The Value of CT and MRI for Determining Thymoma in Patients With Myasthenia Gravis.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating thymoma from nonthymoma abnormalities in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). A cross-sectional study of 53 patients with MG, who had undergone surgical thymectomy, was conducted at 103 Hospital (Hanoi, Vietnam) and Cho Ray Hospital (Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam) during August 2014 and January 2017. The CT and MRI images of patients with MG were qualitatively and quantitatively (radiodensity and chemical shift ratio [CSR]) analyzed to determine and compare their ability to distinguish thymoma from nonthymoma abnormalities. Logistic regression was used to identify the association between imaging parameters (eg, CSR) and the thymoma status. The receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine the differentiating ability of CSR and radiodensity. As results, of the 53 patients with MG, 33 were with thymoma and 20 were with nonthymoma abnormalities. At qualitative assessment, MRI had significantly higher accuracy than did CT in differentiating thymoma from nonthymoma abnormalities (94.3% vs 83%). At quantitative assessment, both the radiodensity and CSR were significantly higher for thymoma compared with nonthymoma groups (P < .001). The ROC analysis showed that CSR had significantly higher sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) than radiodensity in discriminating between the 2 groups (CSR: Se 100%, Sp 95% vs radiodensity: Se 90.9%, Sp 70%). When combining both qualitative and quantitative parameters, MRI had even higher accuracy than did CT in thymoma diagnosis (P = .031). In conclusion, chemical shift MRI was more accurate than CT for differentiating thymoma from nonthymoma in patients with MG.

Long-Term Effects of Repeated Injections of Local Anesthetic With or Without Corticosteroid for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall long-term effectiveness of treatment with epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis and the effect of repeat injections, including crossover injections, on outcomes through 12 months. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine versus lidocaine alone. SETTING: Sixteen clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with imaging-confirmed lumbar central spinal stenosis (N=400). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either epidural injections with corticosteroid plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone with the option of blinded crossover after 6 weeks to receive the alternate treatment. Participants could receive 1 to 2 injections from 0 to 6 weeks and up to 2 injections from 6 to 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, participants received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (range, 0-24, where higher scores indicate greater disability) and leg pain intensity (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [pain as bad as you can imagine]). Secondary outcomes included opioid use, spine surgery, and crossover rates. RESULTS: At 12 months, both treatment groups maintained initial observed improvements, with no significant differences between groups on the RDQ (adjusted mean difference, -0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to 0.9; P=.55), leg pain (adjusted mean difference, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7; P=.75), opioid use (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 41.4% vs lidocaine alone: 36.3%; P=.41), or spine surgery (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 16.8% vs lidocaine alone: 11.8%; P=.22). Fewer participants randomized to corticosteroid plus lidocaine (30%, n=60) versus lidocaine alone (45%, n=90) crossed over after 6 weeks (P=.003). Among participants who crossed over at 6 weeks, the 6- to 12-week RDQ change did not differ between the 2 randomized treatment groups (adjusted mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.7; P=.24). In both groups, participants crossing over at 6 weeks had worse 12-month trajectories compared with participants who did not choose to crossover. CONCLUSIONS: For lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine offered no benefits from 6 weeks to 12 months beyond that of injections of lidocaine alone in terms of self-reported pain and function or reduction in use of opioids and spine surgery. In patients with improved pain and function 6 weeks after initial injection, these outcomes were maintained at 12 months. However, the trajectories of pain and function outcomes after 3 weeks did not differ by injectate type. Repeated injections of either type offered no additional long-term benefit if injections in the first 6 weeks did not improve pain.

Implementation of a Novel Electronic Health Record-Embedded Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment System.

In April 2015, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) deployed a web-based, electronic medical record-embedded application created by third party vendor Vynca Inc. to allow real-time education, and completion of Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST). Forms are automatically linked to the Epic Systems™ electronic health record (EHR) patient header and submitted to a state Registry, improving efficiency, accuracy, and rapid access to and retrieval of these important medical orders. POLST Forms, implemented in Oregon in 1992, are standardized portable medical orders used to document patient treatment goals for end-of-life care. In 2009, Oregon developed the first POLST-only statewide registry with a legislative mandate requiring POLST form signers to register the form unless the patient opts out. The Registry offers 24/7 emergency access to POLST Forms for Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Departments, and Acute Care Units. Because POLST is intended for those nearing end of life, immediate access to these forms at the time of an emergency is critical. Delays in registering a POLST Form may result in unwanted treatment if the paper form is not immediately available. An electronic POLST Form completion system (ePOLST) was implemented to support direct Registry submission. Other benefits of the system include single-sign-on, transmission of HL7 data for patient demographics and other relevant information, elimination of potential errors in form completion using internalized logic, built-in real-time video and text-based education materials for both patients and health care professionals, and mobile linkage for signature capture.

A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural glucocorticoid injections are widely used to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of pain and disability in older adults. However, rigorous data are lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of these injections. METHODS: In a double-blind, multisite trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients who had lumbar central spinal stenosis and moderate-to-severe leg pain and disability to receive epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone. The patients received one or two injections before the primary outcome evaluation, performed 6 weeks after randomization and the first injection. The primary outcomes were the score on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, in which scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater physical disability) and the rating of the intensity of leg pain (on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating "pain as bad as you can imagine"). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in the RMDQ score (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect between the glucocorticoid-lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group, -1.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.1; P=0.07) or the intensity of leg pain (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect, -0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.4; P=0.48). A prespecified secondary subgroup analysis with stratification according to type of injection (interlaminar vs. transforaminal) likewise showed no significant differences at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injection of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01238536.).

Interventions for low back pain: what does the evidence tell us.

Although interventional therapy for chronic spinal pain continues to be popular among patients and providers, the scientific evidence supporting these techniques has lagged behind their presence in the market. This article collates both classic and more recent experimental results involved in the interventional assessment and treatment of chronic spinal pain, and presents key findings for physicians. Although much of the body of evidence is either unsupportive or inconclusive, there are some definitive findings involving each technique that can help shape rational practice. As interventional pain medicine seeks to become a more validated specialty, introspection and advancing science will be key to this development.