A 15-Year Review of Clinical Practice Patterns and Evidence-Based Medicine in Carpometacarpal Joint Arthroplasty

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472110604
Author(s):  
Nikhil D. Shah ◽  
Selcen Yuksel ◽  
Daniel C. Sasson ◽  
Aaron M. Kearney ◽  
Michael W. Neumeister ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Thrombosis Prophylaxis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
National Practice ◽  
Cmc Joint

Background: The purpose of this study was to help understand national practice patterns in carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty and how they have evolved with evidence-based recommendations over the past 15 years. Methods: The American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) started collecting practice data on primary CMC joint arthroplasty in 2006 as a portion of its continuous certification (CC) process. Data on primary CMC arthroplasty from May 2006 through December 2013 were reviewed and compared to those from January 2014 to March 2020. National practice trends observed in these data were evaluated. Comprehensive evidence-based medicine reviews published in 2008, 2011, 2013, and 2017 were reviewed alongside the CC data. Results: In all, 570 primary CMC joint arthroplasty cases were included from May 2006 to March 2020. The average age at the time of repair was 62 years and the patient population was predominantly female (79%). Most cases were done under general anesthesia (69%), and there was an increase in the use of regional anesthesia with nerve block when our 2 cohorts were compared (27% vs 37%; P = .020). A trapezium excision with flexor carpi radialis tendon ligament reconstruction was the most popular technique (72%) and an increase in the use of simple trapeziectomy was observed (6% vs 14%; P = .001). One-third of patients did not receive any form of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Conclusions: The ABPS CC data provide a databank that allows for direct observation of national practice trends and sheds light on potential avenues for improvement in patient care.

Clinical Practice Patterns and Evidence-Based Medicine in Secondary Cleft Rhinoplasty: A 14-Year Review of Maintenance of Certification Tracer Data From the American Board of Plastic Surgery

2020 ◽  
pp. 105566562097736
Author(s):  
Alex M. Rokni ◽  
Aaron M. Kearney ◽  
Keith E. Brandt ◽  
Arun K. Gosain
Keyword(s):  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Septal Cartilage ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Maintenance Of Certification ◽  
Cleft Rhinoplasty ◽  
Based Medicine

Objective: To evaluate evolving practice patterns in secondary cleft rhinoplasty. Design: Retrospective review of data submitted during Maintenance of Certification (MOC). Setting: Evaluation of MOC data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery. Participants: Tracer data for secondary cleft rhinoplasty were reviewed from August 2006 through March 2020, and the data subdivided from 20062012 and 20132020 to evaluate changes in practice patterns. Interventions: Practice patterns in tracer data were compared to those from evidence-based medicine (EBM) literature over this time period. Main Outcome Measures: Practice patterns were compared to EBM trends during the study period. Results: A total of 90 cases of secondary cleft rhinoplasty were identified. The average age at operation was 13 years (range 4-77). Cumulative data demonstrated 61% to present with nasal airway obstruction and 21% to have undergone primary nasal correction at the time of cleft lip repair; 72% of patients experienced no complications, with the most common complications being asymmetry (10%) and vertical asymmetry of alar dome position (6%). Cartilage graft was used in 68% of cases, with 32% employing septal cartilage. Change in practice patterns between 2006 to 2012 and 2013 to 2020 demonstrated increase in dorsal nasal surgery (26% vs 43%, P = .034), use of osteotomies (14% vs 38%, P = .010), septal resection and/or straightening (26% vs 48%, P = .034), and turbinate reduction (8% vs 30%, P = .007). Conclusions: These tracer data provide long-term data by which to evaluate evolving practice patterns for secondary cleft rhinoplasty. When evaluated relative to EBM literature, future research to further improve outcomes can be better directed.

Cholangiokarzinome

Praxis ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 91 (34) ◽  
pp. 1352-1356
Author(s):  
Harder ◽  
Blum
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Systemische Chemotherapie ◽  
Chirurgische Resektion ◽  
Multimodale Therapiekonzepte ◽  
Based Medicine

Cholangiokarzinome oder cholangiozelluläre Karzinome (CCC) sind seltene Tumoren des biliären Systems mit einer Inzidenz von 2–4/100000 pro Jahr. Zu ihnen zählen die perihilären Gallengangskarzinome (Klatskin-Tumore), mit ca. 60% das häufigste CCC, die peripheren (intrahepatischen) Cholangiokarzinome, das Gallenblasenkarzinom, die Karzinome der extrahepatischen Gallengänge und das periampulläre Karzinom. Zum Zeitpunkt der Diagnose ist nur bei etwa 20% eine chirurgische Resektion als einzige kurative Therapieoption möglich. Die Lebertransplantation ist wegen der hohen Rezidivrate derzeit nicht indiziert. Die Prognose von nicht resektablen Cholangiokarzinomen ist mit einer mittleren Überlebenszeit von sechs bis acht Monaten schlecht. Eine wirksame Therapie zur Verlängerung der Überlebenszeit existiert aktuell nicht. Die wichtigste Massnahme im Rahmen der «best supportive care» ist die Beseitigung der Cholestase (endoskopisch, perkutan oder chirurgisch), um einer Cholangitis oder Cholangiosepsis vorzubeugen. Durch eine systemische Chemotherapie lassen sich Ansprechraten von ca. 20% erreichen. 5-FU und Gemcitabine sind die derzeit am häufigsten eingesetzten Substanzen, die mit einer perkutanen oder endoluminalen Bestrahlung kombiniert werden können. Multimodale Therapiekonzepte können im Einzellfall erfolgreich sein, müssen jedoch erst in Evidence-Based-Medicine-gerechten Studien evaluiert werden, bevor Therapieempfehlungen für die Praxis formuliert werden können.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document