Orthographic Depth May Influence the Degree of Severity of Maze Learning Performance in Children at Risk for Reading Disorder.

Reading disability (RD), which affects between 5 and 17% of the population worldwide, is the most prevalent form of learning disability, and is associated with underactivation of a universal reading network in children. However, recent research suggests there are differences in learning rates on cognitive predictors of reading performance, as well as differences in activation patterns within the reading neural network, based on orthographic depth (i.e., transparent/shallow vs. deep/opaque orthographies) in children with RD. Recently, we showed that native English-speaking children with RD exhibit impaired performance on a maze learning task that taps into the same neural networks that are activated during reading. In addition, we demonstrated that genetic risk for RD strengthens the relationship between reading impairment and maze learning performance. However, it is unclear whether the results from these studies can be broadly applied to children from other language orthographies. In this study, we examined whether low reading skill was associated with poor maze learning performance in native English-speaking and native German-speaking children, and the influence of genetic risk for RD on cognition and behavior. In addition, we investigated the link between genetic risk and performance on this task in an orthographically diverse sample of children attending an English-speaking international school in Germany. The results from our data suggest that children with low reading skill, or with a genetic risk for reading impairment, exhibit impaired performance on the maze learning task, regardless of orthographic depth. However, these data also suggest that orthographic depth influences the degree of impairment on this task. The maze learning task requires the involvement of various cognitive processes and neural networks that underlie reading, but is not influenced by potential differences in reading experience due to lack of text or oral reporting. As a fully automated tool, it does not require specialized training to administer, and current results suggest it may be a practicable screening tool for early identification of reading impairment across orthographies.

Malpractice against shoulder surgeons: what the data say.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of orthopedic surgeons in the United State face medical malpractice claims annually; however, little is known regarding the common causes for litigation against shoulder surgeons. In addition, the current analysis does not take into consideration how surgical frequency affects the litigation likelihood. The purpose of our investigation was to identify the most common causes of litigation against shoulder surgeons in the United States adjusting for surgical frequency. METHODS: The VerdictSearch database was used using the search terms "medical malpractice," "shoulder," and "NOT cancer." Results were queried, and all studies pertaining to orthopedic shoulder surgery included. Data gathered included cause of lawsuit, indemnity paid, type of surgery performed, results of the cases, verdict or settlement, and, if applicable, technical error. A query of a multisurgeon institutional database was conducted to determine how frequently surgeries were performed. Then the frequency of litigation was adjusted by the procedure frequency to determine which surgery has the greatest likelihood to be litigated relative to rotator cuff surgery. RESULTS: Forty-five cases were included in our study. After adjusting for the procedure frequency, the most likely procedure to be litigated, relative to rotator cuff repair, was manipulation under anesthesia (MUA), 251 times more likely to be litigated, and washout/lavage procedures, 17 times more likely to be litigated. Injection and total shoulder arthroplasty were 23 and 14 times less likely to be litigated relative to rotator cuff repair, respectively. In addition, the average age of the patients was 47 years, and 53% of the cases involved a male plaintiff. The most commonly litigated procedures were rotator cuff repair (42%), MUA (13%), and humeral open reduction and internal fixation (9%). The most commonly cited symptoms for litigation against shoulder surgeons were pain (60%) and loss of range of motion (40%). Of the 45 cases, 44% ended in physician loss, with the average indemnity paid via verdict being $1,118,714 vs. $416,875 for settlement. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies that MUA and lavage/washout procedures are much more likely to be litigated relative to rotator cuff repair. Rotator cuff repair is actually one of the least likely procedures to be litigated. Furthermore, settlement may represent a method of decreasing the indemnity paid for malpractice cases for which surgeons are implicated.

A Case of Superficial Acral Fibromyxoma of the Index Finger.

Superficial acral fibromyxoma (SAFM) is a rare, slow-growing benign soft tissue tumor that is typically asymptomatic in nature and usually affects the acral regions of the hands and feet. The majority of these lesions are subungual. Excisional biopsy is the primary treatment modality. Despite the distinct clinical and histopathological features, misidentification of this slow-growing tumor persists. This case report contributes to the existing literature by delineating the clinicopathologic features, radiographic and MRI findings, and treatment strategies of SAFM.

The Effect of Patient Resilience on Postoperative Scores After One- and Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between resilience and outcomes of pain and neck-related disability after single- and double-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Patients who underwent single- or double-level ACDF were sent a survey between 6 months and 2 years after surgery. The survey included the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2). Patients completed the VAS and NDI twice, once describing preoperative pain and disability and once describing current pain and disability. Respondents were classified as high resilience (HR), medium resilience (MR), or low resilience (LR). Demographics, PSEQ-2 scores, pre- and postoperative VAS and NDI scores, and change in VAS (ΔVAS) and NDI (ΔNDI) scores were compared between groups. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients comprised the HR group, 273 patients comprised the MR group, and 47 patients comprised the LR group. All groups demonstrated postoperative improvement in VAS and NDI scores that exceeded previously established MCID values. The HR group demonstrated greater improvement in pain compared with the LR group (ΔVAS: -5.8 for HR vs. -4.4 for LR, P = 0.05). Compared with the MR group, the LR group demonstrated greater postoperative pain (VAS: 3.2 for LR vs. 2.5 for MR, P = 0.02) and disability (NDI: 11.9 for LR vs. 8.6 for MR, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients demonstrated improvement in pain and neck-related disability after single- and double-level ACDF, regardless of resilience score. Patients with greater resilience may be expected to demonstrate more improvement in pain after ACDF.