Sex-based pharmacotherapy in acute care setting, a narrative review for emergency providers.

INTRODUCTION: Sex-based medicine, which can be defined as the process of understanding the inherent differences in disease pathophysiology and response to medications that exist between the sexes, seems like a necessary step in the movement towards personalized medicine. While there are strict guidelines for weight-based dosage of pediatric medications, similar guidelines do not exist for the treatment of adults, despite prominent biologic differences between the sexes. The lack of individualization is of particular importance in the treatment of adult patients in the emergency department (ED), because it can determine the trajectory of a patient's stay at the hospital. OBJECTIVES: This review was conducted to better understand the need for and possible benefits of altering drug dosing guidelines for different categories of medications in the ED. PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar were queried using a combination of the keywords "gender differences," "sex differences," "treatment," and "emergency". Abstracts, unpublished data, and duplicate articles were excluded. DISCUSSION: In considering some of the most common causes of ED visits, the majority of diseases demonstrate differences in morbidity and mortality between female and male patients, despite similar treatment regimens. These differences can be attributed to variations in drug pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, which may be affected by sex-based biologic variations in body mass index and body composition, and physiologic variations such as hormonal changes, menstruation, pregnancy, and lactation. Regardless of the mechanism of these differences, there is overwhelming evidence that universal drug dosing results in suboptimal outcomes for both male and female patients. CONCLUSIONS: Female sex is a risk factor for clinically significant adverse drug reactions, which range from cutaneous reactions to major bleeding, and can have long-standing implications on patient outcomes. However, future studies are needed to understand the exact pathophysiology of these sex differences, after controlling for potential confounding factors such as demographic differences and provider bias in treatment.

Benign Anal Disease: Implementation of an Educational Program Across Specialties.

BACKGROUND: Benign anal diseases, including hemorrhoids, fissures, abscesses, fistulas, and anal condylomata, affect 10%-15% of our population. Most patients seen by nonsurgical providers experience delayed treatment. We examined at our institution whether an educational session on anorectal diseases would benefit trainees from medical and surgical specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study took place at Oregon Health & Science University, a primary institutional practice with 130 resident participants. An exploratory study using a 10-point pretest and posttest regarding these diseases was designed and administered to medical subspecialties, including general surgery (GS), emergency medicine, internal medicine, and family medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, and pediatric residents. Intervention was a 50-min presentation highlighting anatomy, history and physical findings, and disease treatment. The posttest was repeated after 6 mo to evaluate retention and overall satisfaction, and differences were evaluated. RESULTS: With the exception of GS, posttest scores improved. Internal medicine improved most significantly. GS residents scored better on the pretest than other specialties; their posttest scores, however, declined. The survey demonstrated residents with prior education scored better on the pretest. PGY-1 and PGY-2 residents improved most on their posttest. On 6-mo retest, 17.6% of residents responded and posttest performance was 72%. CONCLUSIONS: Nonsurgical residents have limited knowledge about benign anal diseases but demonstrate improvement after educational intervention. Surgery residents performed well, but demonstrate regression to the mean, common in test taking, but may also require a more advanced lecture. Formal institutional, regional, and national educational interventions are needed to improve the understanding of these diseases.

What Factors Are Associated With Failure of Compressive Osseointegration Fixation?

BACKGROUND: Compressive osseointegration is as an alternative to traditional intramedullary fixation. Two- to 10-year survivorship and modes of failure have been reported; however, as a result of relatively small numbers, these studies are limited in their ability to identify risk factors for failure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is survivorship free from aseptic mechanical and survivorship free from overall failure of compressive osseointegration fixation? (2) What patient factors (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], anatomic location of reconstruction, indication for reconstruction, radiation, chemotherapy) are associated with increased risk of failure? METHODS: Between 2006 and 2014, surgeons at one center treated 116 patients with 137 Compress® implants for lower extremity oncologic reconstructions, revision arthroplasty, and fracture nonunion or malunion. One hundred sixteen implants were available for review with a minimum of 2-year followup (mean, 4 years; range, 2-9 years). Kaplan-Meier survival plots were produced to examine survivorship and Cox regression modeling was used to generate hazard ratios (HRs) for potential risk factors for failure. Patient factors (age, sex, BMI, anatomic location of reconstruction, indication for reconstruction, radiation, chemotherapy) were obtained from chart review and an institutional database. RESULTS: Survivorship free from aseptic mechanical failure was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91%-99%) at 18 months and 93% (95% CI, 86%-99%) at 4 years. Survivorship free from overall failure was 82% (95% CI, 75%-89%) at 18 months and 75% (95% CI, 66%-84%) at 4 years. Risk of overall failure was increased with reconstruction of the proximal tibia (HR, 4.42; 95% CI 0.98-19.9) and distal femur (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.50-6.09) compared to the proximal femur (HR, 1; referent; p = 0.049). Risk of aseptic mechanical failure was increased with reconstruction of the proximal tibia (HR, 1; referent) and distal femur (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.08-1.77) compared with the proximal femur (HR, 0, p = 0.048). Radiation was associated with increased risk of overall failure (HR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.84-8.02; p < 0.003), but not aseptic mechanical failure. Age, sex, BMI, chemotherapy, and surgical indication were not associated with increased risk of aseptic or overall failure. CONCLUSIONS: This study questions the use of age as a contraindication for the use of this technology and suggests this technology may be considered in proximal femoral reconstruction and for patients with indications other than primary oncologic reconstructions. Future research should establish long-term survivorship data to compare this approach with conventional intramedullary stems and to evaluate the potential benefits of preventing stress shielding and preserving bone stock in revision situations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The LapSim: a learning environment for both experts and novices.

BACKGROUND: Simulated environments present challenges to both clinical experts and novices in laparoscopic surgery. Experts and novices may have different expectations when confronted with a novel simulated environment. The LapSim is a computer-based virtual reality laparoscopic trainer. Our aim was to analyze the performance of experienced basic laparoscopists and novices during their first exposure to the LapSim Basic Skill set and Dissection module. METHODS: Experienced basic laparoscopists (n=16) were defined as attending surgeons and chief residents who performed >30 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Novices (n=13) were surgical residents with minimal laparoscopic experience. None of the subjects had used a computer-based laparoscopic simulator in the past. Subjects were given one practice session on the LapSim tutorial and dissection module and were supervised throughout the testing. Instrument motion, completion time, and errors were recorded by the LapSim. A Performance Score (PS) was calculated using the sum of total errors and time to task completion. A Relative Efficiency Score (RES) was calculated using the sum of the path lengths and angular path lengths for each hand expressed as a ratio of the subject's score to the worst score achieved among the subjects. All groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Novices achieved better PS and/or RES in Instrument Navigation, Suturing, and Dissection (p<0.05). There was no difference in the PS and RES between experts and novices in the remaining skills. CONCLUSION: Novices tended to have better performance compared to the experienced basic laparoscopists during their first exposure to the LapSim Basic Skill set and Dissection module.