Age Predicts Disruption of the Articular Surface of the Femoral Condyles in Knee OCD: Can We Reduce Usage of Arthroscopy and MRI?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient age could accurately identify disrupted articular cartilage overlying an osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesion of the femoral condyle in adolescents. This could have important implications for imaging and treatment decisions. METHODS: All patients from 2001 to 2014 who were arthroscopically treated for a femoral condyle OCD were included in this Institutional Review Board-approved study. Exclusion criteria were trochlear and patellar OCD lesions, idiopathic arthritis, and traumatic osteochondral injuries. Arthroscopy was performed to visualize and probe the articular surface. Arthroscopic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings were recorded as "intact" or "disrupted" cartilage. Extra-articular drilling was performed when the articular cartilage was intact. RESULTS: There were 119 patients (81 male, 68%) with 139 OCD lesions in 136 knees. The mean age at time of surgery was 13.0 years (range, 7.2 to 19.3 y). At arthroscopy, 115 knees had intact cartilage and 24 had disrupted cartilage. There was a significant difference in age between patients with intact versus disrupted cartilage at arthroscopy (12.5 vs. 15.3 y; P<0.0001). Eighty-eight OCD lesions had MRIs preoperatively, showing 69 as intact and 19 (24%) disrupted. MRI reading for cartilage status had 94% sensitivity and 97% specificity. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that age (P<0.01) and MRI status (P<0.0001) were strong predictors of cartilage status. Sixteen years was the critical age in which both sensitivity was maximized and false positive probability was minimized. Over the age of 17 years, 7 of 7 (100%) had disrupted cartilage. Age alone was 100% sensitive for children below the age of 10, and 96% sensitive below the age of 13. CONCLUSIONS: Age was a good predictor of cartilage status in both younger (<13 y) and older (≥17 y) patients in this study. For patients in the mid-range group (13 through 16 y), age alone is not an adequate predictor of cartilage status, but adding MRI increased accuracy. SIGNIFICANCE: Age can be used to stratify patients and thereby influence diagnostic and treatment strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Science and Policy to Protect Communities.

Many communities are located near multiple sources of pollution, including current and former industrial sites, major roadways, and agricultural operations. Populations in such locations are predominantly low-income, with a large percentage of minorities and non-English speakers. These communities face challenges that can affect the health of their residents, including limited access to health care, a shortage of grocery stores, poor housing quality, and a lack of parks and open spaces. Environmental exposures may interact with social stressors, thereby worsening health outcomes. Age, genetic characteristics, and preexisting health conditions increase the risk of adverse health effects from exposure to pollutants. There are existing approaches for characterizing cumulative exposures, cumulative risks, and cumulative health impacts. Although such approaches have merit, they also have significant constraints. New developments in exposure monitoring, mapping, toxicology, and epidemiology, especially when informed by community participation, have the potential to advance the science on cumulative impacts and to improve decision making.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Cumulative Environmental Health Impacts in California: Evidence From a Statewide Environmental Justice Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 1.1).

OBJECTIVES: We used an environmental justice screening tool (CalEnviroScreen 1.1) to compare the distribution of environmental hazards and vulnerable populations across California communities. METHODS: CalEnviroScreen 1.1 combines 17 indicators created from 2004 to 2013 publicly available data into a relative cumulative impact score. We compared cumulative impact scores across California zip codes on the basis of their location, urban or rural character, and racial/ethnic makeup. We used a concentration index to evaluate which indicators were most unequally distributed with respect to race/ethnicity and poverty. RESULTS: The unadjusted odds of living in one of the 10% most affected zip codes were 6.2, 5.8, 1.9, 1.8, and 1.6 times greater for Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and other or multiracial individuals, respectively, than for non-Hispanic Whites. Environmental hazards were more regressively distributed with respect to race/ethnicity than poverty, with pesticide use and toxic chemical releases being the most unequal. CONCLUSIONS: Environmental health hazards disproportionately burden communities of color in California. Efforts to reduce disparities in pollution burden can use simple screening tools to prioritize areas for action.

Nonsurgical Management of Early-onset Scoliosis.

Early-onset scoliosis is potentially fatal if left untreated. Although surgical management with growing instrumentation may be necessary, this is not a panacea and is associated with high complication rates. Recent evidence has demonstrated that nonsurgical treatment can be an effective early management strategy in delaying or even precluding the need for surgery, especially surgery with growing instrumentation. The goal of both nonsurgical and surgical management is to control or correct the spinal curve to allow appropriate pulmonary development while delaying definitive fusion until an appropriate skeletal age. Although more commonly used to delay surgery, serial cast correction using the Cotrel and Morel elongation-derotation-flexion technique may result in complete correction in patients with infantile idiopathic scoliosis and smaller curve magnitudes.

Methodological considerations in screening for cumulative environmental health impacts: lessons learned from a pilot study in California.

