User login
Bipartisan Senate budget deal boosts health programs
In a rare show of bipartisanship for the mostly polarized 115th Congress, Republican and Democratic Senate leaders announced a 2-year budget deal that would increase federal spending for defense as well as key domestic priorities, including many health programs.
Not in the deal, for which the path to the president’s desk remains unclear, is any bipartisan legislation aimed at shoring up the Affordable Care Act’s individual health insurance marketplaces. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) a vote on health legislation in exchange for her vote for the GOP tax bill in December. So far, that vote has not materialized.
The deal does appear to include almost every other health priority Democrats have been pushing the past several months, including 2 years of renewed funding for community health centers and a series of other health programs Congress failed to provide for before they technically expired last year.
“I believe we have reached a budget deal that neither side loves but both sides can be proud of,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor. “That’s compromise. That’s governing.”
Said McConnell, “This bill represents a significant bipartisan step forward.”
Senate leaders are still negotiating last details of the accord, including the size of a cut to the ACA’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, which would help offset the costs of this legislation.
According to documents circulating on Capitol Hill, the deal includes $6 billion in funding for treatment of mental health issues and opioid addiction, $2 billion in extra funding for the National Institutes of Health, and an additional 4-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which builds on the 6 years approved by Congress in January.
In the Medicare program, the deal would accelerate the closing of the “doughnut hole” in Medicare drug coverage that requires seniors to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before catastrophic coverage kicks in. It would also repeal the controversial Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which is charged with holding down Medicare spending for the federal government if it exceeds a certain level. Members have never been appointed to the board, however, and its use has not so far been triggered by Medicare spending. Both the closure of the doughnut hole and creation of the IPAB were part of the ACA.
The agreement would also fund a host of more limited health programs – some of which are known as “extenders” because they often ride along with other, larger health or spending bills.
Those programs include more than $7 billion in funding for the nation’s federally funded community health centers. The clinics serve 27 million low-income people and saw their funding lapse last fall – a delay advocates said had already complicated budgeting and staffing decisions for many clinics.
And in a victory for the physical therapy industry and patient advocates, the accord would permanently repeal a limit on Medicare’s coverage of physical therapy, speech-language pathology and outpatient treatment. Previously, the program capped coverage after $2,010 worth of occupational therapy and another $2,010 for speech-language therapy and physical therapy combined. But Congress had long taken action to delay those caps or provide exemptions – meaning they had never actually taken effect.
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, permanently repealing the caps would cost about $6.47 billion over the next decade.
Lawmakers would also forestall cuts mandated by the ACA to reduce the payments made to so-called Disproportionate Share Hospitals, which serve high rates of low-income patients. Those cuts have been delayed continuously since the law’s 2010 passage.
Limited programs are also affected. The deal would fund for 5 years the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, a program that helps guide low-income, at-risk mothers in parenting. It served about 160,000 families in fiscal year 2016.
“We are relieved that there is a deal for a 5-year reauthorization of MIECHV,” Lori Freeman, CEO of the Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs – an advocacy group – said in an emailed statement. “States, home visitors, and families have been in limbo for the past several months, and this news will bring the stability they need to continue this successful program.”
And the budget deal funds programs that encourage doctors to practice in medically underserved areas, providing just under $500 million over the next 2 years for the National Health Service Corps and another $363 million over 2 years to the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education program, which places medical residents in Community Health Centers.
Kaiser Health News correspondent Emmarie Huetteman contributed to this article. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Heising-Simons Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
In a rare show of bipartisanship for the mostly polarized 115th Congress, Republican and Democratic Senate leaders announced a 2-year budget deal that would increase federal spending for defense as well as key domestic priorities, including many health programs.
Not in the deal, for which the path to the president’s desk remains unclear, is any bipartisan legislation aimed at shoring up the Affordable Care Act’s individual health insurance marketplaces. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) a vote on health legislation in exchange for her vote for the GOP tax bill in December. So far, that vote has not materialized.
The deal does appear to include almost every other health priority Democrats have been pushing the past several months, including 2 years of renewed funding for community health centers and a series of other health programs Congress failed to provide for before they technically expired last year.
“I believe we have reached a budget deal that neither side loves but both sides can be proud of,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor. “That’s compromise. That’s governing.”
Said McConnell, “This bill represents a significant bipartisan step forward.”
Senate leaders are still negotiating last details of the accord, including the size of a cut to the ACA’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, which would help offset the costs of this legislation.
According to documents circulating on Capitol Hill, the deal includes $6 billion in funding for treatment of mental health issues and opioid addiction, $2 billion in extra funding for the National Institutes of Health, and an additional 4-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which builds on the 6 years approved by Congress in January.
In the Medicare program, the deal would accelerate the closing of the “doughnut hole” in Medicare drug coverage that requires seniors to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before catastrophic coverage kicks in. It would also repeal the controversial Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which is charged with holding down Medicare spending for the federal government if it exceeds a certain level. Members have never been appointed to the board, however, and its use has not so far been triggered by Medicare spending. Both the closure of the doughnut hole and creation of the IPAB were part of the ACA.
The agreement would also fund a host of more limited health programs – some of which are known as “extenders” because they often ride along with other, larger health or spending bills.
Those programs include more than $7 billion in funding for the nation’s federally funded community health centers. The clinics serve 27 million low-income people and saw their funding lapse last fall – a delay advocates said had already complicated budgeting and staffing decisions for many clinics.
And in a victory for the physical therapy industry and patient advocates, the accord would permanently repeal a limit on Medicare’s coverage of physical therapy, speech-language pathology and outpatient treatment. Previously, the program capped coverage after $2,010 worth of occupational therapy and another $2,010 for speech-language therapy and physical therapy combined. But Congress had long taken action to delay those caps or provide exemptions – meaning they had never actually taken effect.
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, permanently repealing the caps would cost about $6.47 billion over the next decade.
Lawmakers would also forestall cuts mandated by the ACA to reduce the payments made to so-called Disproportionate Share Hospitals, which serve high rates of low-income patients. Those cuts have been delayed continuously since the law’s 2010 passage.
Limited programs are also affected. The deal would fund for 5 years the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, a program that helps guide low-income, at-risk mothers in parenting. It served about 160,000 families in fiscal year 2016.
“We are relieved that there is a deal for a 5-year reauthorization of MIECHV,” Lori Freeman, CEO of the Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs – an advocacy group – said in an emailed statement. “States, home visitors, and families have been in limbo for the past several months, and this news will bring the stability they need to continue this successful program.”
And the budget deal funds programs that encourage doctors to practice in medically underserved areas, providing just under $500 million over the next 2 years for the National Health Service Corps and another $363 million over 2 years to the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education program, which places medical residents in Community Health Centers.
Kaiser Health News correspondent Emmarie Huetteman contributed to this article. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Heising-Simons Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
In a rare show of bipartisanship for the mostly polarized 115th Congress, Republican and Democratic Senate leaders announced a 2-year budget deal that would increase federal spending for defense as well as key domestic priorities, including many health programs.
Not in the deal, for which the path to the president’s desk remains unclear, is any bipartisan legislation aimed at shoring up the Affordable Care Act’s individual health insurance marketplaces. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) a vote on health legislation in exchange for her vote for the GOP tax bill in December. So far, that vote has not materialized.
The deal does appear to include almost every other health priority Democrats have been pushing the past several months, including 2 years of renewed funding for community health centers and a series of other health programs Congress failed to provide for before they technically expired last year.
“I believe we have reached a budget deal that neither side loves but both sides can be proud of,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor. “That’s compromise. That’s governing.”
Said McConnell, “This bill represents a significant bipartisan step forward.”
Senate leaders are still negotiating last details of the accord, including the size of a cut to the ACA’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, which would help offset the costs of this legislation.
According to documents circulating on Capitol Hill, the deal includes $6 billion in funding for treatment of mental health issues and opioid addiction, $2 billion in extra funding for the National Institutes of Health, and an additional 4-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which builds on the 6 years approved by Congress in January.
In the Medicare program, the deal would accelerate the closing of the “doughnut hole” in Medicare drug coverage that requires seniors to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before catastrophic coverage kicks in. It would also repeal the controversial Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which is charged with holding down Medicare spending for the federal government if it exceeds a certain level. Members have never been appointed to the board, however, and its use has not so far been triggered by Medicare spending. Both the closure of the doughnut hole and creation of the IPAB were part of the ACA.
The agreement would also fund a host of more limited health programs – some of which are known as “extenders” because they often ride along with other, larger health or spending bills.
Those programs include more than $7 billion in funding for the nation’s federally funded community health centers. The clinics serve 27 million low-income people and saw their funding lapse last fall – a delay advocates said had already complicated budgeting and staffing decisions for many clinics.
And in a victory for the physical therapy industry and patient advocates, the accord would permanently repeal a limit on Medicare’s coverage of physical therapy, speech-language pathology and outpatient treatment. Previously, the program capped coverage after $2,010 worth of occupational therapy and another $2,010 for speech-language therapy and physical therapy combined. But Congress had long taken action to delay those caps or provide exemptions – meaning they had never actually taken effect.
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, permanently repealing the caps would cost about $6.47 billion over the next decade.
Lawmakers would also forestall cuts mandated by the ACA to reduce the payments made to so-called Disproportionate Share Hospitals, which serve high rates of low-income patients. Those cuts have been delayed continuously since the law’s 2010 passage.
Limited programs are also affected. The deal would fund for 5 years the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, a program that helps guide low-income, at-risk mothers in parenting. It served about 160,000 families in fiscal year 2016.
“We are relieved that there is a deal for a 5-year reauthorization of MIECHV,” Lori Freeman, CEO of the Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs – an advocacy group – said in an emailed statement. “States, home visitors, and families have been in limbo for the past several months, and this news will bring the stability they need to continue this successful program.”
And the budget deal funds programs that encourage doctors to practice in medically underserved areas, providing just under $500 million over the next 2 years for the National Health Service Corps and another $363 million over 2 years to the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education program, which places medical residents in Community Health Centers.
Kaiser Health News correspondent Emmarie Huetteman contributed to this article. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Heising-Simons Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Convertible Glenoid Components Facilitate Revisions to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Easier: Retrospective Review of 13 Cases
ABSTRACT
Removal of a cemented glenoid component often leads to massive glenoid bone loss, which makes it difficult to implant a new glenoid baseplate. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with a completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 13 (average age, 64 years) were revised to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study. Average follow-up after revision was 22 months. Outcome measures included pain, range of motion, Constant-Murley scores, Simple Shoulder Tests, and subjective shoulder values. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021), and active external rotation increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°). Mean pain scores significantly improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points. The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90). Subjectively, 12 patients rated their shoulder as better or much better than preoperatively. This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function.
Continue to: Polyethylene glenoid components...
Polyethylene glenoid components are the gold standard in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). However, even though TSA survivorship exceeds 95% at 10-year follow-up,1 glenoid component loosening remains the main complication and the weak link in these implants. This complication accounts for 25% of all complications related to TSA in the literature.2 In most cases, glenoid component loosening is not isolated but combined with a rotator cuff tear, glenohumeral instability, or component malposition.
We hypothesized that a completely convertible platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side could facilitate the revision of a failed TSA to a RSA. This would enable the surgeon to leave the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate in place, avoiding the difficulty of stem removal and the reimplantation of a glenoid component, especially in osteoporotic glenoid bone and elderly patients. The revision procedure would then only consist of replacing the humeral head by a metallic tray and polyethylene bearing on the humeral side and by impacting a glenosphere on the glenoid baseplate (Figures 2A, 2B).
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with this completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PATIENT SELECTION
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary TSAs were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 18 underwent revision (17.3%). Among these 18 patients, 13 were revised to RSA using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study, while 5 patients were revised to another TSA (2 dissociations of the polyethylene glenoid implant, 2 excessively low implantations of the glenoid baseplate, and 1 glenoid loosening). The mean age of the 13 patients (9 women, 4 men) included in this retrospective study at the time of revision was 64 years (range, 50-75 years). The reasons for revision surgery were rotator cuff tear (5, among which 2 were posterosuperior tears, and 3 were tears of the subscapularis), dislocations (5 posterior and 1 anterior, among which 4 had a B2 or C glenoid), suprascapular nerve paralysis (1), and dissociation of the polyethylene (1). The initial TSA was indicated for primary osteoarthritis with a normal cuff (9), primary osteoarthritis with a reparable cuff tear (2), posttraumatic osteoarthritis (1), and chronic dislocation (1). The right dominant shoulder was involved in 10 cases. The mean time interval between the primary TSA and the revision was 15 months (range, 1-61 months).
OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Revision of a failed TSA is always a difficult challenge, and evaluation of bone loss on both the humeral and the glenoid sides, as well as the status of the cuff, is mandatory, even with a completely convertible arthroplasty system. The surgeon must be prepared to remove the humeral stem in case reduction of the joint is impossible. We systematically performed standard radiographs (anteroposterior, axillary, and outlet views) and computed tomography (CT) scans in order to assess both the version and positioning, as well as potential signs of loosening of the implants and the status of the cuff (continuity, degree of muscle trophicity, and fatty infiltration). A preoperative leucocyte count, sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein rates were requested in every revision case, even if a mechanical etiology was strongly suspected.
Continue to: REVISION PROCEDURE
REVISION PROCEDURE
All the implants that had been used in the primary TSAs were Arrow Universal Shoulder Prostheses (FH Orthopedics). All revisions were performed through the previous deltopectoral approach in the beach chair position under general anesthesia with an interscalene block. Adhesions of the deep part of the deltoid were carefully released. The conjoint tendon was released, and the location of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves was identified before any retractor was placed. In the 10 cases where the subscapularis was intact, it was peeled off the medial border of the bicipital groove to obtain sufficient length for a tension-free reinsertion.
The anatomical head of the humeral implant was disconnected from the stem and removed. All stems were found to be well fixed; there were no cases of loosening or evidence of infection. A circumferential capsular release was systematically carried out. The polyethylene glenoid onlay was then unlocked from the baseplate.
The quality of the fixation of the glenoid baseplate was systematically evaluated; no screw was found to be loose, and the fixation of all baseplates was stable. Therefore, there was no need to revise the glenoid baseplate, even when its position was considered excessively retroverted (Glenoid B2) or high. A glenosphere was impacted on the baseplate, and a polyethylene humeral bearing was then implanted on the humeral stem. The thinnest polyethylene bearing available (number 0) was chosen in all cases, and a size 36 glenosphere was chosen in 12 out of 13 cases. Intraoperative stability of the implant was satisfactory, and no impingement was found posteriorly, anteriorly, or inferiorly.
In one case, the humeral stem was a first-generation humeral implant which was not compatible with the new-generation humeral bearing, and the humeral stem had to be replaced.
In 2 cases, reduction of the RSA was either impossible or felt to be too tight, even after extensive soft-tissue release and resection of the remaining supraspinatus. The main reason for this was an excessively proud humeral stem because of an onlay polyethylene humeral bearing instead of an inlay design. However, removal of the uncemented humeral stem was always possible with no osteotomy or cortical window of the humeral shaft as the humeral stem has been designed with a bone ingrowth surface only on the metaphyseal part with a smooth surface on diaphyseal part. After removal of the stem, a small amount of humeral metaphysis was cut, and a new humeral stem was press-fit in a lower position. This allowed restoration of an appropriate tension of the soft tissue and, therefore, an easier reduction. The subscapularis was medialized and reinserted transosseously when possible with a double-row repair. In 3 cases, the subscapularis was torn and retracted at the level of the glenoid, or impossible to identify to allow its reinsertion.
Continue to: According to our infectious disease department...
According to our infectious disease department, we made a minimum of 5 cultures for each revision case looking for a possible low-grade infection. All cultures in our group are held for 14 days to assess for Propionibacterium acnes.
POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
A shoulder splint in neutral rotation was used for the first 4 weeks. Passive range of motion (ROM) was started immediately with pendulum exercises and passive anterior elevation. Active assisted and active ROM were allowed after 4 weeks, and physiotherapy was continued for 6 months. Elderly patients were referred to a center of rehabilitation. We found only 1 or 2 positive cultures (Propionibacterium acnes) for 4 patients, and we decided to consider them as a contamination. None of the patients were treated with antibiotics.
CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Clinical evaluation included pre- and postoperative pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), ROM, the Constant-Murley13 score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST),14 and the subjective shoulder value.15 Subjective satisfaction was assessed by asking the patients at follow-up how they felt compared with before surgery and was graded using a 4-point scale: 1, much better; 2, better; 3, the same; and 4, worse. Radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative standard anteroposterior, outlet, and axillary views. Radiographs were reviewed to determine the presence of glenohumeral subluxation, periprosthetic lucency, component shift in position, and scapular notching.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics are reported as mean (range) for continuous measures and number (percentage) for discrete variables. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for preoperative vs postoperative changes. The alpha level for all tests was set at 0.05 for statistical significance.
RESULTS
CLINICAL OUTCOME
At a mean of 22 months (range, 7-38 months) follow-up after revision, active ROM was significantly improved. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021). Active external rotation with the elbow on the side increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°) (P = 0.034), and increased with the arm held at 90° abduction from 13° (range, 0°-20°) to 49° (range, 0°-80°) (P = 0.025). Mean pain scores improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points (P < 0.001). VAS improved significantly from 9 to 1 (P < 0.0001). The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90) (P = 0.006). The final SST was 7 per 12. Subjectively, 4 patients rated their shoulder as much better, 8 as better, and 1 as the same as preoperatively. No intra- or postoperative complications, including infections, were observed. The mean duration of the procedure was 60 minutes (range, 30-75 minutes).
Continue to: RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
No periprosthetic lucency or shift in component was observed at the last follow-up. There was no scapular notching. No resorption of the tuberosities, and no fractures of the acromion or the scapular spine were observed.
DISCUSSION
In this retrospective study, failure of TSA with a metal-backed glenoid implant was successfully revised to RSA. In 10 patients, the use of a universal platform system allowed an easier conversion without removal of the humeral stem or the glenoid component (Figures 3A-3D). Twelve of the 13 patients were satisfied or very satisfied at the last follow-up. None of the patients were in pain, and the mean Constant score was 63. In all the cases, the glenoid baseplate was not changed. In 3 cases the humeral stem was changed without any fracture of the tuberosities of need for an osteotomy. This greatly simplified the revision procedure, as glenoid revisions can be very challenging. Indeed, it is often difficult to assess precisely preoperatively the remaining glenoid bone stock after removal of the glenoid component and the cement. Many therapeutic options to deal with glenoid loosening have been reported in the literature: glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a hemiarthroplasty (HA),10,16-18 glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a new TSA with a cemented glenoid implant,16,17,19,20 and glenoid reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a RSA.12,21 These authors reported that glenoid reconstruction frequently necessitates an iliac bone graft associated with a special design of the baseplate with a long post fixed into the native glenoid bone. However, sometimes implantation of an uncemented glenoid component can be unstable with a high risk of early mobilization of the implant, and 2 steps may be necessary. Conversion to a HA,10,16-18 or a TSA16,17,19,20 with a new cemented implant have both been associated with poor clinical outcome, with a high rate of recurrent glenoid loosening for the TSAs.
In our retrospective study, we reported no intra- or postoperative complications. Flury and colleagues22 reported a complication rate of 38% in 21 patients after conversion from a TSA to a RSA with a mean follow-up of 46 months. They removed all the components of the prosthesis with a crack or fracture of the humerus and/or the glenoid. Ortmaier and colleagues23 reported a rate of complication of 22.7% during the conversion of TSA to RSA. They did an osteotomy of the humeral diaphysis to extract the stem in 40% of cases and had to remove the glenoid cement in 86% of cases with severe damage of the glenoid bone in 10% of cases. Fewer complications were found in our study, as we did not need any procedure such as humeral osteotomy, cerclage, bone grafting, and/or reconstruction of the glenoid. The short operative time and the absence of extensive soft-tissue dissection, thanks to a standard deltopectoral approach, could explain the absence of infection in our series.
Other authors shared our strategy of a universal convertible system and reported their results in the literature. Castagna and colleagues24 in 2013 reported the clinical and radiological results of conversions of HA or TSA to RSA using a modular, convertible system (SMR Shoulder System, Lima Corporate). In their series, only 8 cases of TSAs were converted to RSA. They preserved, in each case, the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. The mean VAS score decreased from 8 to 2. Weber-Spickschen and colleague25 reported recently in 2015 the same experience with the same system (SMR Shoulder System). They reviewed 15 conversions of TSAs to RSAs without any removal of the implants at a mean 43-month follow-up. They reported excellent pain relief (VAS decreased from 8 to 1) and improvement in shoulder function with a low rate of complications.
Kany and colleagues26 in 2015 had already reported the advantages of a shoulder platform system for revisions. In their series, the authors included cases of failure of HAs and TSAs with loose cemented glenoids and metal-backed glenoids. The clinical and radiological results were similar, with a final Constant score of 60 (range, 42-85) and a similar rate of humeral stems which had to be changed (24%). These stems were replaced either because they were too proud or because there was not enough space to add an onlay polyethylene socket.
Continue to: Despite the encouraging results...
Despite the encouraging results reported in this study, there are some limitations. Firstly, no control group was used. Attempting to address this issue, we compared our results with the literature. Secondly, the number of patients in our study was small. Finally, the follow-up duration (mean 22 months) did not provide long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function. A platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side reduces the operative time of the conversion with a low risk of complications.
1. Brenner BC, Ferlic DC, Clayton ML, Dennis DA. Survivorship of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(9):1289-1296.
2. Budge MD, Nolan EM, Heisey MH, Baker K, Wiater JM. Results of total shoulder arthroplasty with a monoblock porous tantalum glenoid component: a prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):535-541. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.001.
3. Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(1):19-22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.05.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(4):603-616.
6. Gohlke F, Rolf O. Revision of failed fracture hemiarthroplasties to reverse total shoulder prosthesis through the transhumeral approach: method incorporating a pectoralis-major-pedicled bone window. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19(2):185-208. doi:10.1007/s00064-007-1202-x.
7. Goldberg SH, Cohen MS, Young M, Bradnock B. Thermal tissue damage caused by ultrasonic cement removal from the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):583-591. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01966.
8. Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Humeral windows in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):258-263. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.004.
9. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
11. Kelly JD 2nd, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
12. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
13. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164.
14. Matsen FA 3rd, Ziegler DW, DeBartolo SE. Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(5):345-351.
15. Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):717-721. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123.
16. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
17. Cofield RH, Edgerton BC. Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect. 1990;39:449-462.
18. Neyton L, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Edwards TB. Glenoid corticocancellous bone grafting after glenoid component removal in the treatment of glenoid loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.010.
19. Bonnevialle N, Melis B, Neyton L, et al. Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):745-751. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.009.
20. Rodosky MW, Bigliani LU. Indications for glenoid resurfacing in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(3):231-248.
21. Bateman E, Donald SM. Reconstruction of massive uncontained glenoid defects using a combined autograft-allograft construct with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: preliminary results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):925-934. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.009.
22. Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure--midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):53-60. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z.
23. Ortmaier R, Resch H, Hitzl W, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with latissimus dorsi transfer using the bone-chip technique. Int Orthop. 2013;38(3):1-7. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2139-3.
24. Castagna A, Delcogliano M, de Caro F, et al. Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: clinical and radiological results using a modular system. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1297-1305. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1907-4.
25. Weber-Spickschen TS, Alfke D, Agneskirchner JD. The use of a modular system to convert an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Clinical and radiological results. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1662-1667. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.35176.
26. Kany J, Amouyel T, Flamand O, Katz D, Valenti P. A convertible shoulder system: is it useful in total shoulder arthroplasty revisions? Int Orthop. 2015;39(2):299-304. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2563-z.
ABSTRACT
Removal of a cemented glenoid component often leads to massive glenoid bone loss, which makes it difficult to implant a new glenoid baseplate. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with a completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 13 (average age, 64 years) were revised to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study. Average follow-up after revision was 22 months. Outcome measures included pain, range of motion, Constant-Murley scores, Simple Shoulder Tests, and subjective shoulder values. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021), and active external rotation increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°). Mean pain scores significantly improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points. The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90). Subjectively, 12 patients rated their shoulder as better or much better than preoperatively. This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function.
Continue to: Polyethylene glenoid components...
Polyethylene glenoid components are the gold standard in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). However, even though TSA survivorship exceeds 95% at 10-year follow-up,1 glenoid component loosening remains the main complication and the weak link in these implants. This complication accounts for 25% of all complications related to TSA in the literature.2 In most cases, glenoid component loosening is not isolated but combined with a rotator cuff tear, glenohumeral instability, or component malposition.
