Melorheostosis: A Retrospective Clinical Analysis of 24 Patients at the Mayo Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Current understanding of the clinical features of persons with melorheostosis is restricted primarily to individual case reports and small case series. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical features of patients with melorheostosis treated at our institution from 1972 through 2010. DESIGN: Chart review. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three patients with "definite" and one patient with "probable" melorheostosis based on radiographic criteria. METHODS: The eligible study cohort was identified through the Rochester Medical Index database. Further diagnostic confirmation of patients with melorheostosis was performed by radiographic review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: We evaluated age at first visit to our institution, gender, affected body area, number of bones affected, presenting symptoms, surgical evaluation, and therapies provided. RESULTS: The average age at first evaluation at our clinic was 36.5 years (median 41.5 years, range 3-68 years). The female to male ratio was 4:1. The lower extremity was most commonly affected (66.6%), followed by upper extremity (33.3%), spine (16.6%), and head (8.3%). One-third of patients had involvement of a single bone; two-thirds had multiple bone involvement. Pain was the most common presenting concern (83.3%), followed by deformity (54.1%), limitation of movement (45.8%), numbness (37.5%), and weakness (25.0%). Most patients had a physician evaluation (87.5%); patients also underwent orthopedic surgery (45.8%), physical therapy (33.3%), and occupational therapy (12.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Melorheostosis is a rare sclerotic bone disease resulting in pain, deformity, and dysfunction. An interdisciplinary approach to care should include nonoperative and operative evaluation, as well as appropriate therapies. A prospective approach to evaluation, including imaging and physical examinations, would provide valuable longitudinal data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Inpatient rehabilitation outcomes for patients receiving left ventricular assist device.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients participating in inpatient rehabilitation program after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. DESIGN: Medical records of 94 patients who received LVADs between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2010, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, were retrospectively reviewed for demographic data, and inpatient rehabilitation functional outcomes were measured by the Functional Independence Measure scale. RESULTS: After successful implantation of LVAD, the patients were either discharged directly home from acute care (44%) or admitted to inpatient rehabilitation (56%). The patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation were older than those discharged home. They were also more medically complex and more likely to have the LVAD placed as destination therapy. At discharge, significant improvement occurred in 17 of the 18 activities evaluated by the Functional Independence Measure scale. The mean total Functional Independence Measure scale score at admission was 77.1 compared with a score of 95.2 at discharge (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of the patients who received LVAD therapy were admitted in the inpatient rehabilitation. After the implantation of LVAD and inpatient rehabilitation, significant functional improvements were observed. Further studies addressing the role of inpatient rehabilitation for LVAD patients are warranted.