Objective: We hypothesized that ultrasound (US)-guided technique of the supra- and infraclavicular and axillary approaches of brachial plexus block (BPB) will produce a high quality of surgical anesthesia for operations below the shoulder independently of the approach and body mass index (BMI). Intercosto-brachial and medial brachial cutaneous nerves will be blocked separately because they are not a part of the brachial plexus.
Methods: This is a prospective randomized observer-blinded study. The three approaches of the US-guided BPB without neurostimulation were compared for quality, performance time, and correlation between performance time and BMI. Intercostobrachial and medial brachial cutaneous nerve blocks were used in all patients.
Results: A total of 101 patients were randomized into three groups: SCL (supraclavicular), ICL (infra-clavicular), and AX (axillary). Seven patients were excluded due to various factors. All three groups were similar in demographic data, M:F proportion, preoperative diagnosis and type of surgery, anesthesiologists who performed the block, and surgical staff that performed the surgical intervention. The time between the end of the block performance and the start of the operation was also similar. The quality of the surgical anesthesia and discomfort during the operation were identical following comparison between groups. No direct positive correlation was observed between BMI and the block performance time. The time for the axillary block was slightly longer than the time for the supra- and infraclavicular approaches, but it had no practical clinical significance. Transient Horner syndrome was observed in three patients in the SCL group. No other adverse effects or complications were observed.
Conclusions: All three approaches can be used for US-guided BPB with similar quality of surgical anesthesia for operations of below the shoulder. A block of the intercostobrachial and medial brachial cutaneous nerves is recommended. Obesity is not a significant factor in relation to the time of US-guided BPB performance, or the quality of surgical anesthesia. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01442558.)
Over the past decade the phenomenon of cannabis as a legitimate form of treatment for pain has overwhelmed the medical community, especially in the field of pain. From a status of a schedule 1 substance having no currently accepted medical use and being considered to have high potential for abuse, its use has mushroomed to over 50,000 legal medical users per year in Israel alone. There appear to be many reasons behind this phenomenon—medical, sociological, and economical. Thus, what is cannabis? An abusive substance or a medication? Should it be incorporated into current biomedical practice, and how should it be administered? Finally, what is the evidence for the beneficial and detrimental effects of cannabis? This article reviews and discusses the current literature regarding the beneficial and the detrimental effects of medical cannabis in the treatment of pain. We further discuss the problems and challenges facing the medical community in this domain and offer a practical approach to deal with these challenges.
Background: Early thyroid cancers have excellent long-term outcomes, yet the word “cancer” draws unnecessary apprehension. This study aimed to define when the recommendations for observation and surveillance may be extended to early thyroid cancers at the population level.
Methods: Non-metastasized thyroid cancers ≤40 mm diameter were identified from the 1975–2016 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Causes of death were compared across demographic data. Disease-specific outcomes were compared to the age-adjusted healthy United States (US) population. Survival estimates were computed using Kaplan–Meier and compared using the Cox proportional hazard model. Dynamic benchmarks impacting disease-specific overall survival were determined by decision tree modeling and tested by the Cox model.
Results: Of the 28,728 thyroid cancers included in this study, 98.4% underwent some form of thyroid-specific treatment and were followed for a maximum of 10.9 years. This group had a 4.3% mortality rate at the end of follow-up (10.9 years maximum), with 13 times more deaths attributed to competing risks rather than thyroid cancer (stage T1a versus stage T1b, P=1.000; T1 versus T2, P<0.001). Among the untreated T1a or T1b tumors, the risk of disease-specific death was 21 times lower than death due to other causes. There was no significant difference between T1a and T1b tumors nor across sex. The age-adjusted risk of death for the healthy US population was higher than the population with thyroid cancer. Dynamic categorization demonstrated worsening outcomes up to 73 years, uninfluenced by sex or tumor size. For patients over 73 years of age, only tumors >26 mm impacted outcomes.
Conclusion: Based on the current data, T1a and T1b nodules have similar survival outcomes and are not significantly impacted even when left untreated. Multi-institutional prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings so that current observation and surveillance recommendations can be extended to certain T1 thyroid nodules.
Bite mark analysis plays a pivotal role in forensic investigations, by helping to identify suspects and establish links between individuals and crime scenes. However, traditional bite mark methodologies face significant challenges due to issues with reliability and subjectivity. Recent advances in microbiome analysis, which involves identifying and characterizing the microbial communities found in bite marks, have led to the emergence of a promising tool for forensic investigations. The integration of microbiome analysis with conventional DNA profiling enables more accurate interpretation of bite mark evidence in forensic investigations. This review provides an in-depth look at the integration of bite mark microbiome analysis with forensic DNA profiling. It also addresses the challenges and strategies involved in microbiome-based bite mark analysis for forensic purposes.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has remarkably challenged health care organizations and societies. A key strategy for confronting the disease implications on individuals and communities was based on harnessing multidisciplinary efforts to develop technologies for mitigating the disease spread and its deleterious clinical implications. One of the main challenging characteristics of COVID-19 is the provision of medical care to patients with a highly infective disease mandating the use of isolation measures. Such care is complicated by the need for complex critical care, dynamic treatment guidelines, and a vague knowledge regarding the disease’s pathophysiology. A second key component of this challenge was the over¬whelming surge in patient burden and the relative lack of trained staff and medical equipment which required rapid re-organization of large systems and augmenting health care efficiencies to unprecedented levels. In contrast to the risk management strategies employed to mitigate other serious threats and the billions of dollars that are invested in reducing these risks annually by governments around the world, no such preparation has been shown to be of effect during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Unmet needs were identified within the newly opened COVID-19 departments together with the urgent need for reliable information for effective decision-making at the state level.