We hypothesized that a completely convertible platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side could facilitate the revision of a failed TSA to a RSA. This would enable the surgeon to leave the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate in place, avoiding the difficulty of stem removal and the reimplantation of a glenoid component, especially in osteoporotic glenoid bone and elderly patients. The revision procedure would then only consist of replacing the humeral head by a metallic tray and polyethylene bearing on the humeral side and by impacting a glenosphere on the glenoid baseplate (Figures 2A, 2B).
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with this completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PATIENT SELECTION
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary TSAs were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 18 underwent revision (17.3%). Among these 18 patients, 13 were revised to RSA using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study, while 5 patients were revised to another TSA (2 dissociations of the polyethylene glenoid implant, 2 excessively low implantations of the glenoid baseplate, and 1 glenoid loosening). The mean age of the 13 patients (9 women, 4 men) included in this retrospective study at the time of revision was 64 years (range, 50-75 years). The reasons for revision surgery were rotator cuff tear (5, among which 2 were posterosuperior tears, and 3 were tears of the subscapularis), dislocations (5 posterior and 1 anterior, among which 4 had a B2 or C glenoid), suprascapular nerve paralysis (1), and dissociation of the polyethylene (1). The initial TSA was indicated for primary osteoarthritis with a normal cuff (9), primary osteoarthritis with a reparable cuff tear (2), posttraumatic osteoarthritis (1), and chronic dislocation (1). The right dominant shoulder was involved in 10 cases. The mean time interval between the primary TSA and the revision was 15 months (range, 1-61 months).
OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Revision of a failed TSA is always a difficult challenge, and evaluation of bone loss on both the humeral and the glenoid sides, as well as the status of the cuff, is mandatory, even with a completely convertible arthroplasty system. The surgeon must be prepared to remove the humeral stem in case reduction of the joint is impossible. We systematically performed standard radiographs (anteroposterior, axillary, and outlet views) and computed tomography (CT) scans in order to assess both the version and positioning, as well as potential signs of loosening of the implants and the status of the cuff (continuity, degree of muscle trophicity, and fatty infiltration). A preoperative leucocyte count, sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein rates were requested in every revision case, even if a mechanical etiology was strongly suspected.
Continue to: REVISION PROCEDURE
REVISION PROCEDURE
All the implants that had been used in the primary TSAs were Arrow Universal Shoulder Prostheses (FH Orthopedics). All revisions were performed through the previous deltopectoral approach in the beach chair position under general anesthesia with an interscalene block. Adhesions of the deep part of the deltoid were carefully released. The conjoint tendon was released, and the location of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves was identified before any retractor was placed. In the 10 cases where the subscapularis was intact, it was peeled off the medial border of the bicipital groove to obtain sufficient length for a tension-free reinsertion.
The anatomical head of the humeral implant was disconnected from the stem and removed. All stems were found to be well fixed; there were no cases of loosening or evidence of infection. A circumferential capsular release was systematically carried out. The polyethylene glenoid onlay was then unlocked from the baseplate.
The quality of the fixation of the glenoid baseplate was systematically evaluated; no screw was found to be loose, and the fixation of all baseplates was stable. Therefore, there was no need to revise the glenoid baseplate, even when its position was considered excessively retroverted (Glenoid B2) or high. A glenosphere was impacted on the baseplate, and a polyethylene humeral bearing was then implanted on the humeral stem. The thinnest polyethylene bearing available (number 0) was chosen in all cases, and a size 36 glenosphere was chosen in 12 out of 13 cases. Intraoperative stability of the implant was satisfactory, and no impingement was found posteriorly, anteriorly, or inferiorly.
In one case, the humeral stem was a first-generation humeral implant which was not compatible with the new-generation humeral bearing, and the humeral stem had to be replaced.
In 2 cases, reduction of the RSA was either impossible or felt to be too tight, even after extensive soft-tissue release and resection of the remaining supraspinatus. The main reason for this was an excessively proud humeral stem because of an onlay polyethylene humeral bearing instead of an inlay design. However, removal of the uncemented humeral stem was always possible with no osteotomy or cortical window of the humeral shaft as the humeral stem has been designed with a bone ingrowth surface only on the metaphyseal part with a smooth surface on diaphyseal part. After removal of the stem, a small amount of humeral metaphysis was cut, and a new humeral stem was press-fit in a lower position. This allowed restoration of an appropriate tension of the soft tissue and, therefore, an easier reduction. The subscapularis was medialized and reinserted transosseously when possible with a double-row repair. In 3 cases, the subscapularis was torn and retracted at the level of the glenoid, or impossible to identify to allow its reinsertion.
Continue to: According to our infectious disease department...
According to our infectious disease department, we made a minimum of 5 cultures for each revision case looking for a possible low-grade infection. All cultures in our group are held for 14 days to assess for Propionibacterium acnes.
POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
A shoulder splint in neutral rotation was used for the first 4 weeks. Passive range of motion (ROM) was started immediately with pendulum exercises and passive anterior elevation. Active assisted and active ROM were allowed after 4 weeks, and physiotherapy was continued for 6 months. Elderly patients were referred to a center of rehabilitation. We found only 1 or 2 positive cultures (Propionibacterium acnes) for 4 patients, and we decided to consider them as a contamination. None of the patients were treated with antibiotics.
CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Clinical evaluation included pre- and postoperative pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), ROM, the Constant-Murley13 score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST),14 and the subjective shoulder value.15 Subjective satisfaction was assessed by asking the patients at follow-up how they felt compared with before surgery and was graded using a 4-point scale: 1, much better; 2, better; 3, the same; and 4, worse. Radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative standard anteroposterior, outlet, and axillary views. Radiographs were reviewed to determine the presence of glenohumeral subluxation, periprosthetic lucency, component shift in position, and scapular notching.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics are reported as mean (range) for continuous measures and number (percentage) for discrete variables. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for preoperative vs postoperative changes. The alpha level for all tests was set at 0.05 for statistical significance.
RESULTS
CLINICAL OUTCOME
At a mean of 22 months (range, 7-38 months) follow-up after revision, active ROM was significantly improved. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021). Active external rotation with the elbow on the side increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°) (P = 0.034), and increased with the arm held at 90° abduction from 13° (range, 0°-20°) to 49° (range, 0°-80°) (P = 0.025). Mean pain scores improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points (P < 0.001). VAS improved significantly from 9 to 1 (P < 0.0001). The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90) (P = 0.006). The final SST was 7 per 12. Subjectively, 4 patients rated their shoulder as much better, 8 as better, and 1 as the same as preoperatively. No intra- or postoperative complications, including infections, were observed. The mean duration of the procedure was 60 minutes (range, 30-75 minutes).
Continue to: RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
No periprosthetic lucency or shift in component was observed at the last follow-up. There was no scapular notching. No resorption of the tuberosities, and no fractures of the acromion or the scapular spine were observed.
DISCUSSION
In this retrospective study, failure of TSA with a metal-backed glenoid implant was successfully revised to RSA. In 10 patients, the use of a universal platform system allowed an easier conversion without removal of the humeral stem or the glenoid component (Figures 3A-3D). Twelve of the 13 patients were satisfied or very satisfied at the last follow-up. None of the patients were in pain, and the mean Constant score was 63. In all the cases, the glenoid baseplate was not changed. In 3 cases the humeral stem was changed without any fracture of the tuberosities of need for an osteotomy. This greatly simplified the revision procedure, as glenoid revisions can be very challenging. Indeed, it is often difficult to assess precisely preoperatively the remaining glenoid bone stock after removal of the glenoid component and the cement. Many therapeutic options to deal with glenoid loosening have been reported in the literature: glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a hemiarthroplasty (HA),10,16-18 glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a new TSA with a cemented glenoid implant,16,17,19,20 and glenoid reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a RSA.12,21 These authors reported that glenoid reconstruction frequently necessitates an iliac bone graft associated with a special design of the baseplate with a long post fixed into the native glenoid bone. However, sometimes implantation of an uncemented glenoid component can be unstable with a high risk of early mobilization of the implant, and 2 steps may be necessary. Conversion to a HA,10,16-18 or a TSA16,17,19,20 with a new cemented implant have both been associated with poor clinical outcome, with a high rate of recurrent glenoid loosening for the TSAs.
In our retrospective study, we reported no intra- or postoperative complications. Flury and colleagues22 reported a complication rate of 38% in 21 patients after conversion from a TSA to a RSA with a mean follow-up of 46 months. They removed all the components of the prosthesis with a crack or fracture of the humerus and/or the glenoid. Ortmaier and colleagues23 reported a rate of complication of 22.7% during the conversion of TSA to RSA. They did an osteotomy of the humeral diaphysis to extract the stem in 40% of cases and had to remove the glenoid cement in 86% of cases with severe damage of the glenoid bone in 10% of cases. Fewer complications were found in our study, as we did not need any procedure such as humeral osteotomy, cerclage, bone grafting, and/or reconstruction of the glenoid. The short operative time and the absence of extensive soft-tissue dissection, thanks to a standard deltopectoral approach, could explain the absence of infection in our series.
Other authors shared our strategy of a universal convertible system and reported their results in the literature. Castagna and colleagues24 in 2013 reported the clinical and radiological results of conversions of HA or TSA to RSA using a modular, convertible system (SMR Shoulder System, Lima Corporate). In their series, only 8 cases of TSAs were converted to RSA. They preserved, in each case, the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. The mean VAS score decreased from 8 to 2. Weber-Spickschen and colleague25 reported recently in 2015 the same experience with the same system (SMR Shoulder System). They reviewed 15 conversions of TSAs to RSAs without any removal of the implants at a mean 43-month follow-up. They reported excellent pain relief (VAS decreased from 8 to 1) and improvement in shoulder function with a low rate of complications.
Kany and colleagues26 in 2015 had already reported the advantages of a shoulder platform system for revisions. In their series, the authors included cases of failure of HAs and TSAs with loose cemented glenoids and metal-backed glenoids. The clinical and radiological results were similar, with a final Constant score of 60 (range, 42-85) and a similar rate of humeral stems which had to be changed (24%). These stems were replaced either because they were too proud or because there was not enough space to add an onlay polyethylene socket.
Continue to: Despite the encouraging results...
Despite the encouraging results reported in this study, there are some limitations. Firstly, no control group was used. Attempting to address this issue, we compared our results with the literature. Secondly, the number of patients in our study was small. Finally, the follow-up duration (mean 22 months) did not provide long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function. A platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side reduces the operative time of the conversion with a low risk of complications.
ABSTRACT
Removal of a cemented glenoid component often leads to massive glenoid bone loss, which makes it difficult to implant a new glenoid baseplate. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with a completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 13 (average age, 64 years) were revised to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study. Average follow-up after revision was 22 months. Outcome measures included pain, range of motion, Constant-Murley scores, Simple Shoulder Tests, and subjective shoulder values. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021), and active external rotation increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°). Mean pain scores significantly improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points. The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90). Subjectively, 12 patients rated their shoulder as better or much better than preoperatively. This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function.
Continue to: Polyethylene glenoid components...
Polyethylene glenoid components are the gold standard in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). However, even though TSA survivorship exceeds 95% at 10-year follow-up,1 glenoid component loosening remains the main complication and the weak link in these implants. This complication accounts for 25% of all complications related to TSA in the literature.2 In most cases, glenoid component loosening is not isolated but combined with a rotator cuff tear, glenohumeral instability, or component malposition.
We hypothesized that a completely convertible platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side could facilitate the revision of a failed TSA to a RSA. This would enable the surgeon to leave the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate in place, avoiding the difficulty of stem removal and the reimplantation of a glenoid component, especially in osteoporotic glenoid bone and elderly patients. The revision procedure would then only consist of replacing the humeral head by a metallic tray and polyethylene bearing on the humeral side and by impacting a glenosphere on the glenoid baseplate (Figures 2A, 2B).
