Faculty Bibliography

The application of proton beam radiation therapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer has grown tremendously in the past few years. Globally, widespread interest in proton beam therapy has led to multiple research efforts regarding its therapeutic value and cost-effectiveness. The current standard of care using modern photon radiation technology has demonstrated excellent treatment outcomes, yet there are some situations where disease control remains suboptimal with the potential for detrimental acute and chronic toxicities. Due to the advantageous physical properties of the proton beam, proton beam therapy may be superior to photon therapy in some patient subsets for both disease control and patient quality of life. As enthusiasm and excitement for proton beam therapy continue to increase, clinical research and widespread adoption will elucidate the true value of proton beam therapy and give a greater understanding of the full risks and benefits of proton therapy in head and neck cancer.

INTRODUCTION:Patients with surgically or spontaneously fused hips are often dissatisfied with their overall function and the debilitating effect on adjacent joints. Therefore, in properly selected patients, hip fusion-takedown and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) can result in improved function and decreased pain. We aimed to (1) evaluate the indications for conversion, (2) evaluate the clinical outcomes, (3) analyze the overall complications, and (4) identify the overall satisfaction following the procedure. METHODS:A systematic and comprehensive literature search was performed to analyze studies evaluating conversion of hip fusion to THA. After reviewing 3,882 studies, 27 total studies (1,104 hips) met our inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in our final analysis. A weighted mean of rates was determined for each complication, including infection, instability, loosening, nerve-related, abductor-related, venous thrombotic event, and revision. RESULTS:The study population consisted of 53.2% male and 46.8% female subjects. The mean age at time of conversion was 52 years (range 36-65 years), the mean time until follow-up was 9.2 years (range 2.5-17.3), and the mean duration of arthrodesis was 27.7 years (range 11-40.2). As measured by Harris Hip Score, overall clinical outcomes improved from 58.1 points (range 42.4-70 points) pre-operatively to 80.0 (range 62-93.5) post-operatively. The specific complication rates were 5.3% (range 0-43.6%) for infection, 2.6% (range 0-15.4%) for instability, 6.2% (range 0-17.2%) for loosening, 4.7% (range 0-13%) for nerve-related complications, 13.1% (range 0-87%) for abductor-related complications, and 1.2% (range 0-13%) for venous thrombotic events. The revision rate was 12.0% (range 0-43.6%). CONCLUSION:Takedown of a fused-hip can be a challenging procedure. Although patients can benefit functionally, both patients and surgeons need to be aware of the complications and increased risk of further revision procedures, which should be an important part of the pre-operative discussion.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) benefit from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy. While dose reduction/discontinuation (r/d) of β-blockers (BB) and furosemide in acute decompensated HF (ADHF) worsen outcomes, data on ACEI/ARB are lacking. METHODS:To determine the frequency and reasons for ACEI/ARB therapy r/d in ADHF patients, we studied 174 patients with LVEF <40% on ACEI/ARB and BB therapy upon admission over 1 year. RESULTS:ACEI/ARB doses were r/d in 17.2% because of acute kidney injury (56.7%), hypotension (23.3%), and hyperkalemia (10%). Clinical characteristics were similar between patients with r/d and continued therapy. Admission and discharge creatinine (Cr) levels were higher in the r/d group. On multivariate analysis, admission Cr and admission systolic blood pressures were independent predictors of r/d. Among patients with renal dysfunction cited as the r/d reason, Cr did not significantly rise in 23.5%. The r/d group had a longer length of stay (LOS). CONCLUSIONS:ACEI/ARB dose is reduced and/or discontinued in nearly one-fifth of all ADHF admissions, and LOS is longer in the ACEI/ARB r/d group. While impaired renal function is the most frequently cited reason, nearly one-fourth of the patients had stable renal function. ACEI/ARB r/d therapy in the setting of ADHF merits further study.