This review article describes the early research and development response in Israel under the scope of in-hospital patient care, such as non-contact sensing of patients’ vital signs, and how it could potentially be weaved into a practical big picture at the hospital or national level using a strategic management system. At this stage, some of the described technologies are still in developmental or clinical evidence generation phases with respect to COVID-19 settings. While waiting for future publications describing the results of the ongoing evidence generation efforts, one should be aware of this trend as these emerging tools have the potential to further benefit patients as well as caregivers and health care systems beyond the scope of the current pandemic as well as confronting future surges in the number of cases.
Major improvements in medical diagnostics and treatments in Dutch hospital care during the second half of the 19th century led to a shift from a nearly exclusive focus on indigent patients to an increasing proportion of hospital beds dedicated to paying middle-class patients. To accommodate this change, three private non-sectarian hospitals for middle-class patients were established in Amsterdam between 1857 and 1902. However, the two Jewish hospitals in the Dutch capital, the Dutch Jewish Ashkenazi hospital (NIZ), and the Portuguese Jewish hospital (PIZ), initially established exclusively for poor Jews, were much slower to respond to the trend of increasing hospital care for the middle class. This study examines how these hospitals addressed the needs of both poor and middle-class patients in the first decades of the 20th century as well as the success of the Centrale Israelitische Ziekenverpleging (CIZ, Central Jewish hospital) that was established solely for middle-class Jewish patients. The report also investigates how, after the devastation of the Amsterdam Jewish community during WW2, the CIZ managed to remain and today is the only ritually observant Jewish hospital unit in the Netherlands.
Despite a preoccupation in the medical literature with developing an effective approach for breaking bad news, the sources are based on personal opinion alone and only in some instances on qualitative research. Recognizing the gravity of this topic coupled with respect for the wisdom of the written and oral Jewish scriptures, this work is an attempt to delve into the diverse ancient writings to draw conclusions regarding a recommended methodology to guide and inform this task.
It is interesting to learn that most elements related to this topic have previously been raised in various forms in the scriptures. The issues range from where, when, and how the bearer of bad news should undertake this duty, to details such as the environment, the format, the speed, and depth of the details to be disclosed. The essence of this paper is to enrich the reader using both positive and negative examples found in the Jewish heritage. Adopting these principles will hopefully provide an effective method for performing this unpleasant obligation, with the goal of limiting harmful consequences as much as possible.
Oropharyngeal cancer represents a growing proportion of head and neck malignancies. This has been associated with the increase in infection of the oropharynx by oncogenic strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has opened the door for minimally invasive surgery for HPV-related and non-HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer. Compared to traditional open surgical approaches, TORS has been shown to improve functional outcomes in speech and swallowing, while maintaining good oncologic outcomes.
The incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has markedly increased over the last three decades mostly due to human papillomavirus (HPV)-related infections. Cancers resulting from HPV infection bear a better prognosis than those that are smoking-related. Because HPV-positive patients are often younger, with lower rates of co-morbid illness and longer overall life expectancies, long-term sequelae of therapy have become an important issue. Treatment of oropharyngeal cancers has typically involved the use of radiation and chemotherapy to avoid the morbidity of open surgery which included mandibulotomy and composite resection. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is an emerging treatment option for this disease, avoiding the morbidity of open approaches while providing excellent oncologic and functional outcomes. With overall survival rate at 2 years exceeding 80%, and local failure rate of less than 3%, patients receiving TORS report relatively good health-related quality of life (QOL) scores. The aim of the current review is to provide a summary of the current literature with regard to the oncologic and functional outcomes following treatment of OPSCC with TORS.
For patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the first priority is to alert emergency services. In addition to an ECG (ideally taken during the first medical contact at the patient’s home), the key of live saving is the immediate antithrombotic therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and (unless contraindicated) an injection of unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin as an alternative anticoagulant. Dual antiplatelet therapy (ASA combined with other antiplatelet drugs, like thienopyridines) should be started as soon as possible in the ambulance or at the latest in the hospital. For clopidogrel, a loading dose of 600 mg is the standard. To avoid the risk of an unknown low or missing clopidogrel-response, prasugrel is recommended instead, administrating a loading dose of 60 mg, if no contraindication (s/p stroke or TIA) exists. When PCI is planned, the ambulance must head directly to the nearest hospital with continuous (24/7) PCI service within 90 (to 120) minutes. The maintenance dose for clopidogrel is 75 mg/d; a daily double-dose has not proven to be superior, even in “low responders”. For prasugrel, the maintenance dose is usually 10 mg/d. To avoid bleeding complications in patients ≥75 y and/or <60 kg, a prasugrel maintenance dose of 5 mg/d is recommended. The ESC guidelines recommend DAPT for 1 year after ACS – independent of the type of ACS and independent of whether any or which coronary stent has been implanted. With DAPT, the patient – and not the stent – is treated.
