Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Direct insertion of an ultra‐slim upper endoscope for cholangioscopy in patients undergoing choledochoduodenostomy

Direct peroral cholangioscopy (POC) using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope is one modality of POC for intraductal endoscopic evaluation and treatment of the bile duct. Choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) is one modality of biliary bypass surgery that provides a new route to the bile duct. We carried out direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the use of accessories in 10 patients (four sump syndromes, three bile duct strictures and three intrahepatic duct stones) previously undergoing surgical CDS. Direct POC was successful in all patients. The use of an intraductal balloon catheter was required in one patient for advancement of the endoscope into the bile duct. Distal bile ducts with sump syndromes were cleared using baskets and water irrigation under direct POC. Cholangiocarcinoma was diagnosed in one patient with hilar bile duct stricture after cholangioscopic evaluation and a targeting forceps biopsy under direct POC. Intrahepatic duct stones were successfully extracted after intraductal fragmentation under direct POC. Oozing bleeding occurred during intraductal lithotripsy but stopped spontaneously. Direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the assistance of accessories can easily be carried out in patients undergoing CDS.     

Can EGFR mutation status be reliably determined in pre‐operative needle biopsies from adenocarcinomas of the lung?

The identification of EGFR mutations in non‐small‐cell lung cancer is important for selecting patients, who may benefit from treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The analysis is usually performed on cytological aspirates and/or histological needle biopsies, representing a small fraction of the tumour volume. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of this molecular test. We retrospectively included 201 patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the lung. EGFR mutation status (exon 19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutation) was evaluated on both pre‐operative biopsies (131 histological and 70 cytological) and on the surgical specimens, using PCR. Samples with low tumour cell fraction were assigned to laser micro‐dissection (LMD). We found nine (4.5%) patients with EGFR mutation in the lung tumour resections, but failed to identify mutation in one of the corresponding pre‐operative, cytological specimens. Several (18.4%) analyses of the pre‐operative biopsies were inconclusive, especially in case of biopsies undergoing LMD and regarding exon 21 analysis. Discrepancy of mutation status in one patient may reflect intra‐tumoural heterogeneity or technical issues. Moreover, several inconclusive results in the diagnostic biopsies reveal that attention must be paid on the suitability of pre‐operative biopsies for EGFR mutation analysis.