Consensus statements for management of Barrett's dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a Delphi process

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is increasingly common among patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to provide consensus recommendations based on the medical literature that clinicians could use to manage patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or early-stage EA.

A low-cost solution for the restoration of femoral head centre during total hip arthroplasty

Restoration of joint centre during total hip arthroplasty is critical. While computer-aided navigation can improve accuracy during total hip arthroplasty, its expense makes it inaccessible to the majority of surgeons. This article evaluates the use, in the laboratory, of a calliper with a simple computer application to measure changes in femoral head centres during total hip arthroplasty. The computer application was designed using Microsoft Excel and used calliper measurements taken pre- and post-femoral head resection to predict the change in head centre in terms of offset and vertical height between the femoral head and newly inserted prosthesis. Its accuracy was assessed using a coordinate measuring machine to compare changes in preoperative and post-operative head centre when simulating stem insertion on 10 sawbone femurs. A femoral stem with a modular neck was used, which meant nine possible head centre configurations were available for each femur, giving 90 results. The results show that using this technique during a simulated total hip arthroplasty, it was possible to restore femoral head centre to within 6?mm for offset (mean 1.67?±?1.16?mm) and vertical height (mean 2.14?±?1.51?mm). It is intended that this low-cost technique be extended to inform the surgeon of a best-fit solution in terms of neck length and neck type for a specific prosthesis.

Impaired lung function and Health Status in Adult Survivors of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia

More infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) now survive to adulthood but little is known regarding persisting respiratory impairment. We report respiratory symptoms, lung function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult BPD survivors compared with preterm (non-BPD) and full term (FT) controls.

Respiratory symptoms (European Community Respiratory Health Survey) and HRQoL [EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)] were measured in 72 adult BPD survivors [mean(SD) study age 24.1(4.0)y; mean(SD) gestational age (GA)=27.1(2.1)wk; mean(SD) birth weight (BW)=955(256)g] cared for in the Regional Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Belfast (between 1978 and 1993) were compared with 57 non-BPD controls [mean(SD) study age 25.3(4.0)y; mean(SD) GA 31.0(2.5)wk; mean(SD) BW 1238(222)g] and 78 FT controls [mean(SD) study age 25.7(3.8)y; mean(SD) GA=39.7(1.4)wk; mean(SD) BW=3514(456)g] cared for at the same hospital. Spirometry was performed on 56 BPD, 40 non-BPD and 55 FT participants.

BPD subjects were twice as likely to report wheeze and three times more likely to use asthma medication than controls. BPD adults had significantly lower FEV1 and FEF25–75 than both the preterm non-BPD and FT controls (all p<0.01). Mean EQ-5D was 6 points lower in BPD adults compared to FT controls (p<0.05).

BPD survivors have significant respiratory and quality of life impairment persisting into adulthood.

Hip protectors to prevent hip fractures - a waste of time and money?

Abstract:
Background: An estimated 30-60% of older
adults fall every year and about 1% of falls result in a hip fracture. Hip fracture is a serious and growing problem, with a 3-10 fold rise in worldwide incidence predicted by 2050 (Gullberg, et al 1997). Hip protectors are underwear with built in protection for the greater trochanter. They are designed to prevent hip fractures by dispersing or absorbing the force of a fall. Trials
published to 2001 were broadly supportive of
the effectiveness of hip protectors, and this
was reflected in a Cochrane review in 2000.
However, earlier trials were methodologically
flawed and subsequent trials have not demonstrated effectiveness. The most recent Cochrane review describes only a marginal benefit (Parker et al, 2005).
Review and Discussion: This presentation
evaluates the current evidence for the use
of hip protectors and discusses the use of
that evidence by manufacturers, suppliers,
professional groups and guideline developers.
Interestingly, despite the limitations of the
evidence base, most advice has been broadly
supportive. Reasons for this are proposed
and discussed in the context of a critique of
evidence-based healthcare. protectors. However, the available evidence can be used in different ways and for different purposes by those with an interest in promoting
the use of hip protectors. A conservative
approach is warranted, where, if we cannot
demonstrate that hip protectors work, we
presume that they do not. This presentation will be of use to practitioners wanting to evaluate the evidence base for hip protectors (and other recommended interventions) on behalf of clients. It will also be of interest to policy makers who must assess the claims made for health care technologies as part of the decisionmaking process.
Recommended reading:
Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) Worldwide
projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos
Int. 7(5):407-13 .
Parker MJ, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD (2005) Hip
protectors for preventing hip fractures in older
people. The Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001255.pub3. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD001255.pub3.