OBJECTIVE: To survey the current global clinical practice of clinicians treating MOGAD.
METHOD: Neurologists worldwide with expertise in treating MOGAD participated in an online survey (February-April 2019).
RESULTS: Fifty-two responses were received (response rate 60.5%) from 86 invited experts, comprising adult (78.8%, 41/52) and paediatric (21.2%, 11/52) neurologists in 22 countries. All treat acute attacks with high dose corticosteroids. If recovery is incomplete, 71.2% (37/52) proceed next to plasma exchange (PE). 45.5% (5/11) of paediatric neurologists use IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) in preference to PE. Following an acute attack, 55.8% (29/52) of respondents typically continue corticosteroids for ≥ 3 months; though less commonly when treating children. After an index event, 60% (31/51) usually start steroid-sparing maintenance therapy (MT); after ≥ 2 attacks 92.3% (48/52) would start MT. Repeat MOG antibody status is used by 52.9% (27/51) to help decide on MT initiation. Commonly used first line MTs in adults are azathioprine (30.8%, 16/52), mycophenolate mofetil (25.0%, 13/52) and rituximab (17.3%, 9/52). In children, IVIg is the preferred first line MT (54.5%; 6/11). Treatment response is monitored by MRI (53.8%; 28/52), optical coherence tomography (23.1%; 12/52) and MOG antibody titres (36.5%; 19/52). Regardless of monitoring results, 25.0% (13/52) would not stop MT.
CONCLUSION: Current treatment of MOGAD is highly variable, indicating a need for consensus-based treatment guidelines, while awaiting definitive clinical trials.
Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.
Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L.
Results: There were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L; P = .900). Postoperative 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans showed excellent graft healing in both groups, with no significant difference between them.
Conclusion: The clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chest radiographs of patients confirmed with COVID-19 in Hospital Tawau, Sabah, Malaysia were retrospectively analyzed by two radiologists. The radiographic pattern, distribution among subgroups and evolution of the disease over time were determined.
RESULTS: Among the 82 patients studied, 65 (79.3%) were males. Mean age of our cohorts was 37 ± 15 years. Baseline chest radiographs were abnormal in 37 patients (45.1%). Over half (52.9%) of the symptomatic patients had abnormal baseline radiograph. Among the children, patients with comorbidities, and patients 60 years of age and above, the abnormal radiographs were 14.3%, 71.4% and 69.3% respectively. Ground glass opacities were the commonest abnormal radiographic feature (35.4%), were peripherally located (35.4%) with predilection for the lower zones (29.3%). Most radiographic abnormalities were multifocal (20.7%) and frequently located in the left lung (19.5%). Radiographic recovery was observed in 15 of 18 patients (83%). Computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrated greater extent of the disease than observed in radiographs of the same patient.
CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 pneumonia presented with a specific radiographic pattern in our cohort of patients, comprising of ground glass opacities in peripheral and basilar distribution, affecting a single lung field and was observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Chest radiograph is a useful adjunct screening tool, and in combination with clinical and epidemiological assessment may facilitate in early diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia.
METHODS: An exploratory review of past literatures on the usage of ultrasound technique in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult patients, and the role of other imaging techniques were undertaken for the study.
RESULTS: The gold standard for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis still remains a histopathological confirmation after appendectomy. The study further shows imaging has high diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis with low rate of negative appendectomy (<10%). Multiple reasons are identified, including the introduction of computed tomography imaging especially in those patients where ultrasound was unequivocal, more education on imaging which leads to better operator skill or improved performances of machines.
CONCLUSION: Imaging undoubtedly plays an important role in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis with ultrasound remaining the first-line method in patients referred with clinically suspected acute appendicitis. Nevertheless, those with borderline ultrasound findings or unable to visualize appendix on ultrasound with highly suspicious sign and symptoms were offered other imaging modalities such as CT scan.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the managing team balance the risk of radiation exposure, risk of delay in urgent operation and risk of perforation prior to a decision.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of peer reviewed journals was completed based on the key words, "Circumflex aorta," "Circumflex retro-esophageal aorta" and "circumflex arch" using Google scholar, Scholars Portal Journals and PubMed. The reference section for each article found was searched to obtain additional articles. Literature on the circumflex aorta was reviewed starting from the embryogenesis to the latest management strategies.
RESULTS: Right circumflex aorta is more prevalent compared to left circumflex aorta. It can occur in isolation or in association with other intracardiac lesions. Mainly presents in children, however reported in adults too. The presentation may vary from asymptomatic lesion to acute respiratory distress secondary to airway compression. Computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are important tools in delineating the vascular anatomy. Aortic uncrossing is the definitive procedure. However, the role of concomitant tracheobronchopexy is emerging. Native tissue-to-tissue anastomosis is commonly preferred, but cases of extra-anatomic grafts are reported.
CONCLUSION: Circumflex aorta is amenable to complete repair. Preoperative delineation of anatomy is important for successful surgical outcome. Division of the retro-esophageal segment is crucial in relieving the compressive symptoms. In addition, tracheobronchopexy is helpful in addressing residual tracheomalacia but this accounts for a high-risk surgery.