The effect of C2 screw type on perioperative outcomes and long-term stability after C2-T2 posterior cervical decompression and fusion.

PURPOSE: To determine if C2 pedicle versus pars screw type predicts change in fusion status, C2 screw loosening, cervical alignment, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after C2-T2 posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PDCF). METHODS: All adult patients who underwent C2-T2 PCDF for myelopathy or myeloradiculopathy between 2013-2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were dichotomized by C2 screw type into bilateral C2 pedicle and bilateral C2 pars screw groups. Preoperative and short- and long-term postoperative radiographic outcomes and PROMs were collected. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared patient factors, fusion status, radiographic measures, and PROMs across groups. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (76 bilateral pedicle screws, 83 bilateral pars screws). Patients in the C2 pars relative to C2 pedicle screw group were on average more likely to have bone morphogenic protein (p = 0.001) and four-millimeter diameter rods utilized intraoperatively (p = 0.033). There were no significant differences in total construct and C2-3 fusion rate, C2 screw loosening, or complication and revision rates between C2 screw groups in univariate and regression analysis. Changes in C2 tilt, C2-3 segmental lordosis, C0-2 Cobb angle, proximal junctional kyphosis, atlanto-dens interval, C1 lamina-occiput distance, C2 sagittal vertical axis, C2-7 lordosis, and PROMs at all follow-up intervals did not vary significantly by C2 screw type. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in fusion status, hardware complications, and radiographic and clinical outcomes based on C2 screw type following C2-T2 PCDF. Accordingly, intraoperative usage criteria can be flexible based on patient vertebral artery positioning and surgeon comfort level.

Race influences professional investors' financial judgments.

Of the $69.1 trillion global financial assets under management across mutual funds, hedge funds, real estate, and private equity, fewer than 1.3% are managed by women and people of color. Why is this powerful, elite industry so racially homogenous? We conducted an online experiment with actual asset allocators to determine whether there are biases in their evaluations of funds led by people of color, and, if so, how these biases manifest. We asked asset allocators to rate venture capital funds based on their evaluation of a 1-page summary of the fund's performance history, in which we manipulated the race of the managing partner (White or Black) and the strength of the fund's credentials (stronger or weaker). Asset allocators favored the White-led, racially homogenous team when credentials were stronger, but the Black-led, racially diverse team when credentials were weaker. Moreover, asset allocators' judgments of the team's competence were more strongly correlated with predictions about future performance (e.g., money raised) for racially homogenous teams than for racially diverse teams. Despite the apparent preference for racially diverse teams at weaker performance levels, asset allocators did not express a high likelihood of investing in these teams. These results suggest first that underrepresentation of people of color in the realm of investing is not only a pipeline problem, and second, that funds led by people of color might paradoxically face the most barriers to advancement after they have established themselves as strong performers.

Self-reported reasons for having difficulty reaching orgasm in men with diverse etiologies.

Background: Difficulty reaching orgasm/ejaculation during partnered sex, a primary characteristic of delayed or absent ejaculation, affects about 5% to 10% of men, but the reasons underlying this problem are poorly understood. Aim: The study sought to gain insight into possible etiologies of delayed ejaculation by assessing men's self-perceptions as to why they experience difficulty reaching orgasm. Methods: We drew 351 men reporting moderately severe to severe difficulty reaching orgasm during partnered sex from a sample of over 3000 respondents obtained through an online survey. As part of the 55-item survey, participants responded to 2 questions asking about their self-perceived reasons for having difficulty reaching orgasm and selected from a list of 14 options derived from the research literature, a series of men's focus groups, and expert opinion. The first question allowed respondents to select all the reasons that they felt contributed to the problem, the second to select only the most important reason. In addition, both men with and without comorbid erectile dysfunction were investigated and compared. Outcomes: Hierarchical ordering of men's self-pereceived reasons for having difficulty reaching orgasm, including typal reasons established through principal component analysis. Results: The major reasons for difficulty were related to anxiety/distress and lack of adequate stimulation, with relationship and other factors endorsed with lower frequency. Further exploration using principal components analysis identified 5 typal reasons, in descending order of frequency: anxiety/distress (41%), inadequate stimulation (23%), low arousal (18%), medical issues (9%), and partner issues (8%). Few differences emerged between men with and without comorbid ED other than ones related to erectile problems, such as higher level of endorsement of medical issues. Typal reasons showed correlations, albeit mostly weak, with a number of covariates, including sexual relationship satisfaction, frequency of partnered sex, and frequency of masturbation. Clinical Implications: Until supplemental medical treatments for delayed ejaculation are developed and approved, a number of men's purported reasons for difficult or absent ejaculation/orgasm-anxiety/distress, inadequate stimulation, low arousal, relationship issues-fall into areas that can be addressed in couples counseling by a trained sex therapist. Strengths and Limitations: This study is unique in scope and robust in sample size. Drawbacks include those associated with online surveys, including possible bias in sample selection, limitation to Western-based samples, and the lack of differentiation between men with lifelong and acquired difficulty. Conclusion: Men who have difficulty reaching ejaculation/orgasm identify putative reasons for their problem, ranging from anxiety/stress, inadequate stimulation, and low arousal to partner issues and medical reasons.

Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer Syndrome: CDH1 Mutations and Beyond.

IMPORTANCE: E-cadherin (CDH1) is a cancer predisposition gene mutated in families meeting clinically defined hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC). Reliable estimates of cancer risk and spectrum in germline mutation carriers are essential for management. For families without CDH1 mutations, genetic-based risk stratification has not been possible, resulting in limited clinical options. OBJECTIVES: To derive accurate estimates of gastric and breast cancer risks in CDH1 mutation carriers and determine if germline mutations in other genes are associated with HDGC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Testing for CDH1 germline mutations was performed on 183 index cases meeting clinical criteria for HDGC. Penetrance was derived from 75 mutation-positive families from within this and other cohorts, comprising 3858 probands (353 with gastric cancer and 89 with breast cancer). Germline DNA from 144 HDGC probands lacking CDH1 mutations was screened using multiplexed targeted sequencing for 55 cancer-associated genes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Accurate estimates of gastric and breast cancer risks in CDH1 mutation carriers and the relative contribution of other cancer predisposition genes in familial gastric cancers. RESULTS: Thirty-one distinct pathogenic CDH1 mutations (14 novel) were identified in 34 of 183 index cases (19%). By the age of 80 years, the cumulative incidence of gastric cancer was 70% (95% CI, 59%-80%) for males and 56% (95% CI, 44%-69%) for females, and the risk of breast cancer for females was 42% (95% CI, 23%-68%). In CDH1 mutation-negative index cases, candidate mutations were identified in 16 of 144 probands (11%), including mutations within genes of high and moderate penetrance: CTNNA1, BRCA2, STK11, SDHB, PRSS1, ATM, MSR1, and PALB2. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This is the largest reported series of CDH1 mutation carriers, providing more precise estimates of age-associated risks of gastric and breast cancer that will improve counseling of unaffected carriers. In HDGC families lacking CDH1 mutations, testing of CTNNA1 and other tumor suppressor genes should be considered. Clinically defined HDGC families can harbor mutations in genes (ie, BRCA2) with different clinical ramifications from CDH1. Therefore, we propose that HDGC syndrome may be best defined by mutations in CDH1 and closely related genes, rather than through clinical criteria that capture families with heterogeneous susceptibility profiles.