[ADI-R and ADOS and the differential diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders: Interests, limits and openings]. / L'ADI-R et l'ADOS face au diagnostic différentiel des troubles du spectre autistique : intérêts, limites et ouvertures.

INTRODUCTION: Current developments in international public health are leading qualified authorities to release clinical practice guidelines for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) assessment and diagnosis. Such documents incorporate procedures that rely on the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) which are considered to be the "gold standard" assessment measures in the evaluation of ASD. Although these tools do prove their effectiveness in the evaluation of autistic symptomatology, they nevertheless stumble whenever the situation becomes more complex and reveal differential diagnostic issues in infantile and adult autism cases. This differential diagnostic issue remains significant in the clinical practice of daily life and has strong implications for the course of therapeutic treatment. OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to underline and nuance the metrological qualities of the ADI-R and the ADOS in the differential diagnosis of autistic disorders by presenting a synthesis of recent studies, thus supporting the interest of maintaining an open debate on diagnostic practices. METHODS: Our selective review of the recent literature focuses on studies that confront the ADI-R and the ADOS - used either independently or in a combination - with various differential issues in adulthood and childhood autism in order to highlight their qualities and limits. RESULTS: The ADI-R is a semi-structured interview applied by trained examiners and applied to relatives and/or caregivers who collect developmental information about the patient's first years of life on a variety of behaviors and skills. It is therefore relatively dependent on the availability and personal bias of the interviewed third parties. Metric features highlighted by the reviewed studies straightforwardly reveal a certain effectiveness of the tool and a good discrimination of childhood disorders. At the same time, the tool's discriminatory capacity seems insufficient when applied to toddlers, very young children, and adults alike. The latter seems particularly true when it comes to differentiating between autistic and schizophrenic spectrum disorders. The ADOS is a semi-structured standardized observation assessment tool that has experienced several successive developments, such as optimizations concerning the sensitivity of its cutoffs. Many works have contributed to building such a tool with reliable and solid metric qualities which nevertheless retain important biases such as the subjectivity of the caregiver or the evaluator during the scoring process. For assessments of autistic children the tool still has a good diagnostic validity but seems to retain cases of incorrect diagnosis of ASD (false positives). In other words, disorders or developmental disabilities of some children and adolescents could not be distinguished from ASD when relying on this test alone. The ADOS Module 4, designed for the diagnosis of adolescents and adults with fluent speech, has undergone less updating. This revisited algorithm has metrological qualities useful for clinicians and remains one of the few available tools for this population. Unfortunately, its diagnostic accuracy is lower when applied to women, the elderly, people with personality disorders or higher intellectual abilities, or for the discrimination between ASD and schizophrenia. Overall, scores from these two instruments bring strong evidence of their usefulness in the diagnostic process of ASD, provided that they are used with caution and a critical clinical perspective, and only as a secondary technical support. Their use in combination is effective since they are complementary and compensate for each other's limitations. However, their globalized hegemony as "gold-standard" tools constitutes a setback insofar as it constrains the diagnosis of ASD to a set of stereotyped items. The latter in turn sets a normative model of autism that excludes other phenotypic forms, especially in the case of women and the elderly. Finally, the discrimination between autism and psychosis for children seems to remain an insoluble task even for the ADI-R/ADOS combination. CONCLUSIONS: The problematics of differential diagnosis remain critical for clinical approaches to autism. Therefore, formalizations of the diagnostic procedures must be able to remain open-minded and accompanied by a creative clinical approach, especially in the case of complex situations that are not soluble by means of conventional diagnostic tools. One possibility may lie in the deepening of the phenomenological approach to autism as an attempt to model the subjective phenomena of autistic subjects and thus operationalize elements that serve the diagnostic process. In the same way, a psychodynamic epistemology could help clinicians to go beyond the consideration of observable behaviors and scores, introducing a psychoanalytic point of view that interfaces objective behaviors with the individual's dynamic intrapsychic functioning. This project could be articulated with projective methodologies - notably the Rorschach test - which respects the needs for standardization and quantification of conventionally used diagnostic tools.