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with this completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PATIENT SELECTION
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary TSAs were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 18 underwent revision (17.3%). Among these 18 patients, 13 were revised to RSA using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study, while 5 patients were revised to another TSA (2 dissociations of the polyethylene glenoid implant, 2 excessively low implantations of the glenoid baseplate, and 1 glenoid loosening). The mean age of the 13 patients (9 women, 4 men) included in this retrospective study at the time of revision was 64 years (range, 50-75 years). The reasons for revision surgery were rotator cuff tear (5, among which 2 were posterosuperior tears, and 3 were tears of the subscapularis), dislocations (5 posterior and 1 anterior, among which 4 had a B2 or C glenoid), suprascapular nerve paralysis (1), and dissociation of the polyethylene (1). The initial TSA was indicated for primary osteoarthritis with a normal cuff (9), primary osteoarthritis with a reparable cuff tear (2), posttraumatic osteoarthritis (1), and chronic dislocation (1). The right dominant shoulder was involved in 10 cases. The mean time interval between the primary TSA and the revision was 15 months (range, 1-61 months).
OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Revision of a failed TSA is always a difficult challenge, and evaluation of bone loss on both the humeral and the glenoid sides, as well as the status of the cuff, is mandatory, even with a completely convertible arthroplasty system. The surgeon must be prepared to remove the humeral stem in case reduction of the joint is impossible. We systematically performed standard radiographs (anteroposterior, axillary, and outlet views) and computed tomography (CT) scans in order to assess both the version and positioning, as well as potential signs of loosening of the implants and the status of the cuff (continuity, degree of muscle trophicity, and fatty infiltration). A preoperative leucocyte count, sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein rates were requested in every revision case, even if a mechanical etiology was strongly suspected.
Continue to: REVISION PROCEDURE
REVISION PROCEDURE
All the implants that had been used in the primary TSAs were Arrow Universal Shoulder Prostheses (FH Orthopedics). All revisions were performed through the previous deltopectoral approach in the beach chair position under general anesthesia with an interscalene block. Adhesions of the deep part of the deltoid were carefully released. The conjoint tendon was released, and the location of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves was identified before any retractor was placed. In the 10 cases where the subscapularis was intact, it was peeled off the medial border of the bicipital groove to obtain sufficient length for a tension-free reinsertion.
The anatomical head of the humeral implant was disconnected from the stem and removed. All stems were found to be well fixed; there were no cases of loosening or evidence of infection. A circumferential capsular release was systematically carried out. The polyethylene glenoid onlay was then unlocked from the baseplate.
The quality of the fixation of the glenoid baseplate was systematically evaluated; no screw was found to be loose, and the fixation of all baseplates was stable. Therefore, there was no need to revise the glenoid baseplate, even when its position was considered excessively retroverted (Glenoid B2) or high. A glenosphere was impacted on the baseplate, and a polyethylene humeral bearing was then implanted on the humeral stem. The thinnest polyethylene bearing available (number 0) was chosen in all cases, and a size 36 glenosphere was chosen in 12 out of 13 cases. Intraoperative stability of the implant was satisfactory, and no impingement was found posteriorly, anteriorly, or inferiorly.
In one case, the humeral stem was a first-generation humeral implant which was not compatible with the new-generation humeral bearing, and the humeral stem had to be replaced.
In 2 cases, reduction of the RSA was either impossible or felt to be too tight, even after extensive soft-tissue release and resection of the remaining supraspinatus. The main reason for this was an excessively proud humeral stem because of an onlay polyethylene humeral bearing instead of an inlay design. However, removal of the uncemented humeral stem was always possible with no osteotomy or cortical window of the humeral shaft as the humeral stem has been designed with a bone ingrowth surface only on the metaphyseal part with a smooth surface on diaphyseal part. After removal of the stem, a small amount of humeral metaphysis was cut, and a new humeral stem was press-fit in a lower position. This allowed restoration of an appropriate tension of the soft tissue and, therefore, an easier reduction. The subscapularis was medialized and reinserted transosseously when possible with a double-row repair. In 3 cases, the subscapularis was torn and retracted at the level of the glenoid, or impossible to identify to allow its reinsertion.
Continue to: According to our infectious disease department...
According to our infectious disease department, we made a minimum of 5 cultures for each revision case looking for a possible low-grade infection. All cultures in our group are held for 14 days to assess for Propionibacterium acnes.
POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
A shoulder splint in neutral rotation was used for the first 4 weeks. Passive range of motion (ROM) was started immediately with pendulum exercises and passive anterior elevation. Active assisted and active ROM were allowed after 4 weeks, and physiotherapy was continued for 6 months. Elderly patients were referred to a center of rehabilitation. We found only 1 or 2 positive cultures (Propionibacterium acnes) for 4 patients, and we decided to consider them as a contamination. None of the patients were treated with antibiotics.
CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Clinical evaluation included pre- and postoperative pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), ROM, the Constant-Murley13 score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST),14 and the subjective shoulder value.15 Subjective satisfaction was assessed by asking the patients at follow-up how they felt compared with before surgery and was graded using a 4-point scale: 1, much better; 2, better; 3, the same; and 4, worse. Radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative standard anteroposterior, outlet, and axillary views. Radiographs were reviewed to determine the presence of glenohumeral subluxation, periprosthetic lucency, component shift in position, and scapular notching.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics are reported as mean (range) for continuous measures and number (percentage) for discrete variables. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for preoperative vs postoperative changes. The alpha level for all tests was set at 0.05 for statistical significance.
RESULTS
CLINICAL OUTCOME
At a mean of 22 months (range, 7-38 months) follow-up after revision, active ROM was significantly improved. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021). Active external rotation with the elbow on the side increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°) (P = 0.034), and increased with the arm held at 90° abduction from 13° (range, 0°-20°) to 49° (range, 0°-80°) (P = 0.025). Mean pain scores improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points (P < 0.001). VAS improved significantly from 9 to 1 (P < 0.0001). The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90) (P = 0.006). The final SST was 7 per 12. Subjectively, 4 patients rated their shoulder as much better, 8 as better, and 1 as the same as preoperatively. No intra- or postoperative complications, including infections, were observed. The mean duration of the procedure was 60 minutes (range, 30-75 minutes).
Continue to: RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
No periprosthetic lucency or shift in component was observed at the last follow-up. There was no scapular notching. No resorption of the tuberosities, and no fractures of the acromion or the scapular spine were observed.
DISCUSSION
In this retrospective study, failure of TSA with a metal-backed glenoid implant was successfully revised to RSA. In 10 patients, the use of a universal platform system allowed an easier conversion without removal of the humeral stem or the glenoid component (Figures 3A-3D). Twelve of the 13 patients were satisfied or very satisfied at the last follow-up. None of the patients were in pain, and the mean Constant score was 63. In all the cases, the glenoid baseplate was not changed. In 3 cases the humeral stem was changed without any fracture of the tuberosities of need for an osteotomy. This greatly simplified the revision procedure, as glenoid revisions can be very challenging. Indeed, it is often difficult to assess precisely preoperatively the remaining glenoid bone stock after removal of the glenoid component and the cement. Many therapeutic options to deal with glenoid loosening have been reported in the literature: glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a hemiarthroplasty (HA),10,16-18 glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a new TSA with a cemented glenoid implant,16,17,19,20 and glenoid reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a RSA.12,21 These authors reported that glenoid reconstruction frequently necessitates an iliac bone graft associated with a special design of the baseplate with a long post fixed into the native glenoid bone. However, sometimes implantation of an uncemented glenoid component can be unstable with a high risk of early mobilization of the implant, and 2 steps may be necessary. Conversion to a HA,10,16-18 or a TSA16,17,19,20 with a new cemented implant have both been associated with poor clinical outcome, with a high rate of recurrent glenoid loosening for the TSAs.
In our retrospective study, we reported no intra- or postoperative complications. Flury and colleagues22 reported a complication rate of 38% in 21 patients after conversion from a TSA to a RSA with a mean follow-up of 46 months. They removed all the components of the prosthesis with a crack or fracture of the humerus and/or the glenoid. Ortmaier and colleagues23 reported a rate of complication of 22.7% during the conversion of TSA to RSA. They did an osteotomy of the humeral diaphysis to extract the stem in 40% of cases and had to remove the glenoid cement in 86% of cases with severe damage of the glenoid bone in 10% of cases. Fewer complications were found in our study, as we did not need any procedure such as humeral osteotomy, cerclage, bone grafting, and/or reconstruction of the glenoid. The short operative time and the absence of extensive soft-tissue dissection, thanks to a standard deltopectoral approach, could explain the absence of infection in our series.
Other authors shared our strategy of a universal convertible system and reported their results in the literature. Castagna and colleagues24 in 2013 reported the clinical and radiological results of conversions of HA or TSA to RSA using a modular, convertible system (SMR Shoulder System, Lima Corporate). In their series, only 8 cases of TSAs were converted to RSA. They preserved, in each case, the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. The mean VAS score decreased from 8 to 2. Weber-Spickschen and colleague25 reported recently in 2015 the same experience with the same system (SMR Shoulder System). They reviewed 15 conversions of TSAs to RSAs without any removal of the implants at a mean 43-month follow-up. They reported excellent pain relief (VAS decreased from 8 to 1) and improvement in shoulder function with a low rate of complications.
Kany and colleagues26 in 2015 had already reported the advantages of a shoulder platform system for revisions. In their series, the authors included cases of failure of HAs and TSAs with loose cemented glenoids and metal-backed glenoids. The clinical and radiological results were similar, with a final Constant score of 60 (range, 42-85) and a similar rate of humeral stems which had to be changed (24%). These stems were replaced either because they were too proud or because there was not enough space to add an onlay polyethylene socket.
Continue to: Despite the encouraging results...
Despite the encouraging results reported in this study, there are some limitations. Firstly, no control group was used. Attempting to address this issue, we compared our results with the literature. Secondly, the number of patients in our study was small. Finally, the follow-up duration (mean 22 months) did not provide long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function. A platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side reduces the operative time of the conversion with a low risk of complications.
1. Brenner BC, Ferlic DC, Clayton ML, Dennis DA. Survivorship of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(9):1289-1296.
2. Budge MD, Nolan EM, Heisey MH, Baker K, Wiater JM. Results of total shoulder arthroplasty with a monoblock porous tantalum glenoid component: a prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):535-541. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.001.
3. Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(1):19-22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.05.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(4):603-616.
6. Gohlke F, Rolf O. Revision of failed fracture hemiarthroplasties to reverse total shoulder prosthesis through the transhumeral approach: method incorporating a pectoralis-major-pedicled bone window. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19(2):185-208. doi:10.1007/s00064-007-1202-x.
7. Goldberg SH, Cohen MS, Young M, Bradnock B. Thermal tissue damage caused by ultrasonic cement removal from the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):583-591. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01966.
8. Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Humeral windows in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):258-263. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.004.
9. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
11. Kelly JD 2nd, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
12. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
13. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164.
14. Matsen FA 3rd, Ziegler DW, DeBartolo SE. Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(5):345-351.
15. Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):717-721. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123.
16. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
17. Cofield RH, Edgerton BC. Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect. 1990;39:449-462.
18. Neyton L, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Edwards TB. Glenoid corticocancellous bone grafting after glenoid component removal in the treatment of glenoid loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.010.
19. Bonnevialle N, Melis B, Neyton L, et al. Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):745-751. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.009.
20. Rodosky MW, Bigliani LU. Indications for glenoid resurfacing in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(3):231-248.
21. Bateman E, Donald SM. Reconstruction of massive uncontained glenoid defects using a combined autograft-allograft construct with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: preliminary results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):925-934. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.009.
22. Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure--midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):53-60. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z.
23. Ortmaier R, Resch H, Hitzl W, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with latissimus dorsi transfer using the bone-chip technique. Int Orthop. 2013;38(3):1-7. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2139-3.
24. Castagna A, Delcogliano M, de Caro F, et al. Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: clinical and radiological results using a modular system. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1297-1305. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1907-4.
25. Weber-Spickschen TS, Alfke D, Agneskirchner JD. The use of a modular system to convert an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Clinical and radiological results. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1662-1667. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.35176.
26. Kany J, Amouyel T, Flamand O, Katz D, Valenti P. A convertible shoulder system: is it useful in total shoulder arthroplasty revisions? Int Orthop. 2015;39(2):299-304. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2563-z.
1. Brenner BC, Ferlic DC, Clayton ML, Dennis DA. Survivorship of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(9):1289-1296.
2. Budge MD, Nolan EM, Heisey MH, Baker K, Wiater JM. Results of total shoulder arthroplasty with a monoblock porous tantalum glenoid component: a prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):535-541. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.001.
3. Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(1):19-22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.05.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(4):603-616.
