BackgroundConsiderable practice variability exists among orthopedic surgeons performing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is to understand what TKA surgical and perioperative techniques are standard among high-volume academic knee arthroplasty surgeons.MethodsA written survey with 59 questions regarding management preferences in TKA was distributed by the 2018 John N. Insall Traveling Fellows to all arthroplasty-trained attending physicians at 13 medical centers, with 45 responses recorded.ResultsSurveyed surgeons performed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (88%) and bilateral TKA (87%). Most surveyed surgeons rarely or never performed outpatient primary TKA (71%). Conventional alignment guides and cemented implants were used by 80% of respondents. Most surgeons used posterior-stabilized implants (67%), followed by cruciate-retaining (20%), ultracongruent (20%), and medial congruent or medial pivot designs (17.8%). Surveyed surgeons frequently or always resurfaced the patella (73%), used a tourniquet for the entire case (73%), and used tranexamic acid for all TKAs (91%). The most common locations for intra-articular anesthetic injection were the arthrotomy (91%), the periosteum (84%), and the medial posterior capsule (82%). Saline (62%) and dilute iodine (47%) were the most common irrigation fluids. The arthrotomy was most commonly closed with running barbed suture (60%) followed by interrupted vicryl (40%). Skin closure was predominantly with running monocryl (60%) followed by staples (29%). Anticoagulation for TKA was primarily aspirin 81 mg BID (60%).ConclusionThere was considerable variability among surgeons polled although a strong preference for more conventional and less developmental techniques prevailed. 相似文献
Background/ObjectivesPolypharmacy and multimorbidity is a threat to older people; hence, listing approaches should support physicians to optimize medication. The FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) classification of drug appropriateness for older people provides positive or negative labels: A (A-bsolutely), B (B-eneficial), C (C-areful), and D (D-on't). Based on these categories, FORTA-labeled drug lists were developed in 7 European countries or regions; the same approach was used to develop a U.S.-FORTA List reflecting the country-specific availability and usage of drugs.Design/SettingA 2-step Delphi-type approach was employed to add, remove, or relabel drugs from the listing proposal and to add or remove new indications. The proposal utilized the European (EURO)-FORTA list as template.ParticipantsEight US-based geriatricians/pharmacists served as raters. Measurements: Raters gave recommendations and comments on the list items.ResultsThe first U.S.-FORTA List contains 273 items aligned to 27 main indication groups; 30 drugs and drug groups were added, and 23 removed as being unavailable in the United States. The highest percentage of changes in FORTA labels as compared to the EURO-FORTA List occurred for sleep disorders associated with dementia (40%). In 8 indications, the labels for 11 items were different from the proposal. Thus, for the majority of the items (n = 232, 95.5%), the proposals were accepted by the US raters. Only 16 (6.6%) of the proposed items (n = 243) had to be re-evaluated in the second round as a result of inconsistent rating in the first round.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe U.S.-FORTA List addresses the appropriateness of drugs for older people in the United States reflecting country-specific availability, usage, and expert rating. As shown for the FORTA list in Europe, this listing approach is among the few that are clinically validated and improve well-being and geriatric outcomes. The U.S.-FORTA List now largely enhances the global availability of this approach. 相似文献
Introduction: Tamoxifen dominates the anti-estrogenic therapy in the early and metastatic breast cancer setting. Tamoxifen has a complex metabolism, being mainly metabolized by CYP2D6 into its 30–100 times more potent metabolite, endoxifen. Recently, a phase I study in which endoxifen as an orally z-endoxifen hydrochloride has been successfully evaluated.
Areas covered: the principal pharmacogenetic and non-genetic differences in the pharmacology of tamoxifen and endoxifen are evaluated. To this end, references from PubMed, Embase or Web of Science, among others, were reviewed As non-genetic factors, important differences and similarities such age, or adherence to tamoxifen therapy are comprehensively illustrated. Additionally, since CYP2D6 genotypes are considered the main limitation of tamoxifen, many studies have investigated the association between the worsened clinical outcomes in patients with non-functional CYP2D6 genotypes. In this review, an overview of the research on this field is presented. Also, a summary describing the literature about individualizing tamoxifen therapy with endoxifen concentrations and its limitations is listed.
Expert opinion: z-endoxifen hydrochloride is only investigated in the metastatic setting, still more research is required before its place in therapeutics is known. Similarly, monitoring tamoxifen efficacy based on endoxifen concentrations might not be overall recommended due to the limited evidence available. 相似文献