RESUMEN
Melanaphis sorghi (Hemiptera: Aphididae), are an economically important pest to sorghum in the Americas. Previous studies have found that a super-clone that belongs to multilocus lineage (MLL)-F predominated in the U.S. from 2013 to 2018 and uses multiple hosts besides sorghum. In contrast, previous studies found that aphids in South America belong to MLL-C, but these studies only examined aphids collected from sugarcane. In this study we sought to determine if the superclone persisted in the U.S. in 2019-2020 and to determine the MLL of aphids found on sorghum in the largest country in South America, Brazil. Melanaphis spp. samples (121) were collected from the U.S. in 2019-2020 and Brazil in 2020 and were genotyped with 8-9 Melanaphis spp. microsatellite markers. Genotyping results showed that all samples from the U.S. in 2019 and Brazil in 2020 had alleles identical to the predominant superclone. Of the 52 samples collected in the U.S. in 2020, 50 samples were identical to the predominant super-clone (multilocus lineage-F; M. sorghi), while two samples from Texas differed from the super-clone by a single allele. The results demonstrated that the super-clone remains in the U.S. on sorghum, Johnsongrass, and giant miscanthus and is also present on sorghum within Brazil.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Subject matter experts were invited to participate as the expert panel. Best practice statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" after a series of statements during several rounds until either consensus could be obtained or the practice method was deemed unable to achieve consensus. OBJECTIVE: Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is acknowledged as an alternative to spinal fusion in appropriately selected patients. There is a lack of unanimity on the appropriate postoperative patient protocols and rehabilitation expectations for the procedure. The long-term viability of Lumbar TDR, further adoption in the community setting and specific patient outcomes are contingent on the existence of appropriate postoperative recovery programs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Currently there are no established methods for postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Establishing a postoperative clinical pathway algorithm may improve patient outcomes with respect to lumbar TDR. METHOD: A lumbar TDR expert panel of 22 spine surgeons employed a modified Delphi method to drive consensus on postoperative care following single-level Lumbar TDR. The panel first reviewed literature and guidelines relevant to postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Panel members considered 21 survey questions intended to determine "standard-practice" postoperative care recommendations for patients who have undergone lumbar TDR for the initial recovery phase (0-4 wk) and rehabilitation (4-20 wk). Each panel member participated in a round of anonymous voting followed by a group discussion. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement or higher among the respondents. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved in 11 of the 21 survey questions. There was a high degree of consensus around the key goals for both the initial recovery and rehabilitation phases, ceased use of narcotics for pain management by 4 weeks postoperative, unrestricted walking immediately following surgery, timelines for physical therapy (within 2-4 wk) and return to work based on level of activity (as early as 1 wk postoperative). Lack of agreement included the use of back bracing and timing of postoperative visits. Generally, panel members felt that patient expectations regarding return to function were different following lumbar TDR versus fusion and warrant further study. CONCLUSION: Surgeon and patient alignment around postoperative expectations may significantly affect the long-term results of lumbar TDR. This surgeon consensus study found agreement for immediate postoperative ambulation, rapid reduction in opioids within the first month, and early return to work. When expectations are appropriately set with patients preoperatively, both provider and patient have shared goals in the return-to-function process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Planificación de Atención al Paciente , Cuidados Posoperatorios , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/rehabilitación , Algoritmos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Consenso , Vías Clínicas , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Aparatos Ortopédicos , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Reinserción al Trabajo , CaminataRESUMEN
To enhance our ability to monitor poliovirus circulation and certify eradication, we evaluated the performance of the bag-mediated filtration system (BMFS) against the two-phase separation (TPS) method for concentrating wastewater samples for poliovirus detection. Sequential samples were collected at two sites in Mexico; one L was collected by grab and ~ 5 L were collected and filtered in situ with the BMFS. In the laboratory, 500 mL collected by grab were concentrated using TPS and the sample contained in the filter of the BMFS was eluted without secondary concentration. Concentrates were tested for the presence of poliovirus and non-poliovirus enterovirus (NPEV) using Global Poliovirus Laboratory Network standard procedures. Between February 16, 2016, and April 18, 2017, 125 pairs of samples were obtained. Collectors spent an average (± standard deviation) of 4.3 ± 2.2 min collecting the TPS sample versus 73.5 ± 30.5 min collecting and filtering the BMFS sample. Laboratory processing required an estimated 5 h for concentration by TPS and 3.5 h for elution. Sabin 1 poliovirus was detected in 37 [30%] samples with the TPS versus 24 [19%] samples with the BMFS (McNemar's mid p value = 0.004). Sabin 3 poliovirus was detected in 59 [47%] versus 49 (39%) samples (p = 0.043), and NPEV was detected in 67 [54%] versus 40 [32%] samples (p < 0.001). The BMFS method without secondary concentration did not perform as well as the TPS method for detecting Sabin poliovirus and NPEV. Further studies are needed to guide the selection of cost-effective environmental surveillance methods for the polio endgame.