6. Gohlke F, Rolf O. Revision of failed fracture hemiarthroplasties to reverse total shoulder prosthesis through the transhumeral approach: method incorporating a pectoralis-major-pedicled bone window. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19(2):185-208. doi:10.1007/s00064-007-1202-x.
7. Goldberg SH, Cohen MS, Young M, Bradnock B. Thermal tissue damage caused by ultrasonic cement removal from the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):583-591. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01966.
8. Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Humeral windows in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):258-263. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.004.
9. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
11. Kelly JD 2nd, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
12. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
13. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164.
14. Matsen FA 3rd, Ziegler DW, DeBartolo SE. Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(5):345-351.
15. Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):717-721. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123.
16. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
17. Cofield RH, Edgerton BC. Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect. 1990;39:449-462.
18. Neyton L, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Edwards TB. Glenoid corticocancellous bone grafting after glenoid component removal in the treatment of glenoid loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.010.
19. Bonnevialle N, Melis B, Neyton L, et al. Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):745-751. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.009.
20. Rodosky MW, Bigliani LU. Indications for glenoid resurfacing in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(3):231-248.
21. Bateman E, Donald SM. Reconstruction of massive uncontained glenoid defects using a combined autograft-allograft construct with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: preliminary results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):925-934. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.009.
22. Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure--midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):53-60. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z.
23. Ortmaier R, Resch H, Hitzl W, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with latissimus dorsi transfer using the bone-chip technique. Int Orthop. 2013;38(3):1-7. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2139-3.
24. Castagna A, Delcogliano M, de Caro F, et al. Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: clinical and radiological results using a modular system. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1297-1305. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1907-4.
25. Weber-Spickschen TS, Alfke D, Agneskirchner JD. The use of a modular system to convert an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Clinical and radiological results. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1662-1667. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.35176.
26. Kany J, Amouyel T, Flamand O, Katz D, Valenti P. A convertible shoulder system: is it useful in total shoulder arthroplasty revisions? Int Orthop. 2015;39(2):299-304. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2563-z.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Full polyethylene is the gold standard, but the revision of glenoid loosening leads a difficult reconstruction of a glenoid bone.
- A complete convertible system facilitates the revision and decreases the rate of complications.
- The functional and subjective results of the revision are good.
- During the revision, the metalback was well fixed without any sign of loosening.
- In 3 cases the humeral stem was changed; in 2 cases there was no space to reduce (onlay system) and in 1 case it was an older design, nonadapted.
MedPAC: Medicare hospital readmissions program is working
WASHINGTON – The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program is working, according to an original analysis of Medicare claims data presented at a meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
“First, readmissions declined,” MedPAC staff member Jeff Stensland, PhD, said during a congressionally mandated staff report to the commissioners. “Second, while observation stays increased, they did not fully offset the decrease in readmissions. Third, while [emergency department] visits also increased, those increases appear to largely be due to factors other than the readmission program. And fourth, in addition, all the evidence we examined suggests that the readmissions program did not result in increased mortality.”
including a reduction in readmissions and patients spending less time in the hospital with “at least equal outcomes,” Dr. Stensland said at the meeting.
Taxpayers benefited from a $2 billion reduction in spending on readmissions, which will “help extend the viability of the Medicare Trust Fund.” He noted that improvements to the program will be discussed at future MedPAC meetings.
Not all MedPAC commissioners agreed with the staff analysis.
David Nerenz, PhD, of the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, also was not convinced the program was having an impact, noting that hospital readmissions began to decline even before the program started.
In looking at a graph presented that showed this trend, “I was impressed by the fact that the trend line started coming down all the way to the left side of the graph, and what my eye was impressed with was more just the continuation rather than a change, so I guess I feel cautious saying the program had certain effects because they certainly don’t jump off the graph visually,” Dr. Nerenz said. “I’m not disputing the numbers, but to say just as a clear unqualified conclusion the program reduced readmissions, I’m not so sure.”
It is likely premature to make any firm conclusions about how effectively this program decreases unnecessary utilization of hospitals. However, it is heartening to know that it did not increase mortality. The one variable that would best control readmissions is patient education. What constitutes an emergency requiring hospital evaluation and potential admission is often not explained to the patient by you and me.
It is likely premature to make any firm conclusions about how effectively this program decreases unnecessary utilization of hospitals. However, it is heartening to know that it did not increase mortality. The one variable that would best control readmissions is patient education. What constitutes an emergency requiring hospital evaluation and potential admission is often not explained to the patient by you and me.
It is likely premature to make any firm conclusions about how effectively this program decreases unnecessary utilization of hospitals. However, it is heartening to know that it did not increase mortality. The one variable that would best control readmissions is patient education. What constitutes an emergency requiring hospital evaluation and potential admission is often not explained to the patient by you and me.
WASHINGTON – The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program is working, according to an original analysis of Medicare claims data presented at a meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
“First, readmissions declined,” MedPAC staff member Jeff Stensland, PhD, said during a congressionally mandated staff report to the commissioners. “Second, while observation stays increased, they did not fully offset the decrease in readmissions. Third, while [emergency department] visits also increased, those increases appear to largely be due to factors other than the readmission program. And fourth, in addition, all the evidence we examined suggests that the readmissions program did not result in increased mortality.”
including a reduction in readmissions and patients spending less time in the hospital with “at least equal outcomes,” Dr. Stensland said at the meeting.
Taxpayers benefited from a $2 billion reduction in spending on readmissions, which will “help extend the viability of the Medicare Trust Fund.” He noted that improvements to the program will be discussed at future MedPAC meetings.
Not all MedPAC commissioners agreed with the staff analysis.
David Nerenz, PhD, of the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, also was not convinced the program was having an impact, noting that hospital readmissions began to decline even before the program started.
In looking at a graph presented that showed this trend, “I was impressed by the fact that the trend line started coming down all the way to the left side of the graph, and what my eye was impressed with was more just the continuation rather than a change, so I guess I feel cautious saying the program had certain effects because they certainly don’t jump off the graph visually,” Dr. Nerenz said. “I’m not disputing the numbers, but to say just as a clear unqualified conclusion the program reduced readmissions, I’m not so sure.”
WASHINGTON – The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program is working, according to an original analysis of Medicare claims data presented at a meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
“First, readmissions declined,” MedPAC staff member Jeff Stensland, PhD, said during a congressionally mandated staff report to the commissioners. “Second, while observation stays increased, they did not fully offset the decrease in readmissions. Third, while [emergency department] visits also increased, those increases appear to largely be due to factors other than the readmission program. And fourth, in addition, all the evidence we examined suggests that the readmissions program did not result in increased mortality.”
including a reduction in readmissions and patients spending less time in the hospital with “at least equal outcomes,” Dr. Stensland said at the meeting.
Taxpayers benefited from a $2 billion reduction in spending on readmissions, which will “help extend the viability of the Medicare Trust Fund.” He noted that improvements to the program will be discussed at future MedPAC meetings.
Not all MedPAC commissioners agreed with the staff analysis.
David Nerenz, PhD, of the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, also was not convinced the program was having an impact, noting that hospital readmissions began to decline even before the program started.
In looking at a graph presented that showed this trend, “I was impressed by the fact that the trend line started coming down all the way to the left side of the graph, and what my eye was impressed with was more just the continuation rather than a change, so I guess I feel cautious saying the program had certain effects because they certainly don’t jump off the graph visually,” Dr. Nerenz said. “I’m not disputing the numbers, but to say just as a clear unqualified conclusion the program reduced readmissions, I’m not so sure.”
REPORTING FROM MEDPAC
CV risk factors go undiagnosed, untreated in many psoriatic patients
A significant proportion of patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are underdiagnosed and undertreated for cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), according to Lihi Eder, MD, of the University of Toronto, and her associates.
In a cross-sectional analysis published in the Journal of Rheumatology, researchers examined 2,254 patients (58.9% with PsA, 41.1% with psoriasis only) from eight centers in Canada, the United States, and Israel. They found that 1,017 of the patients had hypertension (PsA: 48.5%, psoriasis: 40.2%), including 233 who were not previously diagnosed with hypertension and were not taking any blood pressure–lowering medications (PsA: 19.9%, psoriasis: 39.1%). Many patients had low adherence to hypertension treatment recommendations: A total of 602 (PsA: 55.9%, psoriasis: 64.8%) were untreated or undertreated. Undertreatment of hypertension occurred in 60.9% patients with cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus.
“In this large international study, we found significant gaps in screening and treating CVRF in patients with psoriasis and PsA,” the researchers concluded. “Although questions exist regarding the optimal treatment targets for CVRF in psoriatic patients, adherence by physicians to, at a minimum, the general treatment recommendations for primary CV prevention is warranted.”
SOURCE: Eder L et al. J Rheumatol. 2018 Feb 1. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170379.
A significant proportion of patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are underdiagnosed and undertreated for cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), according to Lihi Eder, MD, of the University of Toronto, and her associates.
In a cross-sectional analysis published in the Journal of Rheumatology, researchers examined 2,254 patients (58.9% with PsA, 41.1% with psoriasis only) from eight centers in Canada, the United States, and Israel. They found that 1,017 of the patients had hypertension (PsA: 48.5%, psoriasis: 40.2%), including 233 who were not previously diagnosed with hypertension and were not taking any blood pressure–lowering medications (PsA: 19.9%, psoriasis: 39.1%). Many patients had low adherence to hypertension treatment recommendations: A total of 602 (PsA: 55.9%, psoriasis: 64.8%) were untreated or undertreated. Undertreatment of hypertension occurred in 60.9% patients with cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus.
“In this large international study, we found significant gaps in screening and treating CVRF in patients with psoriasis and PsA,” the researchers concluded. “Although questions exist regarding the optimal treatment targets for CVRF in psoriatic patients, adherence by physicians to, at a minimum, the general treatment recommendations for primary CV prevention is warranted.”
SOURCE: Eder L et al. J Rheumatol. 2018 Feb 1. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170379.
A significant proportion of patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are underdiagnosed and undertreated for cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), according to Lihi Eder, MD, of the University of Toronto, and her associates.
In a cross-sectional analysis published in the Journal of Rheumatology, researchers examined 2,254 patients (58.9% with PsA, 41.1% with psoriasis only) from eight centers in Canada, the United States, and Israel. They found that 1,017 of the patients had hypertension (PsA: 48.5%, psoriasis: 40.2%), including 233 who were not previously diagnosed with hypertension and were not taking any blood pressure–lowering medications (PsA: 19.9%, psoriasis: 39.1%). Many patients had low adherence to hypertension treatment recommendations: A total of 602 (PsA: 55.9%, psoriasis: 64.8%) were untreated or undertreated. Undertreatment of hypertension occurred in 60.9% patients with cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus.
“In this large international study, we found significant gaps in screening and treating CVRF in patients with psoriasis and PsA,” the researchers concluded. “Although questions exist regarding the optimal treatment targets for CVRF in psoriatic patients, adherence by physicians to, at a minimum, the general treatment recommendations for primary CV prevention is warranted.”
SOURCE: Eder L et al. J Rheumatol. 2018 Feb 1. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170379.
FROM JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders incidence exceeds previous estimates
, according to a cross-sectional study.
Philip A. May, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, and his coauthors assessed 6,639 first-grade children from four communities in the Rocky Mountain, Midwestern, Southeastern, and Pacific Southwestern regions of the United States.
In their report, published Feb. 6 in JAMA, they identified 222 cases of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, representing conservative prevalence estimates ranging from 11.3 to 50 cases per 1,000 children (JAMA 2018;319[5]:474-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21896).
Of these children, 27 met the criteria for fetal alcohol syndrome, 104 met the criteria for partial fetal alcohol syndrome, and 91 met the criteria for alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder.
“These prevalence estimates are consistent with mounting evidence that harmful fetal alcohol exposure is common in the United States today and highlight the public health burden due to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders,” the authors wrote.
The finding was much higher than previous estimates of the prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in the United States. The authors pointed out that routine surveillance methods may have previously underestimated the prevalence because so many children are either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. But even two previous single-site, active-case ascertainment studies conducted in the United States found prevalence rates of 10 and 24 per 1,000 children.
“This consortium study, to our knowledge, was the first to apply active case ascertainment, common methodology, a single classification system, and expert in-person evaluation for a continuum of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders including alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder to a large number of children from communities across the United States,” the authors wrote. “These data have highlighted the need for a larger study with broader representation of U.S. communities with general population samples.”
