Characteristics of medical school graduates who underwent problem-based learning.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we compared the choice of medical specialty and subspecialty interest among problem-based-learning (PBL) graduates and non-PBL graduates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to a total of 1398 female doctors who graduated from Tokyo Women's Medical University (TWMU) between 1989 and 2003. The response rate was over 30%, giving 248 respondents who had undergone a PBL curriculum (PBL+) and 220 subjects who had not (PBL-). Current specialty of the graduates were compared between the PBL+ and PBL-, and also compared with the general Japanese female doctors (Control 1 and 2) of similar age groups. Respondents were analysed in terms of their interests in subspecialty medical care or general medical practise, which includes comprehensive medical care, primary care and basic medicine. Internal medicine doctors working in the university hospitals were compared with those working outside the university hospitals. Internal medicine doctors were also compared with specialists in ophthalmology, otolaryngology, dermatology and psychiatry. Subjects were compared by odds ratio (OR) to examine group difference in the field of interest. OR >2.0 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Most doctors in all groups chose internal medicine. More PBL+ internal medicine doctors showed interests in comprehensive medical care and primary care; more PBL+ internal medicine doctors working outside university hospitals showed interest in comprehensive medical care and primary care when compared with those who were working in the university hospitals. The PBL- graduates did not show such a characteristic. CONCLUSIONS: More PBL+ graduates who chose internal medicine showed interest in holistic medical practices such as primary care and community medicine and more PBL+ specialists showed sustained interest in their respective fields.

Gamma knife surgery of the pituitary: new treatment for thalamic pain syndrome.

OBJECT: Although reports in the literature indicate that thalamic pain syndrome can be controlled with chemical hypophysectomy, this procedure is associated with transient diabetes insipidus. It was considered reasonable to attempt gamma knife surgery (GKS) to the pituitary gland to control thalamic pain. METHODS: Inclusion criteria in this study were poststroke thalamic pain, failure of all other treatments, intolerance to general anesthetic, and the main complaint of pain and not numbness. Seventeen patients met these criteria and were treated with GKS to the pituitary. The target was the pituitary gland together with the border between the pituitary stalk and the gland. The maximum dose was 140 to 180 Gy. All patients were followed for more than 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: An initial significant pain reduction was observed in 13 (76.5%) of 17 patients. Some patients experienced pain reduction within 48 hours of treatment. Persistent pain relief for more than 1 year was observed in five (38.5%) of 13 patients. Rapid recurrence of pain in fewer than 3 months was observed in four (30.8%) of 13 patients. The only complication was transient diabetes insipidus in one patient. It would seem that GKS of the pituitary might have a role to play in thalamic pain arising after a stroke.

Role of pituitary radiosurgery for the management of intractable pain and potential future applications.

RATIONALE: Two or three decades ago, cancer pain was treated by surgical/chemical hypophysectomy. In one report, the control of central pain (thalamic pain syndrome) was also approached with chemical hypophysectomy. Although in most of the patients these treatments resulted in a decrease in severe pain, concomitantly severe adverse effects (panhypopituitarism, diabetes insipidus and visual dysfunction) occurred in most patients. This historical evidence prompted us to perform Gamma Knife surgery (GKS) for this kind of intractable severe pain using a high irradiation dose to the pituitary stalk/gland. In the majority of patients, marked pain relief was achieved, surprisingly without any of the complications mentioned above. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety in patients treated in Prague, Hong Kong and Tokyo. Indications of this treatment were: (1) failure of other effective treatment approaches prior to GKS, (2) good general patient condition (Karnofsky performance status >40%), (3) response to morphine for pain control (cancer pain), and (4) no previous radiotherapy of brain metastases (GKS/conventional radiotherapy). Eight patients with severe cancer pain due to bone metastasis and 12 patients with post-stroke thalamic pain syndrome were treated with GKS. The target was the border between the pituitary stalk and gland. Maximum dose was 160 Gy for cancer pain and 140 Gy for central pain. Follow-up included 6 patients (>1 month) with cancer pain and 8 patients (> 6 months) with thalamic pain syndrome. RESULTS: All patients (6/6) with cancer pain experienced significant pain reduction, and 87.5% (7/8) of the patients with thalamic pain had initially significant pain reduction. In some patients, pain reduction was delayed for several hours. Pain relief was noted within 7 days (median 2 days). No recurrence was observed in the patients with cancer pain. However, in 71.4% (5/7) of the patients with thalamic pain syndrome, disease recurred during the 6-month follow-up. Up to now, other complications have not been observed. CONCLUSION: Our clinical study protocol is only preliminary. Further clinical results on the management of thalamic pain are required to develop this treatment protocol. However, efficacy and safety have been shown in all our cases. In our opinion, this treatment has a potential to control severe pain, and GKS will play an important role in the management of intractable pain.