Can adjunctive perioperative radiation improve range of motion after total knee revision for arthrofibrosis?

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty revision (TKRev) can be performed to treat chronic arthrofibrosis. Low-dose irradiation may decrease fibro-osseous proliferation of soft tissue; therefore, it may be effective at increasing range of motion (ROM) after TKRev. Our hypothesis is that low-dose radiation administered in the immediate postoperative period leads to increased ROM after TKRev for arthrofibrosis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted from 2008-2015 on 26 patients who underwent TKRev for treating chronic arthrofibrosis. Fifteen patients (XRT group) received 800 cGy radiation within 48 hours after TKRev and 11 patients (CTL group) did not. Measurements of extension, flexion, and total arc of ROM were performed preoperatively and at one, six, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: ROM improved from 14.3° extension, 69.0° flexion, and 54.7° total ROM preoperatively, to 3.3° extension, 94.0° flexion, and 90.7° total ROM postoperatively in the XRT group. ROM improved from 18.6° extension, 85.9° flexion, and 67.3° total ROM preoperatively to 4.1° extension, 102.5° flexion, and 98.5° total ROM postoperatively in the CTL group. The 1-year overall improvement in extension (12.5°), flexion (21.4°), and total ROM (33.9°) vs preoperative ROM was significant for all measurements (p < 0.001). The 8.4° improvement in flexion (25.0° vs 16.6°, p = 0.10) in the XRT group vs the CTL group approached, but did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: TKRev for arthrofibrosis showed significant improvement in extension, flexion, and total ROM at one year. The use of low dose irradiation showed promise with improved flexion, but the result did not reach statistical significance in this small sample of patients.

Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy Are at Risk of Financial Toxicity: A Patient-based Prospective Survey Study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the financial burden experienced by patients receiving radiation therapy. Furthermore, currently, no financial toxicity screening tools have been validated for use in radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Physician surveys were used to gauge provider understanding of treatment costs and their willingness to adopt the use of financial toxicity screening tools. Post-treatment patient surveys were used to investigate the covariates of treatment-induced financial risk. RESULTS: Of the 210 radiation oncologists who completed our survey, 53% reported being "very concerned" with treatment-related costs negatively affecting their patients, and 80% believed that a financial toxicity screening tool would be useful in practice. An analysis of patient surveys using logistic regression found age and cancer site to be the most important variables associated with financial toxicity. Thirty-four patients (22%) experienced financial toxicity related to treatment. The financial toxicities experienced were loss of job (28%), loss of income (24%), difficulty paying their rent or mortgage (20%), difficulty paying for transportation (15%), and difficulty paying for meals (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Financial toxicity is an important measure for patients and providers and is experienced by approximately one quarter of patients. Further studies to improve models to predict financial toxicity and how financial toxicity is related to patient outcomes and quality of life are warranted.

Clinical implementation and failure mode and effects analysis of HDR skin brachytherapy using Valencia and Leipzig surface applicators.

PURPOSE: The planning procedure for Valencia and Leipzig surface applicators (VLSAs) (Nucletron, Veenendaal, The Netherlands) differs substantially from CT-based planning; the unfamiliarity could lead to significant errors. This study applies failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to high-dose-rate (HDR) skin brachytherapy using VLSAs to ensure safety and quality. METHOD: A multidisciplinary team created a protocol for HDR VLSA skin treatments and applied FMEA. Failure modes were identified and scored by severity, occurrence, and detectability. The clinical procedure was then revised to address high-scoring process nodes. RESULTS: Several key components were added to the protocol to minimize risk probability numbers. (1) Diagnosis, prescription, applicator selection, and setup are reviewed at weekly quality assurance rounds. Peer review reduces the likelihood of an inappropriate treatment regime. (2) A template for HDR skin treatments was established in the clinic's electronic medical record system to standardize treatment instructions. This reduces the chances of miscommunication between the physician and planner as well as increases the detectability of an error. (3) A screen check was implemented during the second check to increase detectability of an error. (4) To reduce error probability, the treatment plan worksheet was designed to display plan parameters in a format visually similar to the treatment console display, facilitating data entry and verification. (5) VLSAs are color coded and labeled to match the electronic medical record prescriptions, simplifying in-room selection and verification. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary planning and FMEA increased detectability and reduced error probability during VLSA HDR brachytherapy. This clinical model may be useful to institutions implementing similar procedures.