Only 2 of the 222 children had actually been previously diagnosed with a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, “although many parents and guardians were aware of the learning and behavioral challenges facing their children,” the researchers noted.
“These data confirm that missed diagnoses and misdiagnoses of children are common,” the authors wrote, pointing to a previous study in U.S. schoolchildren that found only one in seven children identified as having fetal alcohol syndrome had been previously diagnosed.
The assessment of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder was based on four domains: growth, dysmorphology, neurodevelopment, and prenatal alcohol exposure – the latter being assessed by interviewing the mother in person or by telephone.
The lowest prevalence – 11.3 per 1,000 children – was seen in the Midwestern community, while the highest – 50 per 1,000 – was in the Rocky Mountain community.
The main weakness of the study was that no individual sample included the entire eligible population because of differing policies on access to children for recruitment and variability in willingness to consent.
“Consent rates for screening ranged from 36.9% to 92.5% in individual samples and overall consent rates for screening averaged only 59.9% of eligible children,” the authors wrote. “If nonconsented children differed from consented, this could have biased prevalence estimates in either direction.”
The researchers acknowledged that the absence of a definitive biomarker for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder meant it was impossible to know for certain that the observed deficits were actually the result of fetal alcohol exposure, and that the prevalence estimates may therefore be overestimated.
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. One author declared grant support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and personal fees and honorarium from the Alcohol Center. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: May, P et al. JAMA 2018;319[5]:474-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21896.
The finding of higher-than-expected prevalence estimates for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder has significant implications for clinicians and for public health. Many cases are misdiagnosed or not diagnosed, which may be the result of unknown or unconfirmed prenatal alcohol exposure, overlapping diagnostic criteria with other neurodevelopmental disorders, high rates of comorbidity, and the presence of a number of different clinical diagnostic guidelines. There is, therefore, a need for a universal diagnostic approach and the identification of novel and reliable biomarkers for detecting fetal alcohol effects.
In addition, the high prevalence of these disorders points to a need for better education of girls and women of childbearing age about the detrimental effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Primary care clinicians should routinely include appropriate screening for alcohol use in all women of childbearing age in preconceptual health promotion and in contraceptive counseling and refer anyone identified as having an alcohol use disorder to substance abuse programs.
Shannon Lange, MPH, Jurgen Rehm, PhD, and Svetlana Popova, PhD, are with the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and the University of Toronto. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (JAMA 2018, 319[5]:448-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21895). No conflicts of interest were declared.
The finding of higher-than-expected prevalence estimates for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder has significant implications for clinicians and for public health. Many cases are misdiagnosed or not diagnosed, which may be the result of unknown or unconfirmed prenatal alcohol exposure, overlapping diagnostic criteria with other neurodevelopmental disorders, high rates of comorbidity, and the presence of a number of different clinical diagnostic guidelines. There is, therefore, a need for a universal diagnostic approach and the identification of novel and reliable biomarkers for detecting fetal alcohol effects.
In addition, the high prevalence of these disorders points to a need for better education of girls and women of childbearing age about the detrimental effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Primary care clinicians should routinely include appropriate screening for alcohol use in all women of childbearing age in preconceptual health promotion and in contraceptive counseling and refer anyone identified as having an alcohol use disorder to substance abuse programs.
Shannon Lange, MPH, Jurgen Rehm, PhD, and Svetlana Popova, PhD, are with the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and the University of Toronto. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (JAMA 2018, 319[5]:448-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21895). No conflicts of interest were declared.
The finding of higher-than-expected prevalence estimates for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder has significant implications for clinicians and for public health. Many cases are misdiagnosed or not diagnosed, which may be the result of unknown or unconfirmed prenatal alcohol exposure, overlapping diagnostic criteria with other neurodevelopmental disorders, high rates of comorbidity, and the presence of a number of different clinical diagnostic guidelines. There is, therefore, a need for a universal diagnostic approach and the identification of novel and reliable biomarkers for detecting fetal alcohol effects.
In addition, the high prevalence of these disorders points to a need for better education of girls and women of childbearing age about the detrimental effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Primary care clinicians should routinely include appropriate screening for alcohol use in all women of childbearing age in preconceptual health promotion and in contraceptive counseling and refer anyone identified as having an alcohol use disorder to substance abuse programs.
Shannon Lange, MPH, Jurgen Rehm, PhD, and Svetlana Popova, PhD, are with the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and the University of Toronto. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (JAMA 2018, 319[5]:448-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21895). No conflicts of interest were declared.
, according to a cross-sectional study.
Philip A. May, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, and his coauthors assessed 6,639 first-grade children from four communities in the Rocky Mountain, Midwestern, Southeastern, and Pacific Southwestern regions of the United States.
In their report, published Feb. 6 in JAMA, they identified 222 cases of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, representing conservative prevalence estimates ranging from 11.3 to 50 cases per 1,000 children (JAMA 2018;319[5]:474-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21896).
Of these children, 27 met the criteria for fetal alcohol syndrome, 104 met the criteria for partial fetal alcohol syndrome, and 91 met the criteria for alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder.
“These prevalence estimates are consistent with mounting evidence that harmful fetal alcohol exposure is common in the United States today and highlight the public health burden due to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders,” the authors wrote.
The finding was much higher than previous estimates of the prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in the United States. The authors pointed out that routine surveillance methods may have previously underestimated the prevalence because so many children are either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. But even two previous single-site, active-case ascertainment studies conducted in the United States found prevalence rates of 10 and 24 per 1,000 children.
“This consortium study, to our knowledge, was the first to apply active case ascertainment, common methodology, a single classification system, and expert in-person evaluation for a continuum of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders including alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder to a large number of children from communities across the United States,” the authors wrote. “These data have highlighted the need for a larger study with broader representation of U.S. communities with general population samples.”
Only 2 of the 222 children had actually been previously diagnosed with a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, “although many parents and guardians were aware of the learning and behavioral challenges facing their children,” the researchers noted.
“These data confirm that missed diagnoses and misdiagnoses of children are common,” the authors wrote, pointing to a previous study in U.S. schoolchildren that found only one in seven children identified as having fetal alcohol syndrome had been previously diagnosed.
The assessment of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder was based on four domains: growth, dysmorphology, neurodevelopment, and prenatal alcohol exposure – the latter being assessed by interviewing the mother in person or by telephone.
The lowest prevalence – 11.3 per 1,000 children – was seen in the Midwestern community, while the highest – 50 per 1,000 – was in the Rocky Mountain community.
The main weakness of the study was that no individual sample included the entire eligible population because of differing policies on access to children for recruitment and variability in willingness to consent.
“Consent rates for screening ranged from 36.9% to 92.5% in individual samples and overall consent rates for screening averaged only 59.9% of eligible children,” the authors wrote. “If nonconsented children differed from consented, this could have biased prevalence estimates in either direction.”
The researchers acknowledged that the absence of a definitive biomarker for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder meant it was impossible to know for certain that the observed deficits were actually the result of fetal alcohol exposure, and that the prevalence estimates may therefore be overestimated.
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. One author declared grant support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and personal fees and honorarium from the Alcohol Center. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: May, P et al. JAMA 2018;319[5]:474-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21896.
, according to a cross-sectional study.
Philip A. May, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, and his coauthors assessed 6,639 first-grade children from four communities in the Rocky Mountain, Midwestern, Southeastern, and Pacific Southwestern regions of the United States.
In their report, published Feb. 6 in JAMA, they identified 222 cases of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, representing conservative prevalence estimates ranging from 11.3 to 50 cases per 1,000 children (JAMA 2018;319[5]:474-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21896).
Of these children, 27 met the criteria for fetal alcohol syndrome, 104 met the criteria for partial fetal alcohol syndrome, and 91 met the criteria for alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder.
“These prevalence estimates are consistent with mounting evidence that harmful fetal alcohol exposure is common in the United States today and highlight the public health burden due to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders,” the authors wrote.
The finding was much higher than previous estimates of the prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in the United States. The authors pointed out that routine surveillance methods may have previously underestimated the prevalence because so many children are either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. But even two previous single-site, active-case ascertainment studies conducted in the United States found prevalence rates of 10 and 24 per 1,000 children.
“This consortium study, to our knowledge, was the first to apply active case ascertainment, common methodology, a single classification system, and expert in-person evaluation for a continuum of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders including alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder to a large number of children from communities across the United States,” the authors wrote. “These data have highlighted the need for a larger study with broader representation of U.S. communities with general population samples.”
Only 2 of the 222 children had actually been previously diagnosed with a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, “although many parents and guardians were aware of the learning and behavioral challenges facing their children,” the researchers noted.
“These data confirm that missed diagnoses and misdiagnoses of children are common,” the authors wrote, pointing to a previous study in U.S. schoolchildren that found only one in seven children identified as having fetal alcohol syndrome had been previously diagnosed.
The assessment of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder was based on four domains: growth, dysmorphology, neurodevelopment, and prenatal alcohol exposure – the latter being assessed by interviewing the mother in person or by telephone.
The lowest prevalence – 11.3 per 1,000 children – was seen in the Midwestern community, while the highest – 50 per 1,000 – was in the Rocky Mountain community.
The main weakness of the study was that no individual sample included the entire eligible population because of differing policies on access to children for recruitment and variability in willingness to consent.
“Consent rates for screening ranged from 36.9% to 92.5% in individual samples and overall consent rates for screening averaged only 59.9% of eligible children,” the authors wrote. “If nonconsented children differed from consented, this could have biased prevalence estimates in either direction.”
The researchers acknowledged that the absence of a definitive biomarker for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder meant it was impossible to know for certain that the observed deficits were actually the result of fetal alcohol exposure, and that the prevalence estimates may therefore be overestimated.
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. One author declared grant support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and personal fees and honorarium from the Alcohol Center. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: May, P et al. JAMA 2018;319[5]:474-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21896.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: The prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in first-grade children in the United States may be as high as 1 in 20.
Major finding: The prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder ranged from 11.3 to 50 children per 1,000.
Data source: Cross-sectional study of 6,639 first-grade children.
Disclosures: The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. One author declared grant support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and personal fees and honorarium from the Alcohol Center. No conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: May, P et al. JAMA 2018;319[5]:474-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21896.
How Will You Champion Lung Health in 2018?
Our CHEST Foundation grantees are doing amazing research and community service projects that are paving the way for change and improvements in chest medicine. How will you help champion lung health?
“This award carries great importance to me as a young clinician who is in the early phase of my career. I’m driven by my passion for researching this disease (PAH). This award helps establish me as a strong clinical researcher – where I see my career heading. It also helps us identify those clues that can lead to changing how this disease state is treated. Everything starts with an idea.”
Sandeep Sahay, MD, FCCP
Houston Methodist Hospital – Houston, Texas
CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Title: Alterations of Estrogen Metabolism in the Development of Portopulmonary Hypertension
“This grant has allowed me to do this project, period. Having support from the CHEST Foundation automatically gives me credibility at my new institution. As I would meet with people to discuss my project, they would see that a big organization is supporting me, and that is the outside validation to show that this must be a useful project. The grant really helps me hit the ground running, and plants the seed to help us do a larger project in the future.”
Drew Harris, MD
Yale University – New Haven, Connecticut
CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma
Title: Utilizing Medical-Legal Partnership to Promote Asthma Health Equity
“I recently completed my MD, and because of this grant, I am able to do a completely independent research study. I’ve also been recently short-listed for a clinical lecturer post at my university...which positions me to be the lead for quantitative imaging should I receive the post. This grant added gravitas to my project, and, without it, I don’t think I would have had as big of a boost.”
Diana Crossley, MBChB
University Hospital Birmingham – Birmingham, England
CHEST Foundation and the Alpha-1 Foundation Research Grant in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency
Title: Functional Magnetic Resonance Lung Imaging Using Inhaled Hyperpolarised 129Xenon: A Pilot Study of the Clinical Utility in Alpha One Antitrypsin Deficiency (AATD).
“Because of this grant, we are able to be effective teachers to Haitian pediatricians, so they can more effectively intervene and save childrens’ lives. We are able to translate these critical care materials into French and provide the best opportunity for learning to our colleagues there.”
