Management of lunotriquetral instability: a review of the literature

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. C. van de Grift ◽  
M. J. P. F. Ritt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conservative Treatment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Ligament Injury ◽  
Soft Tissue Reconstruction ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Lunotriquetral Ligament ◽  
Lunotriquetral Instability

Lunotriquetral ligament injury is a relatively common cause of ulnar-sided wrist pain. Injury ranges from partial stable ligament tears to extensive perilunate instability. Clinical decision-making largely depends on the chronicity, instability and cause of the ligament injury. Conservative treatment is generally regarded as first choice of treatment of mild lunotriquetral instability; however, outcome studies on conservative treatment are lacking. Temporary arthroscopic pinning and/or debridement are minimally invasive procedures of preference. In the case of more dissociative injury, surgical interventions may be performed. The literature suggests that soft tissue reconstruction is an effective procedure in this group. Arthrodesis of the lunotriquetral joint is associated with high rates of non-union (up to 57%) and the indications for surgery should therefore be very clear. Methodological issues make it hard to draw firm conclusions from the data. Studies on the effectiveness of conservative management and prospective comparative studies will further improve clinical decision-making in lunotriquetral instability. Level of evidence: N/A

scholarly journals Impact of 123I-MIBG Scintigraphy on Clinical Decision-Making in Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (9) ◽  
pp. 3812-3820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dipti Rao ◽  
Anouk van Berkel ◽  
Ianthe Piscaer ◽  
William F Young ◽  
Lucinda Gruber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mibg Scintigraphy ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Context Cross-sectional imaging with CT or MRI is regarded as a first-choice modality for tumor localization in patients with pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). 123I-labeled metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) is widely used for functional imaging but the added diagnostic value is controversial. Objective To establish the virtual impact of adding 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT or MRI on diagnosis and treatment of PPGL. Design International multicenter retrospective study. Intervention None. Patients Two hundred thirty-six unilateral adrenal, 18 bilateral adrenal, 48 unifocal extra-adrenal, 12 multifocal, and 26 metastatic PPGL. Main Outcome Measures Patients underwent both anatomical imaging (CT and/or MRI) and 123I-MIBG scintigraphy. Local imaging reports were analyzed centrally by two independent observers who were blinded to the diagnosis. Imaging-based diagnoses determined by CT/MRI only, 123I-MIBG only, and CT/MRI combined with 123I-MIBG scintigraphy were compared with the correct diagnoses. Results The rates of correct imaging-based diagnoses determined by CT/MRI only versus CT/MRI plus 123I-MIBG scintigraphy were similar: 89.4 versus 88.8%, respectively (P = 0.50). Adding 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT/MRI resulted in a correct change in the imaging-based diagnosis and ensuing virtual treatment in four cases (1.2%: two metastatic instead of nonmetastatic, one multifocal instead of single, one unilateral instead of bilateral adrenal) at the cost of an incorrect change in seven cases (2.1%: four metastatic instead of nonmetastatic, two multifocal instead of unifocal and one bilateral instead of unilateral adrenal). Conclusions For the initial localization of PPGL, the addition of 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT/MRI rarely improves the diagnostic accuracy at the cost of incorrect interpretation in others, even when 123I-MIBG scintigraphy is restricted to patients who are at risk for metastatic disease. In this setting, the impact of 123I-MIBG scintigraphy on clinical decision-making appears very limited.

scholarly journals Perceptions and experiences of wrist surgeons on the management of triangular fibrocartilage complex tears: a qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 572-581
Author(s):  
Vanessa I. Robba ◽  
Alexia Karantana ◽  
Andrew P. G. Fowler ◽  
Claire Diver
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Data Saturation ◽  
Triangular Fibrocartilage

There is lack of consensus on the management of triangular fibrocartilage injuries. The aim of this study was to investigate wrist surgeons’ experiences and perceptions regarding treatment of triangular fibrocartilage complex injuries and to explore the rationale behind clinical decision-making. A purposive sample of consultant wrist surgeons ( n = 10) was recruited through ‘snow-balling’ until data saturation was reached. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently analysed data using an iterative/thematic approach. Findings suggest that surgeons rely more on their own training and experience, and patient-related factors such as individual expectations, to inform their decision-making, rather than on published material. Current classification systems are largely considered to be unhelpful. Level of evidence: V

Does the Evidence Support Use of the Baha Implant System (Baha) in Patients with Congenital Unilateral Aural Atresia?

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (04) ◽  
pp. 274-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Danhauer ◽  
Carole E. Johnson ◽  
Melissa Mixon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Patient Benefit ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Aural Atresia ◽  
Laboratory Measures

Purpose: To determine if the evidence supports the recommendation of Baha implant systems (Bahas) over unaided conditions in persons with conductive hearing loss due to congenital unilateral aural atresia (CUAA), and if laboratory measures predict patient benefit and satisfaction. Research Design: A systematic review. Methods: The authors constructed and submitted search strings to PubMed and other electronic databases to identify studies in peer-reviewed journals that were at an appropriate level of evidence (systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, or nonrandomized intervention studies); used outcome measures assessing audibility, localization, or speech-recognition in noise; included patients with CUAA using Bahas; and had intrepretable data. References of all retrieved articles were also hand searched for relevant studies. Evaluation forms were completed by the authors for each of the included studies at all phases of the review including quality assessment and data extraction. Results: The authors reviewed 88 retrieved titles and excluded four that had no relevance to the topic and 67 that were duplicates. Abstracts were reviewed for the remaining 17, and six nonrelevant studies were excluded. The remaining 11 articles were retrieved for full-text review; only three studies met inclusion criteria and were analyzed further. The three studies were not appropriate for a meta-analysis due to limited data, too few participants, and insufficient presentations of results. Qualitative analysis revealed inconsistent findings across audiometric measures, and few significant differences were noted with and without Bahas, yet most participants believed that Bahas improved their quality of life. Laboratory measures did not always predict patient benefit and satisfaction with Bahas. Conclusions: Results were limited for this narrow population having CUAA and the specific criteria used for this review. Audiologic measures generally failed to predict patients' success and/or satisfaction with their Bahas, but most of the included studies showed that patients perceived some benefits. Ideally, clinical decision making should include the highest levels of scientific evidence. However, when evidence is unavailable or does not support a clear-cut recommendation for a particular treatment across patients, as seems to be the case for the use of Bahas with CUAA, then clinicians must rely more heavily on clinical expertise and individual patient preferences in guiding clinical decision making.

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document