Faculty Bibliography

HOW TO OBTAIN CONTACT HOURS BY READING THIS ARTICLE INSTRUCTIONS 1.4 contact hours will be awarded by Villanova University College of Nursing upon successful completion of this activity. A contact hour is a unit of measurement that denotes 60 minutes of an organized learning activity. This is a learner-based activity. Villanova University College of Nursing does not require submission of your answers to the quiz. A contact hour certificate will be awarded once you register, pay the registration fee, and complete the evaluation form online at http://goo.gl/gMfXaf. To obtain contact hours you must: 1. Read the article, "Pharmacological Approaches for the Management of Persistent Pain in Older Adults: What Nurses Need to Know" found on pages 49-57, carefully noting any tables and other illustrative materials that are included to enhance your knowledge and understanding of the content. Be sure to keep track of the amount of time (number of minutes) you spend reading the article and completing the quiz. 2. Read and answer each question on the quiz. After completing all of the questions, compare your answers to those provided within this issue. If you have incorrect answers, return to the article for further study. 3. Go to the Villanova website listed above to register for contact hour credit. You will be asked to provide your name; contact information; and a VISA, MasterCard, or Discover card number for payment of the $20.00 fee. Once you complete the online evaluation, a certificate will be automatically generated. This activity is valid for continuing education credit until November 30, 2019. CONTACT HOURS This activity is co-provided by Villanova University College of Nursing and SLACK Incorporated. Villanova University College of Nursing is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES 1. Describe age-related barriers to pain assessment and key aspects of the assessment process. 2. Identify benefits and risks associated with commonly prescribed analgesic medications for the treatment of later life pain. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Neither the planners nor the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose. The current article addresses pharmacological treatment issues regarding the management of persistent pain in later life, which is a worldwide problem associated with substantial disability. Recommendations from guidelines were reviewed and data are presented regarding the benefits and risks of commonly prescribed analgesic medications. The evidence base supports a stepwise approach with acetaminophen as first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate pain. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not recommended for long-term use. In properly selected older patients, opioid drugs should be considered if pain is not adequately controlled. Careful surveillance to monitor for benefits and harms of therapy is critical, given that advancing age increases risk for adverse effects. Key aspects of the pain care process that nurses routinely engage in are covered, including conducting pain assessments prior to initiating therapy, addressing barriers to effective pain care, educating patients and family members about the importance of reducing pain, discussing treatment-related risks and benefits, and formulating strategies to monitor for treatment outcomes. Finally, a case is presented to illustrate issues that arise in the care of affected patients. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 42(12), 49-57.].

Purpose of Review: Treating malignant tumors of the anterior skull base (ASB) is a challenging task, involving complex surgery in an intricate anatomical space. The effective treatment of ASB tumors requires careful pretreatment evaluation and preoperative surgical planning by the skull base surgical team. Recent Findings: Review of the available literature demonstrates that the gradual refinement of imaging and surgical techniques, as well as improvement in reconstructive procedures, has dramatically improved patient outcomes and reduced morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, multicenter collaborations have provided higher quality evidence regarding disease behavior and treatment efficacy and safety. Summary: Current and past review of the literature continues to demonstrate the need for future investigation. High-quality evidence-based medicine is still lacking in the field of skull base surgery, and well-planned collaborative studies are needed in order to consolidate our understanding of disease behavior and treatment strategies.

The vocal folds (VFs) are exposed to a number of injurious stimuli that frequently lead to aberrant structural alterations and altered biomechanical properties that clinically manifest as voice disorders. Therapies to restore both structure and function of this delicate tissue are ideal. However, such methods have not been adequately developed. Our group and others hypothesize that tissue engineering and regenerative medicine approaches, previously described for other tissue systems, hold significant promise for the VFs. In the current review, we explore the concept of tissue engineering as it relates to the VFs as well as recent studies employing both naturally- and synthetically-derived biomaterials, including those from laryngeal and non-laryngeal sources, in combination with stem cells for a tissue-engineered approach to VF repair.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our initial operative experience and hearing preservation results with the Advanced Bionics (AB) Mid Scala Electrode (MSE). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Sixty-three MSE implants in pediatric and adult patients were compared with age- and sex-matched 1j electrode implants from the same manufacturer. All patients were severe to profoundly deaf. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation with either the AB 1j electrode or the AB MSE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The MSE and 1j electrodes were compared in their angular depth of insertion and pre to postoperative change in hearing thresholds. Hearing preservation was analyzed as a function of angular depth of insertion. Secondary outcome measures included operative time, incidence of abnormal intraoperative impedance and telemetry values, and incidence of postsurgical complications. RESULTS: Depth of insertion was similar for both electrodes, but was more consistent for the MSE array and more variable for the 1j array. Patients with MSE electrodes had better hearing preservation. Thresholds shifts at four audiometric frequencies ranging from 250 to 2000 Hz were 10, 7, 2, and 6 dB smaller for the MSE electrode than for the 1j (p < 0.05). Hearing preservation at low frequencies was worse with deeper insertion, regardless of array. Secondary outcome measures were similar for both electrodes. CONCLUSION: The MSE electrode resulted in more consistent insertion depth and somewhat better hearing preservation than the 1j electrode. Differences in other surgical outcome measures were small or unlikely to have a meaningful effect.

OBJECTIVE A randomized trial that compares clinical outcomes following microsurgery (MS) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for patients with small- and medium-sized vestibular schwannomas (VSs) is impractical, but would have important implications for clinical decision making. A matched cohort analysis was conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients treated with MS or SRS. METHODS The records of 399 VS patients who were cared for by 2 neurosurgeons and 1 neurotologist between 2001 and 2014 were evaluated. From this data set, 3 retrospective matched cohorts were created to compare hearing preservation (21 matched pairs), facial nerve preservation (83 matched pairs), intervention-free survival, and complication rates (85 matched pairs) between cases managed with SRS and patients managed with MS. Cases were matched for age at surgery (+/- 10 years) and lesion size (+/- 0.1 cm). To compare hearing outcomes, cases were additionally matched for preoperative Class A hearing according to the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery guidelines. To compare facial nerve (i.e., cranial nerve [CN] VII) outcomes, cases were additionally matched for preoperative House-Brackmann (HB) score. Investigators who were not involved with patient care reviewed the clinical and imaging records. The reported outcomes were as assessed at the time of the last follow-up, unless otherwise stated. RESULTS The preservation of preoperative Class A hearing status was achieved in 14.3% of MS cases compared with 42.9% of SRS cases (OR 4.5; p < 0.05) after an average follow-up interval of 43.7 months and 30.3 months, respectively. Serviceable hearing was preserved in 42.8% of MS cases compared with 85.7% of SRS cases (OR 8.0; p < 0.01). The rates of postoperative CN VII dysfunction were low for both groups, although significantly higher in the MS group (HB III-IV 11% vs 0% for SRS; OR 21.3; p < 0.01) at a median follow-up interval of 35.7 and 19.0 months for MS and SRS, respectively. There was no difference in the need for subsequent intervention (2 MS patients and 2 SRS patients). CONCLUSIONS At this high-volume center, VS resection or radiosurgery for tumors