Adam Silverman, MD
Connecticut Children’s Medical Center – Hartford, Connecticut
CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP
Title: Haitian Pediatric Critical Care Collaborative Training Course
The CHEST Foundation is accepting grant applications now until March 31 in the following areas:
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Lung Cancer – $50,000 - $100,000 2-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma - $15,000 - $30,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension - $25,000 - $50,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation and the Alpha-1 Foundation Research Grant in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency - $25,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Fibrosis – $50,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – $50,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Venous Thromboembolism - $15,000 – $30,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Disease - $30,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Women’s Lung Health - $10,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Cystic Fibrosis – $15,000 – $30,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP - $2,500- $15,000 1-year grant
*Amount contingent on funding.
Go to chestfoundation.org/grants to apply now.
Our CHEST Foundation grantees are doing amazing research and community service projects that are paving the way for change and improvements in chest medicine. How will you help champion lung health?
“This award carries great importance to me as a young clinician who is in the early phase of my career. I’m driven by my passion for researching this disease (PAH). This award helps establish me as a strong clinical researcher – where I see my career heading. It also helps us identify those clues that can lead to changing how this disease state is treated. Everything starts with an idea.”
Sandeep Sahay, MD, FCCP
Houston Methodist Hospital – Houston, Texas
CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Title: Alterations of Estrogen Metabolism in the Development of Portopulmonary Hypertension
“This grant has allowed me to do this project, period. Having support from the CHEST Foundation automatically gives me credibility at my new institution. As I would meet with people to discuss my project, they would see that a big organization is supporting me, and that is the outside validation to show that this must be a useful project. The grant really helps me hit the ground running, and plants the seed to help us do a larger project in the future.”
Drew Harris, MD
Yale University – New Haven, Connecticut
CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma
Title: Utilizing Medical-Legal Partnership to Promote Asthma Health Equity
“I recently completed my MD, and because of this grant, I am able to do a completely independent research study. I’ve also been recently short-listed for a clinical lecturer post at my university...which positions me to be the lead for quantitative imaging should I receive the post. This grant added gravitas to my project, and, without it, I don’t think I would have had as big of a boost.”
Diana Crossley, MBChB
University Hospital Birmingham – Birmingham, England
CHEST Foundation and the Alpha-1 Foundation Research Grant in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency
Title: Functional Magnetic Resonance Lung Imaging Using Inhaled Hyperpolarised 129Xenon: A Pilot Study of the Clinical Utility in Alpha One Antitrypsin Deficiency (AATD).
“Because of this grant, we are able to be effective teachers to Haitian pediatricians, so they can more effectively intervene and save childrens’ lives. We are able to translate these critical care materials into French and provide the best opportunity for learning to our colleagues there.”
Adam Silverman, MD
Connecticut Children’s Medical Center – Hartford, Connecticut
CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP
Title: Haitian Pediatric Critical Care Collaborative Training Course
The CHEST Foundation is accepting grant applications now until March 31 in the following areas:
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Lung Cancer – $50,000 - $100,000 2-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma - $15,000 - $30,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension - $25,000 - $50,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation and the Alpha-1 Foundation Research Grant in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency - $25,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Fibrosis – $50,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – $50,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Venous Thromboembolism - $15,000 – $30,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Disease - $30,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Women’s Lung Health - $10,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Cystic Fibrosis – $15,000 – $30,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP - $2,500- $15,000 1-year grant
*Amount contingent on funding.
Go to chestfoundation.org/grants to apply now.
Our CHEST Foundation grantees are doing amazing research and community service projects that are paving the way for change and improvements in chest medicine. How will you help champion lung health?
“This award carries great importance to me as a young clinician who is in the early phase of my career. I’m driven by my passion for researching this disease (PAH). This award helps establish me as a strong clinical researcher – where I see my career heading. It also helps us identify those clues that can lead to changing how this disease state is treated. Everything starts with an idea.”
Sandeep Sahay, MD, FCCP
Houston Methodist Hospital – Houston, Texas
CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Title: Alterations of Estrogen Metabolism in the Development of Portopulmonary Hypertension
“This grant has allowed me to do this project, period. Having support from the CHEST Foundation automatically gives me credibility at my new institution. As I would meet with people to discuss my project, they would see that a big organization is supporting me, and that is the outside validation to show that this must be a useful project. The grant really helps me hit the ground running, and plants the seed to help us do a larger project in the future.”
Drew Harris, MD
Yale University – New Haven, Connecticut
CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma
Title: Utilizing Medical-Legal Partnership to Promote Asthma Health Equity
“I recently completed my MD, and because of this grant, I am able to do a completely independent research study. I’ve also been recently short-listed for a clinical lecturer post at my university...which positions me to be the lead for quantitative imaging should I receive the post. This grant added gravitas to my project, and, without it, I don’t think I would have had as big of a boost.”
Diana Crossley, MBChB
University Hospital Birmingham – Birmingham, England
CHEST Foundation and the Alpha-1 Foundation Research Grant in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency
Title: Functional Magnetic Resonance Lung Imaging Using Inhaled Hyperpolarised 129Xenon: A Pilot Study of the Clinical Utility in Alpha One Antitrypsin Deficiency (AATD).
“Because of this grant, we are able to be effective teachers to Haitian pediatricians, so they can more effectively intervene and save childrens’ lives. We are able to translate these critical care materials into French and provide the best opportunity for learning to our colleagues there.”
Adam Silverman, MD
Connecticut Children’s Medical Center – Hartford, Connecticut
CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP
Title: Haitian Pediatric Critical Care Collaborative Training Course
The CHEST Foundation is accepting grant applications now until March 31 in the following areas:
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Lung Cancer – $50,000 - $100,000 2-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma - $15,000 - $30,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension - $25,000 - $50,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation and the Alpha-1 Foundation Research Grant in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency - $25,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Fibrosis – $50,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – $50,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Venous Thromboembolism - $15,000 – $30,000 1-year grant*
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Disease - $30,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Women’s Lung Health - $10,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Cystic Fibrosis – $15,000 – $30,000 1-year grant
• CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP - $2,500- $15,000 1-year grant
*Amount contingent on funding.
Go to chestfoundation.org/grants to apply now.
Pembrolizumab nets durable responses in sorafenib-treated advanced HCC
SAN FRANCISCO – The immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab is active and well tolerated when used as second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, according to results of the KEYNOTE-224 trial.
The 104 patients treated on the single-arm, open-label phase 2 trial had advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar), the standard of care for first-line therapy. All received monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), an anti–programmed death 1 antibody.
A quarter of patients experienced grade 3 or worse treatment–related adverse events, but only about 7% stopped treatment because of such events.
“Pembrolizumab treatment demonstrated efficacy in advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib as evidenced by durable responses and promising progression-free and overall survival,” said Andrew X. Zhu, MD, PhD, director of liver cancer research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “The safety profile was generally comparable to what has been established for pembrolizumab monotherapy in other indications, and no viral flares were seen in this cohort.”
The investigators are analyzing data for biomarkers such as programmed death ligand 1, alpha-fetoprotein, and microsatellite instability, to identify predictors of benefit, he added. In addition, a phase 3 randomized trial evaluating pembrolizumab versus placebo as second-line therapy in this population (KEYNOTE-240) is under way.
Session cochair Shishir K. Maithel, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta wondered whether the findings are robust enough to justify use of immune checkpoint inhibitors earlier in the course of HCC today.
“Do we have to wait for the trials that look at immunotherapy in the first-line setting before we start using immunotherapy in the first-line setting?” he asked. “I’ve spoken with many people, and it seems like, based on these data in the second line, people have actually moved immunotherapy to the first line, given the relatively modest responses to sorafenib.”
“It’s fair to say the ongoing first-line trial is needed to definitively demonstrate whether there is an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Zhu replied. “As of now, nivolumab [Opdivo] is approved in the second-line setting. If you are really evidence based, we still have to follow the guideline. But having said that, in selected settings, it’s up to the treating physician’s consideration and mutual agreement and discussion with the patient. I think decisions will be made regardless of what you say or I say.”
Patients treated in the KEYNOTE-224 trial, sponsored by Merck, had stopped sorafenib because of progression (80%) or intolerance (20%). Some 21.2% were hepatitis B virus–positive and 26% were hepatitis C virus–positive.
Additional findings showed that median time to response with pembrolizumab was 2.1 months, corresponding to the timing of the first planned response assessment, Dr. Zhu said at the symposium, which was sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
The disease control rate was 61.5%. Waterfall plots showed a similar pattern of responses regardless of whether patients had hepatitis B virus infection, hepatitis C virus infection, or no hepatitis virus infection.
The rate of grade 3 or worse adverse events was 25%; the rate of events leading to discontinuation was just 6.7%, and the rate of events leading to death was 1.0%, reported Dr. Zhu. The most common events of any grade were pruritus (21.2%) and fatigue (12.5%).
In terms of hepatic-related events, 2.9% of patients developed immune-mediated hepatitis on pembrolizumab, but none experienced a viral flare.
Dr. Zhu disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Merck. The trial was sponsored by Merck.
SOURCE: Zhu AX et al. GI Cancers Symposium Abstract 209
SAN FRANCISCO – The immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab is active and well tolerated when used as second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, according to results of the KEYNOTE-224 trial.
The 104 patients treated on the single-arm, open-label phase 2 trial had advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar), the standard of care for first-line therapy. All received monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), an anti–programmed death 1 antibody.
A quarter of patients experienced grade 3 or worse treatment–related adverse events, but only about 7% stopped treatment because of such events.
“Pembrolizumab treatment demonstrated efficacy in advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib as evidenced by durable responses and promising progression-free and overall survival,” said Andrew X. Zhu, MD, PhD, director of liver cancer research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “The safety profile was generally comparable to what has been established for pembrolizumab monotherapy in other indications, and no viral flares were seen in this cohort.”
The investigators are analyzing data for biomarkers such as programmed death ligand 1, alpha-fetoprotein, and microsatellite instability, to identify predictors of benefit, he added. In addition, a phase 3 randomized trial evaluating pembrolizumab versus placebo as second-line therapy in this population (KEYNOTE-240) is under way.
Session cochair Shishir K. Maithel, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta wondered whether the findings are robust enough to justify use of immune checkpoint inhibitors earlier in the course of HCC today.
“Do we have to wait for the trials that look at immunotherapy in the first-line setting before we start using immunotherapy in the first-line setting?” he asked. “I’ve spoken with many people, and it seems like, based on these data in the second line, people have actually moved immunotherapy to the first line, given the relatively modest responses to sorafenib.”
“It’s fair to say the ongoing first-line trial is needed to definitively demonstrate whether there is an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Zhu replied. “As of now, nivolumab [Opdivo] is approved in the second-line setting. If you are really evidence based, we still have to follow the guideline. But having said that, in selected settings, it’s up to the treating physician’s consideration and mutual agreement and discussion with the patient. I think decisions will be made regardless of what you say or I say.”
Patients treated in the KEYNOTE-224 trial, sponsored by Merck, had stopped sorafenib because of progression (80%) or intolerance (20%). Some 21.2% were hepatitis B virus–positive and 26% were hepatitis C virus–positive.
Additional findings showed that median time to response with pembrolizumab was 2.1 months, corresponding to the timing of the first planned response assessment, Dr. Zhu said at the symposium, which was sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
The disease control rate was 61.5%. Waterfall plots showed a similar pattern of responses regardless of whether patients had hepatitis B virus infection, hepatitis C virus infection, or no hepatitis virus infection.
The rate of grade 3 or worse adverse events was 25%; the rate of events leading to discontinuation was just 6.7%, and the rate of events leading to death was 1.0%, reported Dr. Zhu. The most common events of any grade were pruritus (21.2%) and fatigue (12.5%).
In terms of hepatic-related events, 2.9% of patients developed immune-mediated hepatitis on pembrolizumab, but none experienced a viral flare.
Dr. Zhu disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Merck. The trial was sponsored by Merck.
SOURCE: Zhu AX et al. GI Cancers Symposium Abstract 209
SAN FRANCISCO – The immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab is active and well tolerated when used as second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, according to results of the KEYNOTE-224 trial.
The 104 patients treated on the single-arm, open-label phase 2 trial had advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar), the standard of care for first-line therapy. All received monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), an anti–programmed death 1 antibody.
A quarter of patients experienced grade 3 or worse treatment–related adverse events, but only about 7% stopped treatment because of such events.