No-go decision: A newly identified adverse event in orthopaedic surgery - causes and medico-legal implications.

BACKGROUND: No-go designates a decision not to perform surgery when it becomes apparent that safety and/or feasibility requirements are not met. No-go decisions can occur at any time between patient admission to a hospital department and immediately before the first incision. The primary objective of this study was to assess the causes of no-go decisions reported as healthcare-associated adverse events (HAAEs). HYPOTHESIS: Most no-go decisions in orthopaedic surgery are related to problems with medical devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A preliminary retrospective study assessed HAAEs reported over the 1-year period from 1st October 2014 to 30th September 2015, using the risk-management tool ALARM. A prospective survey was then performed by emailing a 15-item questionnaire to the 1828 members of Orthorisq (the French orthopaedic surgeon accreditation agency). Responses were either yes/no or open. Statistical comparisons were performed, using the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to estimate p values. RESULTS: Among reported HAAEs, 5.6% were no-go decisions. Of the 101 reported no-go decisions, 43.5% and 45.2% were due to problems with managing implantable medical devices in the retrospective and prospective assessments, respectively. In over 85% of cases, surgery was cancelled or postponed. Over half the no-go decisions were associated with unnecessary anaesthesia. Checklist completion was performed in only half the cases and was not associated with no-go decisions (p>0.8). DISCUSSION: This study provides descriptive data on no-go decisions in orthopaedic surgery. Healthcare professionals use many methods to enhance patient safety by preventing adverse events or diminishing their impact. Errors in managing implantable medical devices are the leading cause of no-go decisions. The current checklist is not appropriate for managing implantable medical devices in orthopaedic surgery, in part because it does not include checking devices upon receipt. Before surgery, patients should be informed of the risk of a no-go decision, since unnecessary anaesthesia occurs in over half the cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, prospective study.

The concept of a waiting period for preoperative patient consent: Prospective study of 51 shoulder arthroscopy cases.

INTRODUCTION: The French Code of Public Health (CSP) does not explicitly require that patients should be given a certain amount of time to think about a procedure, except for cosmetic surgery, where 15 days is required (Art. L 6322-2 CSP). We hypothesized that patients require a waiting period during their decision-making process for scheduled shoulder arthroscopy procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study of 51 patients analysed the concept of a waiting period based on a 10-item questionnaire. A comparative statistical approach was used and the P values were calculated using a paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Of the 51 patients, 42 (82%) rejected the concept of a waiting period before the procedure and 37 patients (73%) did not want a mandatory waiting period imposed by law. DISCUSSION: This study looked at the decision-making process during scheduled orthopaedic surgery and differentiated between the conscious and unconscious approach corresponding to an active and passive waiting period. A waiting period does not allow patients to make a conceptually deliberative decision that conforms to the criteria defined by the French Health Authority. This study rejects the need for a mandatory waiting period imposed on surgeons and patients as it does not integrate itself into the informative model of ethical decision-making for scheduled shoulder arthroscopy. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective, observational; level of evidence IV.

[The practice of episiotomy in France 10 years after the recommendations of CNGOF: What inventory?]. / La pratique de l'épisiotomie en France 10 ans après les recommandations du CNGOF : quel état des lieux ?

Since its creation, the practice of episiotomy has evolved, being influenced by several factors. Various stances on its use were stated, until the eventual reduction of this practice, as suggested by numerous practical guides. In 2005, the National College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in France published its French Guidelines for Clinical practice in this area. Today, it seems appropriate to focus on the evolution of the use of episiotomy, ten years after the publication of these recommendations. The authors propose a literature review, browsing through all the available epidemiological data in France related to episiotomy, recording all national statistics and some local trends, as there are regional specificities. This review allows to follow the overall evolution of the practice of episiotomy in France between 1981 and 2014, and to identify territorial disparities. Finally, in the specific context of the practice of episiotomy in French gynecological and obstetrics field, the authors conclude it by considering the possible evolution of this surgical practice, as well as, the Clinical Practice Recommendations related to it.