Polluting facilities and hazardous sites are often concentrated in low-income communities of color already facing additional stressors to their health. The influence of socioeconomic status is not considered in traditional models of risk assessment. We describe a pilot study of a screening method that considers both pollution burden and population characteristics in assessing the potential for cumulative impacts. The goal is to identify communities that warrant further attention and to thereby provide actionable guidance to decision- and policy-makers in achieving environmental justice. The method uses indicators related to five components to develop a relative cumulative impact score for use in comparing communities: exposures, public health effects, environmental effects, sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors. Here, we describe several methodological considerations in combining disparate data sources and report on the results of sensitivity analyses meant to guide future improvements in cumulative impact assessments. We discuss criteria for the selection of appropriate indicators, correlations between them, and consider data quality and the influence of choices regarding model structure. We conclude that the results of this model are largely robust to changes in model structure.

A screening method for assessing cumulative impacts.

The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Environmental Justice Action Plan calls for guidelines for evaluating "cumulative impacts." As a first step toward such guidelines, a screening methodology for assessing cumulative impacts in communities was developed. The method, presented here, is based on the working definition of cumulative impacts adopted by Cal/EPA: "Cumulative impacts means exposures, public health or environmental effects from the combined emissions and discharges in a geographic area, including environmental pollution from all sources, whether single or multi-media, routinely, accidentally, or otherwise released. Impacts will take into account sensitive populations and socio-economic factors, where applicable and to the extent data are available." The screening methodology is built on this definition as well as current scientific understanding of environmental pollution and its adverse impacts on health, including the influence of both intrinsic, biological factors and non-intrinsic socioeconomic factors in mediating the effects of pollutant exposures. It addresses disparities in the distribution of pollution and health outcomes. The methodology provides a science-based tool to screen places for relative cumulative impacts, incorporating both the pollution burden on a community- including exposures to pollutants, their public health and environmental effects- and community characteristics, specifically sensitivity and socioeconomic factors. The screening methodology provides relative rankings to distinguish more highly impacted communities from less impacted ones. It may also help identify which factors are the greatest contributors to a community's cumulative impact. It is not designed to provide quantitative estimates of community-level health impacts. A pilot screening analysis is presented here to illustrate the application of this methodology. Once guidelines are adopted, the methodology can serve as a screening tool to help Cal/EPA programs prioritize their activities and target those communities with the greatest cumulative impacts.

Perspectives on cumulative risks and impacts.

Cumulative risks and impacts have taken on different meanings in different regulatory and programmatic contexts at federal and state government levels. Traditional risk assessment methodologies, with considerable limitations, can provide a framework for the evaluation of cumulative risks from chemicals. Under an environmental justice program in California, cumulative impacts are defined to include exposures, public health effects, or environmental effects in a geographic area from the emission or discharge of environmental pollution from all sources, through all media. Furthermore, the evaluation of these effects should take into account sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors where possible and to the extent data are available. Key aspects to this potential approach include the consideration of exposures (versus risk), socioeconomic factors, the geographic or community-level assessment scale, and the inclusion of not only health effects but also environmental effects as contributors to impact. Assessments of this type extend the boundaries of the types of information that toxicologists generally provide for risk management decisions.

The transnasal esophagoscopy documentation dilemma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine radiographically the anatomic length difference between the nasal and oral aerodigestive tracts and to clarify gaps in the literature regarding standardized landmark measurements and documentation techniques in transnasal esophagoscopy, as opposed to traditional transoral esophagoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective radiographic cohort study. METHODS: Digital computerized tomography measurement techniques were used to determine the difference in length between the nasal and oral aerodigestive tracts. Using sagittal plane images from consecutive patients, the mean nares-cricoid (NC) distance, upper incisor-cricoid (IC) distance, and their mean differences were determined. Male, female, and overall distances and differences were calculated. Standard deviations, 95% confidence intervals, and 90% prediction intervals were also calculated. Mean difference data were applied to reported standard oral esophagoscopy landmark measurements to convert to standard landmark measurements from the nares. RESULTS: Overall mean NC and IC distances were 175.4 mm and 147.5 mm, respectively. For males, these mean distances were 185.5 mm and 155.0 mm, respectively. For females, these mean distances were 165.3 mm and 140.0 mm, respectively. Overall mean NC to IC difference was 27.9 mm. The mean NC to IC difference for males and females was 30.5 mm and 25.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Historically, landmark and report measurements in esophagoscopy have been measured and standardized from the upper incisor. This study demonstrates and clarifies the inherent anatomic length difference of the nasal and oral aerodigestive tracts and the resultant documentation dilemma produced by transnasal esophagoscopy techniques. These data provide easy conversion of esophagoscopy measurements reported from the incisors or nares, providing better communication between endoscopists of different disciplines and techniques.