Search

Fahr's disease (FD) is a rare disorder, characterized by basal ganglia calcification and presenting with movement disorders, speech impairment, cognitive deficits, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Psychotic disorders related to FD are barely described in the literature, and knowledge is missing concerning pathophysiology, course, and management. Here, we report on the long-term follow-up of a patient who had three acute episodes of FD-psychosis characterized by bizarre delusions and behavioral disorganization, without hallucinations. Genetic and metabolic causes of FD were ruled out. In all three episodes, olanzapine monotherapy rapidly and completely resolved psychosis, without inducing metabolic syndrome and extrapyramidal symptoms. In addition to the acute decompensations, the patient presented a tame, introverted, industrious, and perfectionistic personality, which we could interpret as the "parkinsonian personality" described for many other basal ganglia disorders. Moreover, bizarre appearance, reduced affectivity, abulia, concrete speech, and stiff motricity in the context of a mild asymmetric extrapyramidal syndrome characterized the mental status. The cognitive profile was initially marked by executive difficulties and partial agnosia, with an IQ of 86. In the course of 10 years, the patient suffered from an ischemic stroke in the left superior temporal gyrus, which provoked a decline in memory and executive functions, without any impact on the psychiatric picture. Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome emerged as the underlying cause; thus, for the first time in the literature, an overlap of FD and antiphospholipid antibody syndrome is described here. This case report stresses once more the need for better integration of psychiatry and neurology and for the investigation of secondary causes of late-onset psychosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Calcaneal fracture malunion may evolve into arthrosis and severe foot deformities. The aim of this study was to identify differences in bony union following corrective subtalar arthrodesis with interposition of autologous tricortical bone graft or freeze-dried bovine xenograft., Methods: We prospectively evaluated 12 patients who underwent subtalar arthrodesis, six patients received autografts and 6 received freeze-dried bovine xenografts. After a mean followup of 58 weeks, the patients were clinical assessed using AOFAS scale and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and for final radiographic parameters measurement. Two blind raters evaluated the length of time required for solid union of the arthrodesis and graft integration by retrospective radiographic examination., Results: In the autograft group, AOFAS score improved from a preoperative average of 37 to 64 points postoperatively (p = 0.02) and mean VAS score improved from 4.7 to 1.9 (p = 0.028). In the xenograft group, AOFAS score improved from 38 to 74 points (p = 0.02) and VAS from 5.5 to 2.7 (p = 0.046). Solid union was achieved in all cases in the autograft group at an average of 5.3 weeks and in five cases in the xenograft group at 8.8 weeks (p = 0.077). Graft integration occurred after an average of 10.7 weeks in the autograft group and 28.8 weeks in the xenograft group (p = 0.016)., Conclusion: With the numbers available, no significant difference could be detected in the length of time required for solid union of subtalar arthrodesis between groups, although time to integration of freeze-dried bovine xenografts was statistically higher. Clinical and functional improvement was observed in both groups.

Context: Duplicate publication is publication of an article that overlaps substantially with an article published elsewhere. Patterns of duplication are not well understood., Objective: To investigate duplication patterns and propose a decision tree for classification., Data Sources: We searched a comprehensive list of systematic reviews (1989 through August 15, 2002) in anesthesia and analgesia that is accessible on the Internet. We selected published full articles of duplicates that had been identified in these systematic reviews. Abstracts, letters, or book chapters were excluded., Study Selection and Data Extraction: Authors of 56 (40%) of 141 systematic reviews acknowledged identification of duplicates. Duplication patterns were identified independently by all investigators comparing samples and outcomes of pairs of duplicates and main articles. Information on cross-reference, sponsorship, authorship, and publication characteristics was extracted from the articles., Data Synthesis: The 56 systematic reviews included 1131 main articles (129 337 subjects) and excluded 103 duplicates (12 589 subjects) that originated from 78 main articles. Sixty articles were published twice, 13 three times, 3 four times, and 2 five times. We identified 6 duplication patterns: (1A) identical samples and identical outcomes (21 pairs); (1B) same as 1A but several duplicates assembled (n = 16); (2) identical samples and different outcomes (n = 24); (3A) increasing sample and identical outcomes (n = 11); (3B) decreasing sample and identical outcomes (n = 11); (4) different samples and different outcomes (n = 20). The prevalence of covert duplicate articles (without a cross-reference to the main article) was 5.3% (65/1234). Of the duplicates, 34 (33%) were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, and 66 (64%) had authorship that differed partly or completely from the main article. The median journal impact factor was 1.8 (range, 0.1-29.5) for duplicates and 2.0 (range, 0.4-29.5) for main articles (P =.13). The median annual citation rate was 1.7 (range, 0-27) for duplicates and 2.1 (range, 0-31) for main articles (P =.45). The median number of authors was 4 (range, 1-14) for duplicates and 4 (range, 1-15) for corresponding main articles (P =.02). The median delay in publication between main articles and duplicates was 1 year (range, 0-7 years)., Conclusions: Duplication goes beyond simple copying. Six distinct duplication patterns were identified after comparing study samples and outcomes of duplicates and corresponding main articles. Authorship was an unreliable criterion. Duplicates were published in journals with similar impact factors and were cited as frequently as main articles.