NeuroDiag: Software for Automated Diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease Using Handwriting.

OBJECTIVE: A change in handwriting is an early sign of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, significant inter-person differences in handwriting make it difficult to identify pathological handwriting, especially in the early stages. This paper reports the testing of NeuroDiag, a software-based medical device, for the automated detection of PD using handwriting patterns. NeuroDiag is designed to direct the user to perform six drawing and writing tasks, and the recordings are then uploaded onto a server for analysis. Kinematic information and pen pressure of handwriting are extracted and used as baseline parameters. NeuroDiag was trained based on 26 PD patients in the early stage of the disease and 26 matching controls. METHODS: Twenty-three people with PD (PPD) in their early stage of the disease, 25 age-matched healthy controls (AMC), and 7 young healthy controls were recruited for this study. Under the supervision of a consultant neurologist or their nurse, the participants used NeuroDiag. The reports were generated in real-time and tabulated by an independent observer. RESULTS: The participants were able to use NeuroDiag without assistance. The handwriting data was successfully uploaded to the server where the report was automatically generated in real-time. There were significant differences in the writing speed between PPD and AMC (P<0.001). NeuroDiag showed 86.96% sensitivity and 76.92% specificity in differentiating PPD from those without PD. CONCLUSION: In this work, we tested the reliability of NeuroDiag in differentiating between PPD and AMC for real-time applications. The results show that NeuroDiag has the potential to be used to assist neurologists and for telehealth applications. Clinical and Translational Impact Statement - This pre-clinical study shows the feasibility of developing a community-wide screening program for Parkinson's disease using automated handwriting analysis software, NeuroDiag.

The Safety and Feasibility of Gynecologic Cancer Surgery Combined With Surgery for Pelvic Floor Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVES: Women with gynecologic cancer may also present with pelvic floor dysfunction that can have a significant effect on quality of life. Combined surgical intervention for both malignancy and pelvic floor dysfunction may improve quality of life with minimal additional risk. We sought to determine the safety, feasibility, and frequency of combined gynecologic cancer surgery and surgery for pelvic floor dysfunction. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study that utilized the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database provided through the American College of Surgeons. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients with a final diagnosis of gynecologic malignancy from 2011 to 2015. Common Procedural Terminology codes for gynecologic oncology procedures and pelvic floor dysfunction surgery were used to identify the study population. Baseline demographics and postoperative complications were abstracted from the database for these patients and compared for patients with combined surgeries versus gynecologic cancer surgeries alone. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine women underwent combined procedures compared with 25,838 women undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery alone. Patients who underwent combined procedures were older, had lower body mass index, had higher preoperative albumin and hematocrit, and lower morbidity estimates (P < 0.05). Mean operative time was longer (226.4 vs 174.4 minutes, P < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in race, ethnicity, or medical comorbidities. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications or readmissions between the 2 groups (P > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Combined gynecologic cancer and pelvic floor dysfunction procedures are feasible and can safely be performed without differences in postoperative complications in appropriately selected patients.

Trends and Complications of Vulvar Reconstruction After Vulvectomy: A Study of a Nationwide Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine complications associated with primary closure compared with reconstruction after vulvar excision and predisposing factors to these complications. METHODS: Patients undergoing vulvar excision with or without reconstruction from 2011 to 2015 were abstracted from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Common Procedural Terminology codes were used to characterize surgical procedures as vulvar excision alone or vulvar excision with reconstruction. Patient characteristics and 30-day outcomes were used to compare the 2 procedures. Descriptive and univariate statistics were performed. Adjusted odds ratios and confidence intervals were calculated using a logistic regression model to control for potential confounders. Two-sided α with P < 0.05 was designated as significant. RESULTS: A total of 2698 patients were identified; 78 (2.9%) underwent reconstruction. There were no differences in age, race, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, tobacco use, heart failure, renal failure, or functional status between the 2 groups. American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 and 4 patients and those with disseminated cancer were more likely to undergo reconstruction (both P < 0.001). On univariate analysis, reconstruction was associated with increased risk of readmission, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, urinary tract infection, transfusion, deep venous thrombosis, sepsis, septic shock, unplanned reoperation, longer hospital stay, need for skilled nursing or subacute rehab on discharge, and death within 30 days. On logistic regression analysis, disseminated cancer, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 3 and 4 and reconstruction remained significant risk factors for readmission and any postoperative complication. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing vulvar excision with reconstruction are at increased risk for readmission and postoperative complications compared with those undergoing excision alone. Careful patient selection and efforts to optimize surgical readiness are needed to improve outcomes. Long-term data could help determine if these 30-day outcomes are a reliable measure of surgical quality in vulvar surgery.