scholarly journals Neuropathology in Canada: Overview of Development and Current Status

Author(s):  
Marc R. Del Bigio ◽  
Edward S. Johnson

Background:The expansion of neurosurgery and neurology in Montreal and Toronto in the early 20th century was the stimulus for the development of neuropathology in Canada. Rooted in the disciplines of the neurosciences and laboratory medicine, neuropathology evolved into an independent discipline with the founding of the Canadian Association of Neuropathologists in 1960, and the recognition as a specialty by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in Canada in 1965, fostering the development of several successful training programs. Nonetheless, a paucity of data remains concerning the background of training, scopes of practice, and career paths.Method:We conducted a survey of all physicians in Canada who have either practiced neuropathology or undergone relevant training.Results:In 2009, 53 physicians were engaged in the practice of neuropathology, either exclusively or a substantial proportion of their time. Most work in tertiary hospitals, but a few service non-academic medical centers. Three routes of training were identified: direct from medical school (often with relevant research training), indirect from another clinical neuroscience specialty, and following or in conjunction with certification in one of the other pathology specialties. Practice profiles differ slightly, and some of the neuropathologists entering from pathology have mixed anatomical pathology/neuropathology responsibilities. Many of those with prior exposure in the neurosciences are more productive with regard to research and publications.Conclusions:Existing multiple options for neuropathology training have facilitated recruitment and allowed development of a mosaic of specialists able to fulfill the diversity of needs in Canadian medical and scientific communities.

Hand ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 155894471989881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor M. Pong ◽  
Wouter F. van Leeuwen ◽  
Kamil Oflazoglu ◽  
Philip E. Blazar ◽  
Neal Chen

Background: Total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) is a treatment option for many debilitating wrist conditions. With recent improvements in implant design, indications for TWA have broadened. However, despite these improvements, there are still complications associated with TWA, such as unplanned reoperation and eventual implant removal. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors for an unplanned reoperation or implant revision after a TWA at 2 academic medical centers between 2002 and 2015. Methods: In this retrospective study, 24 consecutive TWAs were identified using CPT codes. Medical records were manually reviewed to identify demographic, patient- or disease-related, and surgery-related risk factors for reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA. Results: Forty-six percent of wrists (11 of 24 TWAs performed) had a reoperation after a median of 3.4 years, while 29% (7 of 24) underwent implant revision after a median of 5 years. Two patients had wrist surgery prior to their TWA, both eventually had their implant removed ( P = .08). There were no risk factors associated with reoperation or implant removal. Conclusion: Unplanned reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA are common. Approximately 1 in 3 wrists are likely to undergo revision surgery. We found no factors associated with reoperation or implant removal; however, prior wrist surgery showed a trend toward risk of implant removal after TWA.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer S. Myers ◽  
Anjala V. Tess ◽  
Katherine McKinney ◽  
Glenn Rosenbluth ◽  
Vineet M. Arora ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document