Improved Radiation Exposure Monitoring of Orthopaedic Residents After Institution of a Personalized Lead Protocol.

Radiation exposure of orthopaedic residents should be accurately monitored to monitor and mitigate risk. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a personalized lead protocol (PLP) with a radiation monitoring officer would improve radiation exposure monitoring of orthopaedic surgery residents. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of 15 orthopaedic surgery residents monitored for radiation exposure during a 2-year period (March 2017 until February 2019). During the first 12-month period (phase 1), residents were given monthly radiation dosimeter badges and instructed to attach them daily to the communal lead aprons hanging outside the operating rooms. During the second 12-month period (phase 2), a PLP (PLP group) was instituted in which residents were given lead aprons embroidered with their individual names. A radiation safety officer was appointed who placed the badges monthly on all lead aprons and collected them at the end of the month, whereas faculty ensured residents wore their personalized lead apron. Data collected included fluoroscopy use time and radiation dosimeter readings during all orthopaedic surgeries in the study period. Results: There were 1,252 orthopaedic surgeries using fluoroscopy during phase 1 in the control group and 1,269 during phase 2 in the PLP group. The total monthly fluoroscopy exposure time for all cases averaged 190 minutes during phase 1 and 169 minutes during phase 2, with no significant difference between the groups (p < 0.45). During phase 1, 73.1% of the dosimeters reported radiation exposure, whereas during phase 2, 88.7% of the dosimeters reported radiation exposure (p < 0.001). During phase 1, the average monthly resident dosimeter exposure reading was 7.26 millirems (mrem) ± 37.07, vs. 19.00 mrem ± 51.16 during phase 2, which was significantly higher (p < 0.036). Conclusions: Institution of a PLP increased the compliance and exposure readings of radiation dosimeter badges for orthopaedic surgery residents, whereas the actual monthly fluoroscopy time did not change. Teaching hospitals should consider implementing a PLP to more accurately monitor exposure. Level of Evidence: 3.

An Update on the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management of Occipital Neuralgia.

ABSTRACT: This report intends to summarize the underlying pathophysiology, relevant symptoms, appropriate diagnostic workup, necessary imaging, and medical and surgical treatments of occipital neuralgia (ON). This was done through a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed literature throughout the most relevant databases. The current understanding of ON is that it causes neuropathic pain in the distribution of the greater occipital nerve, the lesser occipital nerve, the third occipital nerve or a combination of the 3. It is currently a subset of headaches although there is some debate if ON should be its own condition. Occipital neuralgia causes chronic, sharp, stabbing pain in the upper neck, back of the head, and behind the ears that can radiate to the front of the head. Diagnosis is typically clinical and patients present with intermittent, painful episodes associated with the occipital region and the nerves described above. Most cases are unilateral pain, however bilateral pain can be present and the pain can radiate to the frontal region and face. Physical examination is the first step in management of this disease and patients may demonstrate tenderness over the greater occipital and lesser occipital nerves. Anesthetics like 1% to 2% lidocaine or 0.25% to 0.5% bupivacaine can be used to block these nerves and antiinflammatory drugs like corticosteroids can be used in combination to prevent compressive symptoms. Other treatments like botulinum toxin and radiofrequency ablation have shown promise and require more research. Surgical decompression through resection of the obliquus capitis inferior is the definitive treatment however there are significant risks associated with this procedure.

Belantamab Mafodotin to Treat Multiple Myeloma: A Comprehensive Review of Disease, Drug Efficacy and Side Effects.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematologic malignancy characterized by excessive clonal proliferation of plasma cells. The treatment of multiple myeloma presents a variety of unique challenges due to the complex molecular pathophysiology and incurable status of the disease at this time. Given that MM is the second most common blood cancer with a characteristic and unavoidable relapse/refractory state during the course of the disease, the development of new therapeutic modalities is crucial. Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf, GSK2857916) is a first-in-class therapeutic, indicated for patients who have previously attempted four other treatments, including an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a proteosome inhibitor, and an immunomodulatory agent. In November 2017, the FDA designated belamaf as a breakthrough therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. In August 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval as a monotherapy for relapsed or treatment-refractory multiple myeloma. The drug was also approved in the EU for this indication in late August 2020. Of note, belamaf is associated with the following adverse events: decreased platelets, corneal disease, decreased or blurred vision, anemia, infusion-related reactions, pyrexia, and fetal risk, among others. Further studies are necessary to evaluate efficacy in comparison to other standard treatment modalities and as future drugs in this class are developed.