“Pembrolizumab treatment demonstrated efficacy in advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib as evidenced by durable responses and promising progression-free and overall survival,” said Andrew X. Zhu, MD, PhD, director of liver cancer research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “The safety profile was generally comparable to what has been established for pembrolizumab monotherapy in other indications, and no viral flares were seen in this cohort.”
The investigators are analyzing data for biomarkers such as programmed death ligand 1, alpha-fetoprotein, and microsatellite instability, to identify predictors of benefit, he added. In addition, a phase 3 randomized trial evaluating pembrolizumab versus placebo as second-line therapy in this population (KEYNOTE-240) is under way.
Session cochair Shishir K. Maithel, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta wondered whether the findings are robust enough to justify use of immune checkpoint inhibitors earlier in the course of HCC today.
“Do we have to wait for the trials that look at immunotherapy in the first-line setting before we start using immunotherapy in the first-line setting?” he asked. “I’ve spoken with many people, and it seems like, based on these data in the second line, people have actually moved immunotherapy to the first line, given the relatively modest responses to sorafenib.”
“It’s fair to say the ongoing first-line trial is needed to definitively demonstrate whether there is an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Zhu replied. “As of now, nivolumab [Opdivo] is approved in the second-line setting. If you are really evidence based, we still have to follow the guideline. But having said that, in selected settings, it’s up to the treating physician’s consideration and mutual agreement and discussion with the patient. I think decisions will be made regardless of what you say or I say.”
Patients treated in the KEYNOTE-224 trial, sponsored by Merck, had stopped sorafenib because of progression (80%) or intolerance (20%). Some 21.2% were hepatitis B virus–positive and 26% were hepatitis C virus–positive.
Additional findings showed that median time to response with pembrolizumab was 2.1 months, corresponding to the timing of the first planned response assessment, Dr. Zhu said at the symposium, which was sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
The disease control rate was 61.5%. Waterfall plots showed a similar pattern of responses regardless of whether patients had hepatitis B virus infection, hepatitis C virus infection, or no hepatitis virus infection.
The rate of grade 3 or worse adverse events was 25%; the rate of events leading to discontinuation was just 6.7%, and the rate of events leading to death was 1.0%, reported Dr. Zhu. The most common events of any grade were pruritus (21.2%) and fatigue (12.5%).
In terms of hepatic-related events, 2.9% of patients developed immune-mediated hepatitis on pembrolizumab, but none experienced a viral flare.
Dr. Zhu disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Merck. The trial was sponsored by Merck.
SOURCE: Zhu AX et al. GI Cancers Symposium Abstract 209
REPORTING FROM THE 2018 GI CANCERS SYMPOSIUM
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The overall response rate with pembrolizumab was 16.3%, and median duration of response was 8.2 months.
Data source: A single-arm phase 2 trial among 104 patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib (KEYNOTE-224).
Disclosures: Dr. Zhu disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Merck. The trial was sponsored by Merck.
Source: Zhu AX et al. GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 209
MDedge Daily News: Are STEMI success rates slowing?
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Are STEMI success rates slowing? Will TAVR replace SAVR in low-risk aortic valve replacement? The key role alcohol and opioids play in suicides, and why your psoriasis patients need to meet a real PEST.
Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Are STEMI success rates slowing? Will TAVR replace SAVR in low-risk aortic valve replacement? The key role alcohol and opioids play in suicides, and why your psoriasis patients need to meet a real PEST.
Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Are STEMI success rates slowing? Will TAVR replace SAVR in low-risk aortic valve replacement? The key role alcohol and opioids play in suicides, and why your psoriasis patients need to meet a real PEST.
Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.
Meningococcal Arthritis Masking as Possible Myeloma
For a group of clinicians in Australia, the diagnosis of meningococcal arthritis was “straightforward” except for abnormal serum total protein, anemia, and immunoglobulin results, which suggested their patient might have a hematological disorder such as myeloma.
The patient came to the hospital after 4 days of worsening knee and arm pain so severe he could not stand. His knees and both wrists showed swelling but no palpable lymphadenopathy or hepatosplenomegaly. The patient’s medical history showed he was taking no regular medications.
Joint aspiration grew Neisseria meningitidis. The patient’s blood tests showed hemoglobin 126 g/dL, white blood cell count 15.3 x 109/L, an unusually high total protein level (100 g/L), and an IgM kappa paraprotein band of 45 g/L on protein electrophoresis. A computed tomography scan showed widespread lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and multilevel thoracic vertebral collapse. A bone marrow biopsy showed evidence of a lymphocytic infiltrate, with lymphoplasmacytoid differentiation.
The histology best fitted a diagnosis of nodal marginal zone lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation, the clinicians say. Having ruled out other possibilities, they settled on non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Initially, the suspicion was that the patient had septic arthritis due to Staphylococcus aureus (the most common organism isolated in septic arthritis), and he was given piperacillin/tazobactam. That was changed to flucloxacillin and then to ceftriaxone after the result of N meningitidis. The patient also was treated with rituximab and bendamustine for the lymphoma with a complete remission.
Meningococcal infection presenting as septic arthritis in the case of invasive meningococcemia is rare, the clinicians say, but primary meningococcal arthritis is even rarer. The case highlights the important aspect that “diagnosis of one condition can lead to diagnosis of another”—in this case, the lymphoma-weakened immune system led to the symptoms of polyarthropathy and the diagnosis of primary meningococcal arthritis. The clinicians also cited a case of a patient who presented with meningococcal meningitis and arthritis who was found to have an underlying Waldenström disease, and a patient whose HIV was diagnosed again after the patient presented with meningococcal arthritis symptoms.
The clinicans say such cases underscore the importance of screening for an underlying impaired immune response in patients presenting with rare conditions such as meningococcal arthritis.
For a group of clinicians in Australia, the diagnosis of meningococcal arthritis was “straightforward” except for abnormal serum total protein, anemia, and immunoglobulin results, which suggested their patient might have a hematological disorder such as myeloma.
The patient came to the hospital after 4 days of worsening knee and arm pain so severe he could not stand. His knees and both wrists showed swelling but no palpable lymphadenopathy or hepatosplenomegaly. The patient’s medical history showed he was taking no regular medications.
Joint aspiration grew Neisseria meningitidis. The patient’s blood tests showed hemoglobin 126 g/dL, white blood cell count 15.3 x 109/L, an unusually high total protein level (100 g/L), and an IgM kappa paraprotein band of 45 g/L on protein electrophoresis. A computed tomography scan showed widespread lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and multilevel thoracic vertebral collapse. A bone marrow biopsy showed evidence of a lymphocytic infiltrate, with lymphoplasmacytoid differentiation.
The histology best fitted a diagnosis of nodal marginal zone lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation, the clinicians say. Having ruled out other possibilities, they settled on non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Initially, the suspicion was that the patient had septic arthritis due to Staphylococcus aureus (the most common organism isolated in septic arthritis), and he was given piperacillin/tazobactam. That was changed to flucloxacillin and then to ceftriaxone after the result of N meningitidis. The patient also was treated with rituximab and bendamustine for the lymphoma with a complete remission.
Meningococcal infection presenting as septic arthritis in the case of invasive meningococcemia is rare, the clinicians say, but primary meningococcal arthritis is even rarer. The case highlights the important aspect that “diagnosis of one condition can lead to diagnosis of another”—in this case, the lymphoma-weakened immune system led to the symptoms of polyarthropathy and the diagnosis of primary meningococcal arthritis. The clinicians also cited a case of a patient who presented with meningococcal meningitis and arthritis who was found to have an underlying Waldenström disease, and a patient whose HIV was diagnosed again after the patient presented with meningococcal arthritis symptoms.
The clinicans say such cases underscore the importance of screening for an underlying impaired immune response in patients presenting with rare conditions such as meningococcal arthritis.
For a group of clinicians in Australia, the diagnosis of meningococcal arthritis was “straightforward” except for abnormal serum total protein, anemia, and immunoglobulin results, which suggested their patient might have a hematological disorder such as myeloma.
The patient came to the hospital after 4 days of worsening knee and arm pain so severe he could not stand. His knees and both wrists showed swelling but no palpable lymphadenopathy or hepatosplenomegaly. The patient’s medical history showed he was taking no regular medications.
Joint aspiration grew Neisseria meningitidis. The patient’s blood tests showed hemoglobin 126 g/dL, white blood cell count 15.3 x 109/L, an unusually high total protein level (100 g/L), and an IgM kappa paraprotein band of 45 g/L on protein electrophoresis. A computed tomography scan showed widespread lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and multilevel thoracic vertebral collapse. A bone marrow biopsy showed evidence of a lymphocytic infiltrate, with lymphoplasmacytoid differentiation.
The histology best fitted a diagnosis of nodal marginal zone lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation, the clinicians say. Having ruled out other possibilities, they settled on non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Initially, the suspicion was that the patient had septic arthritis due to Staphylococcus aureus (the most common organism isolated in septic arthritis), and he was given piperacillin/tazobactam. That was changed to flucloxacillin and then to ceftriaxone after the result of N meningitidis. The patient also was treated with rituximab and bendamustine for the lymphoma with a complete remission.
Meningococcal infection presenting as septic arthritis in the case of invasive meningococcemia is rare, the clinicians say, but primary meningococcal arthritis is even rarer. The case highlights the important aspect that “diagnosis of one condition can lead to diagnosis of another”—in this case, the lymphoma-weakened immune system led to the symptoms of polyarthropathy and the diagnosis of primary meningococcal arthritis. The clinicians also cited a case of a patient who presented with meningococcal meningitis and arthritis who was found to have an underlying Waldenström disease, and a patient whose HIV was diagnosed again after the patient presented with meningococcal arthritis symptoms.
The clinicans say such cases underscore the importance of screening for an underlying impaired immune response in patients presenting with rare conditions such as meningococcal arthritis.
Why Fruit Flies (and People) Sleep Differently
Why do some people need more—or less—sleep than others do? Scientists from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute say they have identified a group of genes that might help answer that question.
Using 13 generations of fruit flies bred to be long sleepers (18 hours a day) or short sleepers (3 hours a day), the researchers compared genetic data and identified 126 differences among 80 genes that seem to be associated with sleep duration. According to the researchers, the genetic differences were tied to several important developmental and cell signaling pathways, and some had known functions in brain development, learning, and memory.
The lifespans of the 2 groups of long and short sleepers did not differ from those of the flies with normal sleeping patterns. That suggests, the researchers say, that there are few physiologic consequences of being an extremely long or short sleeper.
The study is “an important step toward solving one of the biggest mysteries in biology: the need to sleep,” says study leader Susan Harbison, PhD. “The involvement of highly diverse biologic processes in sleep duration may help explain why the purpose of sleep has been so elusive.”
Why do some people need more—or less—sleep than others do? Scientists from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute say they have identified a group of genes that might help answer that question.
Using 13 generations of fruit flies bred to be long sleepers (18 hours a day) or short sleepers (3 hours a day), the researchers compared genetic data and identified 126 differences among 80 genes that seem to be associated with sleep duration. According to the researchers, the genetic differences were tied to several important developmental and cell signaling pathways, and some had known functions in brain development, learning, and memory.
The lifespans of the 2 groups of long and short sleepers did not differ from those of the flies with normal sleeping patterns. That suggests, the researchers say, that there are few physiologic consequences of being an extremely long or short sleeper.
The study is “an important step toward solving one of the biggest mysteries in biology: the need to sleep,” says study leader Susan Harbison, PhD. “The involvement of highly diverse biologic processes in sleep duration may help explain why the purpose of sleep has been so elusive.”
Why do some people need more—or less—sleep than others do? Scientists from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute say they have identified a group of genes that might help answer that question.
Using 13 generations of fruit flies bred to be long sleepers (18 hours a day) or short sleepers (3 hours a day), the researchers compared genetic data and identified 126 differences among 80 genes that seem to be associated with sleep duration. According to the researchers, the genetic differences were tied to several important developmental and cell signaling pathways, and some had known functions in brain development, learning, and memory.
The lifespans of the 2 groups of long and short sleepers did not differ from those of the flies with normal sleeping patterns. That suggests, the researchers say, that there are few physiologic consequences of being an extremely long or short sleeper.
The study is “an important step toward solving one of the biggest mysteries in biology: the need to sleep,” says study leader Susan Harbison, PhD. “The involvement of highly diverse biologic processes in sleep duration may help explain why the purpose of sleep has been so elusive.”