Sandbergherrera8373

Superior orbital fissure syndrome (SOFS) is a rare constellation of findings consisting of ophthalmoplegia, ptosis, a fixed dilated pupil, forehead anesthesia, and loss of the corneal reflex. This syndrome, though rare, is most often encountered in trauma with individuals sustaining a facial fracture.

We present a case of a young woman who was diagnosed with SOFS after a fall in her house, hitting her face on a nightstand. Treatment consisted of high-dose i.v. steroids followed by a taper with close follow-up in the Ophthalmology clinic. We provide a brief review of SOFS, including treatment considerations and follow-up. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS? SOFS can be easily overlooked in an individual presenting to the emergency department after facial trauma with proptosis. However, a thorough examination of the eye, visual acuity, and intraocular pressure will focus the physician on SOFS rather than the need for immediate decompression via lateral canthotomy. This report describes a traumatic cause of SOFS, the pathophysiology and treatment, and summarizes existing literature.

We present a case of a young woman who was diagnosed with SOFS after a fall in her house, hitting her face on a nightstand. Treatment consisted of high-dose i.v. steroids followed by a taper with close follow-up in the Ophthalmology clinic. We provide a brief review of SOFS, including treatment considerations and follow-up. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS? SOFS can be easily overlooked in an individual presenting to the emergency department after facial trauma with proptosis. However, a thorough examination of the eye, visual acuity, and intraocular pressure will focus the physician on SOFS rather than the need for immediate decompression via lateral canthotomy. This report describes a traumatic cause of SOFS, the pathophysiology and treatment, and summarizes existing literature.The ability to identify specific HLA molecules against which a patient has alloantibodies has revolutionized assessment of immunologic compatibility. Anti-HLA antibodies are typically evaluated as reactive against well-defined serologic antigen groups. Thus, donor HLA genotyping is aimed at defining HLA at the serologic split-antigen level to avoid incompatible antigen-antibody combinations. However, anti-HLA antibodies can have reactivities not accurately described by well-defined serologic antigens. While existence of these antibodies is acknowledged, their precise impact on clinical practice is not clear. We performed a single-center review of 2 years of pre-and post-transplant anti-HLA antibody testing data combined with high-resolution HLA genotyping data for living and deceased organ donors to evaluate the clinical impact of anti-HLA antibodies with reactivities outside of commonly defined serologic antigen groups. We find approximately 15% of patients awaiting transplantation have alloantibodies with differential reactivity for HLA proteins encoded by specific alleles within a serologic antigen group. Allele-specific antibodies are associated with positive cellular crossmatches not accurately predicted by standard donor HLA genotyping and can manifest as post-transplant donor-specific antibodies. Our data highlights the importance of evaluating anti-HLA antibodies at the allele-level and provides evidence supporting utility for high-resolution HLA genotyping in solid organ transplantation.

This study was conducted to assess whether patients with incidental pulmonary nodules (IPNs) received timely follow-up care after implementation of a quality improvement (QI) initiative between radiologists and primary care providers (PCPs).

A QI study was conducted at an academic medical center for IPNs identified on chest imaging ordered by PCPs, performed between February 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, and with at least one-year follow-up. A QI initiative, RADAR (Radiology Result Alert and Development of Automated Resolution), was implemented on March 1, 2018, consisting of (1) a novel, electronic communication tool enabling radiologist-generated alerts with time frame and modality for IPN follow-up recommendations, and (2) a safety net team for centralized care coordination to ensure that communication loops were closed. A preintervention IPN cohort was generated through a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm for radiology reports paired with manual chart review. A postintervention IPN cohort was identified using alerts captured in RADAR. Inflammation inhibitor The primary outcome was percentage of IPN follow-up alerts resolved on time (defined as receiving follow-up care within the recommended time frame), comparing pre- and postintervention IPN cohorts. Secondary outcomes included agreement between PCPs and radiologists on the recommended follow-up care plan.

A total of 218 IPN alerts were assessed following exclusions 110 preintervention and 108 postintervention. IPN timely follow-up improved from 64.5% (71/110) to 84.3% (91/108) (p = 0.001). Postintervention, there was 87.0% (94/108) agreement between PCPs and radiologists on the recommended follow-up plan.

The RADAR QI initiative was associated with increased timely IPN follow-up. This safety net model may be scaled to other radiology findings and clinical care settings.

The RADAR QI initiative was associated with increased timely IPN follow-up. This safety net model may be scaled to other radiology findings and clinical care settings.Systematic review for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa, D'Amico classification risk system) with external body radiation therapy (EBRT)+brachytherapy-boost (BT-boost) or with EBRT+stereotactic body RT-boost (SBRT-boost). In March 2020, 391 English citations on PubMed matched with search terms "high risk prostate cancer boost". Respectively 9 and 48 prospective and retrospective studies were on BT-boost and 7 retrospective studies were on SBRT-boost. Two SBRT-boost trials were prospective. Only one study (ASCENDE-RT) directly compared the gold standard treatment [dose-escalation (DE)-EBRT+androgen deprivation treatment (ADT)] versus EBRT+ADT+BT-boost. Biochemical control rates at 9 years were 83% in the experimental arm versus 63% in the standard arm. Cumulative incidence of late grade 3 urinary toxicity in the experimental arm and in the standard arm was respectively 18% and 5%. Two recent studies with HR-PCa (National Cancer Database) demonstrated better overall survival with BT-boost (low dose rate LDR or high dose rate HDR) compared with DE-EBRT.