane, Hyalgen), single-use agents (Gel-One, Synvisc-One, Monovisc), and Hyaluronan (Orthovisc, Monovisc, Hymovic). They share a common safety profile, and all have evidence supporting their efficacy. Their specific details are reviewed here. Summary OA is the most common form of arthritis. It is a chronic, debilitating illness with a high impact on the functionality and quality of life of a significant part of the population in the western world. Treatments include medical management, physical therapy, activity modification, injection, and surgery. VS effectively reduces pain, increases functionality, and delays surgery in the knee to treat osteoarthritis. While previous studies have demonstrated variable results, more evidence is becoming available generally supportive of the benefit of VS in the treatment of knee OA.

Context: Ulnar nerve entrapment is a relatively common entrapment syndrome second only in prevalence to carpal tunnel syndrome. The potential anatomic locations for entrapment include the brachial plexus, cubital tunnel, and Guyon’s canal. Ulnar nerve entrapment is more so prevalent in pregnancy, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with occupations involving periods of prolonged elbow flexion and/or wrist dorsiflexion. Cyclists are particularly at risk of Guyon’s canal neuropathy. Patients typically present with sensory deficits of the palmar aspect of the fourth and fifth digits, followed by motor symptoms, including decreased pinch strength and difficulty fastening shirt buttons or opening bottles. Evidence Acquisition: Literature searches were performed using the below MeSH Terms using Mendeley version 1.19.4. Search fields were varied until further searches revealed no new articles. All articles were screened by title and abstract. Decision was made to include an article based on its relevance and the list of final articles was approved three of the authors. This included reading the entirety of the artice. Any question regarding the inclusion of an article was discussed by all authors until an agreement was reached. Results: X-ray and CT play a role in diagnosis when a bony injury is thought to be related to the pathogenesis (i.e., fracture of the hook of the hamate.) MRI plays a role where soft tissue is thought to be related to the pathogenesis (i.e., tumor or swelling.) Electromyography and nerve conduction also play a role in diagnosis. Medical management, in conjunction with physical therapy, shows limited promise. However, minimally invasive techniques, including peripheral percutaneous electrode placement and ultrasound-guided electrode placement, have all been recently studied and show great promise. When these techniques fail, clinicians should resort to decompression, which can be done endoscopically or through an open incision. Endoscopic ulnar decompression shows great promise as a surgical option with minimal incisions. Conclusions: Clinical diagnosis of ulnar nerve entrapment can often be delayed and requires the suspicion as well as a thorough neurological exam. Early recognition and diagnois are important for early institution of treatment. A wide array of diagnostic imaging can be useful in ruling out bony, soft tissue, or vascular etiologies, respectively. However, clinicians should resort to electrodiagnostic testing when a definitive diagnois is needed. Many new minimally invasive techniques are in the literature and show great promise; however, further large scale trials are needed to validate these techniques. Surgical options remains as a gold standard when adequate symptom relief is not achieved through minimally invasive means.