Infections Associated with Temporary External Fixation.

Infections associated with external fixation are thought to be related to the fixator construct, the length of time a fixator is on the limb and the injury severity score (ISS). Patients who had temporary external fixation applied for lower extremity fractures were included. Charts were reviewed for prevalence of infection, loss of reduction or other external fixator modification. Other variables were length of time the fixator was applied and the length of hospitalization. Seventy-five patients with 80 fractures met our study criteria. Of 80 fractures, 23 (28.8%) were associated with infection at the fracture site. Average time to conversion from external fixation to definitive fixation was 13.23 ± 19.8 for infected fractures and 20.03 ± 17.08 (p = 0.137) for those without infection. We did not find that the length of time a fixator was applied was associated with an increased infection rate of the fracture site, the pin sites or other regions. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 29(2):73-76, 2020).

Treatment of Presbyopia in Emmetropes Using a Shape-Changing Corneal Inlay: One-Year Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report 1-year safety and efficacy clinical outcomes of a shape-changing corneal inlay for the treatment of presbyopia. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter United States Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT01373580). PARTICIPANTS: Nondominant eyes (N = 373) of emmetropic presbyopic subjects were implanted at 11 sites with the Raindrop Near Vision Inlay (ReVision Optics, Lake Forest, CA); 340 eyes underwent the 1-year follow-up visit. METHODS: The corneal inlay was implanted under a corneal flap at the center of the light-constricted pupil created with a femtosecond laser. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For subjects completing the 1-year follow-up, monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected visual acuity, refractive stability, contrast sensitivity (CS; photopic and mesopic), symptom and satisfaction questionnaire results, and adverse events. RESULTS: At 1 year in the treated eye, on average, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) improved by 5.1 lines, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) improved by 2.5 lines, and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) decreased by 1.2 lines. From 3 months through 1 year, 93% of subjects achieved UNVA of 20/25 or better, 97% achieve UIVA of 20/32 or better, and 95% achieved UDVA of 20/40 or better. Binocularly, the mean UDVA exceeded 20/20 from 3 months through 1 year. Contrast sensitivity loss occurred only at the highest spatial frequencies, with no loss binocularly. Absent or mild scores were reported in 96% of subjects for visual symptoms (glare, halos, double vision, and fluctuations in vision), in 99% for ocular symptoms (pain, light sensitivity, and discomfort), and in 95% for dryness. Adverse events were treatable and resolved. Eighteen inlays were replaced, usually soon after implantation because of decentration, but UNVA was little affected in this group thereafter. In the 11 cases requiring inlay explantations, 100% achieved a corrected distance visual acuity of 20/25 or better by 3 months after explant. CONCLUSIONS: The Raindrop Near Vision Inlay provides significant improvement in near and intermediate visual performance, with no significant change in binocular distance vision or CS. Subject satisfaction is improved significantly with minimal ocular or visual symptoms.

Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process.

BACKGROUND: Reviewing program educational efforts is an important component of postgraduate medical education program accreditation. The post-graduate review process has evolved over time to include centralized oversight based on accreditation standards. The institutional review process and the impact on participating faculty are topics not well described in the literature. METHODS: We conducted multiple Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to identify and implement areas for change to improve productivity in our institutional program review committee. We also conducted one focus group and six in-person interviews with 18 committee members to explore their perspectives on the committee's evolution. One author (MLL) reviewed the transcripts and performed the initial thematic coding with a PhD level research associate and identified and categorized themes. These themes were confirmed by all participating committee members upon review of a detailed summary. Emergent themes were triangulated with the University of Michigan Medical School's Admissions Executive Committee (AEC). RESULTS: We present an overview of adopted new practices to the educational program evaluation process at the University of Michigan Health System that includes standardization of meetings, inclusion of resident members, development of area content experts, solicitation of committed committee members, transition from paper to electronic committee materials, and focus on continuous improvement. Faculty and resident committee members identified multiple improvement areas including the ability to provide high quality reviews of training programs, personal and professional development, and improved feedback from program trainees. CONCLUSIONS: A standing committee that utilizes the expertise of a group of committed faculty members and which includes formal resident membership has significant advantages over ad hoc or other organizational structures for program evaluation committees.