RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for return to driving after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have not been established. PURPOSE: To review the literature pertaining to driving after ACLR and provide evidence-based guidelines to aid clinicians in counseling patients about driving after ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library using the terms anterior cruciate ligament, ACL, drive, and driving. Studies reporting on functional recovery after ACLR were included when data regarding return to driving were reported. RESULTS: Five studies were included. Two studies included patients who underwent right-sided ACLR. Of these, 1 study evaluated bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft and reported that brake response time (BRT) returned to normal approximately 4 to 6 weeks postoperatively. The other study found that BRT returned to normal 3 weeks after allograft ACLR, but 6 weeks elapsed after autograft ACLR before values were not significantly different than controls. One study reported that patients who underwent left-sided hamstring tendon autograft ACLR demonstrated BRTs similar to controls within 2 weeks, while those with right-sided ACLR had significantly slower BRTs until 6 weeks postoperatively. Another study including patients who underwent either right- or left-sided ACLR and employed a manual transmission simulator found that 4 to 6 weeks should elapse after ACLR with hamstring tendon autograft. Survey data from 1 study demonstrated that the mean time for patients to resume driving was 13 and 10 days after right- and left-sided ACLR, respectively. CONCLUSION: BRT returned to normal values approximately 4 to 6 weeks after right-sided ACLR and approximately 2 to 3 weeks after left-sided ACLR. According to 1 study in this review, ACLR laterality should be disregarded for patients who drive manual transmission automobiles, as a 4- to 6-week time period was required for driving ability to reach the level of healthy controls. Future studies should aim to elucidate the influence of graft choice and transmission type on return to driving after ACLR.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The number of golfers aged ≥65 years has increased in recent years, and shoulder arthritis is prevalent in this age group. Guidelines for return to golf (RTG) after shoulder arthroplasty have not been fully established. PURPOSE: To review the data available in the current literature on RTG after shoulder arthroplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the terms "shoulder,""arthroplasty,""replacement," and "golf." The authors sought to include all studies investigating RTG after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Outcomes of interest included indications for shoulder arthroplasty, surgical technique, rehabilitation protocol, amount of time between surgery and resumption of golf activity, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included, 2 of which reported on golf performance after shoulder arthroplasty. The other 8 studies described return to sports after shoulder arthroplasty with golf-specific data for our analysis. Three studies that included patients who underwent TSA reported RTG rates ranging from 89% to 100% after mean follow-up periods of 5.1 to 8.4 months. Two studies included patients who underwent TSA and HA and reported RTG rates of 77% and 100% after mean intervals of 5.8 and 4.5 months, respectively. Two studies included patients who underwent RSA, with RTG rates of 50% and 79% after mean postoperative intervals of 5.3 and 6 months, respectively. One study included only patients undergoing HA, with an RTG rate of 54% and a mean RTG time of 6.5 months. Varying surgical procedures and baseline patient characteristics precluded our ability to draw conclusions regarding surgical technique, rehabilitation protocol, or patient-reported outcome measures among studies reporting these data. CONCLUSION: Most patients who undergo a shoulder arthroplasty procedure can expect to resume playing golf approximately 6 months after the index procedure. The rate of return may be lower after RSA and HA as compared with anatomic TSA. The data presented in our review can help physicians counsel patients who wish to continue golf participation after a shoulder arthroplasty procedure.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) often need interval surveillance, including repeat EUS, but the role of repeat FNA with fluid analysis is poorly defined. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the potential clinical significance of serial carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurements by EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in the surveillance for PCNs. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent EUS-FNA for PCNs were studied retrospectively. EUS-FNA findings were compared between index and prior procedures among patients who underwent repeat EUS-FNA. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients with PCNs underwent EUS-FNA. Eighty-seven of those patients had prior EUS-FNA with cyst fluid analysis. Patients with repeat FNA were significantly more likely to have multiple cysts (57% vs 41%; P = .008), multilocular cysts (75% vs 62%; P = .042), connection to pancreatic duct (33% vs 18%; P = .005), and higher initial CEA levels (94.8 vs 25.6 ng/mL; P = .003) compared with patients who had only a single FNA. A comparison of prior and index FNAs did not show significant differences in EUS or cyst fluid analysis findings. After log transformation, the association between CEA level at prior and index FNA was moderate (R2 = 0.626; P < .001), but cystic fluid CEA classification with a cutoff value of 192 ng/mL changed in 17 patients (20%), without significant changes in EUS findings. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat surveillance EUS-FNA resulted in stable CEA levels in the majority of patients, with spurious fluctuations of CEA in approximately 20% of patients. These data call into question any clinical significance attributed to an isolated interval rise in CEA level, especially in light of a stable EUS examination.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Few reports describe the use of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPPPD) in centers with experience using this technique. In addition, the clinical outcomes of this procedure remain undetermined. METHODS: In the current study, 100 patients with benign or malignant lesions in the pancreatic head underwent LPPPD between May 2007 and December 2011. The overall clinical outcomes and changes in these outcomes during the surgeon learning period were analyzed to assess the feasibility and safety of this procedure. RESULTS: Pathologic examination of the pancreas confirmed intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms in 37 patients, solid pseudopapillary tumors in 17 patients, neuroendocrine tumors in 15 patients, serous cystic neoplasms in seven patients, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas in seven patients, ampulla of Vater tumors and duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors in five patients, and other disease in seven patients. The median operative time was 7.9 h, which decreased with accumulating experience of the surgeon using this procedure, from 9.8 h for the first 33 cases to 6.6 h for the last 34 cases. Complications developed in 25% of the patients, including six cases (6%) with significant pancreatic fistula [International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) grade B]. The complication rate decreased from 33.3% for the first 33 cases to 17.6% for the last 34 cases. The mean hospital stay was 14 days, which also decreased from 20.4 days for the first 33 cases to 11.5 days for the last 34 cases. For the 12 patients in the study cohort with invasive malignant disease, the median tumor size was 2.8 cm, and the median number of lymph nodes harvested was 13. All the patients had margin-negative R0 resections. CONCLUSION: The LPPPD procedure is technically safe and feasible, with an acceptable rate of morbidity and other clinical outcomes for benign and malignant diseases. Clinical outcomes can be improved once a learning curve has been overcome.

Asunto(s)