Macular buckle without vitrectomy for myopic macular schisis: a Canadian case series

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of a macular buckle procedure without vitrectomy for the treatment of symptomatic myopic macular schisis.

Functional outcomes and complications after treatment of distal radius fracture in patients sixty years and over: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AimThis network meta-analysis aims to compare functional outcomes and complications between conservative treatment and surgery for distal radius fractures in patients aged 60 years and over.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of conservative treatment and surgery for distal radius fractures in patients aged 60 years and over. Primary outcomes included grip strength and overall complications. Secondary outcomes included Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores, Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) scores, wrist range of motion and forearm rotation, and radiographic assessment. All continuous outcomes were assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and binary outcomes were assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to determine a hierarchy of treatments. Cluster analysis was performed for grouping treatments based on the SUCRA values of primary outcomes.ResultsFourteen RCTs were included to compare conservative treatment, volar lockedplate (VLP), K-wires fixation, and external-fixation. VLP outperformed conservative treatment for 1-year and minimum 2-year grip strength (SMD; 0.28 [0.07 to 0.48] and 0.27 [0.02 to 0.53], respectively). VLP yielded the optimal grip strength at 1-year and minimum 2-year follow-up (SUCRA; 89.8% and 86.7%, respectively). In a subgroup analysis of patients aged 60 to 80 years old, VLP outperformed conservative treatment in DASH and PRWE scores (SMD, 0.33 [0.10, 0.56] and 0.23 [0.01, 0.45], respectively). In addition, VLP had the fewest complications (SUCRA = 84.3%). Cluster analysis suggested that VLP and K-wire fixation were more effective treatment groups.ConclusionEvidence to date demonstrates that VLP provides measurable benefits in grip strength and fewer complications to those 60 years of age and over, and that benefit is not reflected in current practice guidelines. There is a subgroup of patients where K-wire fixation outcomes are similar to those of VLP; defining this subgroup may yield substantial societal benefits.     

A retrospective analysis comparing set up errors from standard versus customised headrests for head and neck radiotherapy

IntroductionIn response to advice from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ⁽¹⁾ to reduce hospital visits during COVID-19, standard headrests were introduced for head and neck radiotherapy within Northern Centre for Cancer Care (NCCC). The standard headrest requires one mould room appointment compared to 3 appointments with customised headrests.MethodsTwo groups of 10 patients treated between December 2019 and June 2020 were retrospectively analysed by 1 observer. Groups were stratified according to age, sex and tumour site. One group had customised headrest and the other had standard headrest. Five hundred and forty seven cone beam computed tomography images were reviewed. A 6 Degree of Freedom match was performed then chin, shoulder and spine position were assessed using dosimetrist drawn structures. Structures out of the tolerance were recorded. A chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsThe out of tolerance chin position count recorded was 21 for customised headrest and 36 for standard headrest, p-value 0.046. The shoulder position count was 13 for customised headrest and 77 for standard headrest p-value <0.001. The spine position count was 3 for CHR and 21 for standard headrest, p-value <0.001. This means the headrests compared are not equivalent in terms of set up reproducibility. Overall the standard headrest group had 10 set-up re-scans and no set up re-scans were recorded in the customised headrest group.ConclusionFewer hospital visits with SHR reduce patient exposure to COVID-19. However, CHR provided a more reliable level of immobilisation in this study.Implications for practiceThe radiotherapy service will be reviewed in line with these findings.     

Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

The management of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has been significantly modified by the availability of innovative but expensive treatments, increasing the economic burden of prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to systematically identify and review published economic evaluations (EEs) related to the treatment of mHSPC and assess their quality. A systematic search was performed of the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Three reviewers independently selected EEs by defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. They extracted all data from each EE (general information, study population, data about the EE, interventions and comparators, and outcomes). They also assessed the quality of the selected EEs according to Drummond's checklist. Fourteen EEs published between 2016 and 2021 were eligible for the systematic review. The EEs found ADT + docetaxel to be the most cost-effective of all available treatments as a first-line strategy for mHSPC (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide). Five EEs showed that a simple price reduction of abiraterone acetate of 50% to 75% could change the results to render this treatment also cost-effective relative to that with docetaxel. Twelve EEs were of high quality, with a Drummond score ≥ 7. Analysis of the 14 EEs identified by our systematic review, amongst which 78.6% met high quality standards, showed that ADT + docetaxel tends to be the most cost-effective alternative for mHSPC. These results were assessed by sensitivity analysis. The data provided by this systematic review help to provide a better understanding of these treatments and the better use of healthcare resources.