RESUMO
Amidst the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine innovation has garnered significant attention, but this field was already on the cusp of a groundbreaking renaissance. Propelling these advancements are scientific and technological breakthroughs, alongside a growing understanding of the societal and economic boons vaccines offer, particularly for non-pediatric populations like adults and the immunocompromised. In a departure from previous decades where vaccine launches could be seamlessly integrated into existing processes, we anticipate potentially than 100 novel, risk-adjusted product launches over the next 10 years in the adult vaccine market, primarily addressing new indications. However, this segment is infamous for its challenges: low uptake, funding shortfalls, and operational hurdles linked to delivery and administration. To unlock the societal benefits of this burgeoning expansion, we need to adopt a fresh perspective to steer through the dynamics sparked by the rapid growth of the global adult vaccine market. This article aims to provide that fresh perspective, offering a detailed analysis of the anticipated number of adult vaccine approvals by category and exploring how our understanding of barriers to adult vaccine uptake might evolve. We incorporated pertinent insights from external stakeholder interviews, spotlighting shifting preferences, perceptions, priorities, and decision-making criteria. Consequently, this article aspires to serve as a pivotal starting point for industry participants, equipping them with the knowledge to skillfully navigate the anticipated surge in both volume and complexity.
RESUMO
In the past decade, RNA therapeutics have gone from being a promising concept to one of the most exciting frontiers in healthcare and pharmaceuticals. The field is now entering what many call a renaissance or "RNAissance" which is being fueled by advances in genetic engineering and delivery systems to take on more ambitious development efforts. However, this renaissance is occurring at an unprecedented pace, which will require a different way of thinking if the field is to live up to its full potential. Recognizing this need, this article will provide a forward-looking perspective on the field of RNA medical products and the potential long-term innovations and policy shifts enabled by this revolutionary and game-changing technological platform.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) osteomyelitis is a rare pathology requiring urgent intervention. Several operative approaches have been described with conflicting reports. Here, we present a multi-institutional study utilizing multiple surgical pathways for SCJ reconstruction. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify patients who underwent surgical repair for sternoclavicular osteomyelitis between 2008 and 2019. Patients were stratified according to reconstruction approach: single-stage reconstruction with advancement flap and delayed-reconstruction with flap following initial debridement. Demographics, operative approach, type of reconstruction, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were identified. Mean patient age was 56.2±13.8 years and 68.8% were male. The average body mass index (BMI) was 30.0±8.8 kg/m2. The most common infection etiologies were intravenous drug use and bacteremia (both 25%). Fourteen patients (43.8%) underwent one-stage reconstruction and 18 (56.2%) underwent delayed twostaged reconstruction. Both single and delayed-stage groups had comparable rates of reinfection (7.1% vs. 11.1%, respectively), surgical site complications (21.4% vs. 27.8%), readmissions (7.1% vs. 16.6%), and reoperations (7.1% vs. 5.6%; all P>0.05). The single-stage reconstruction group had a significantly lower BMI (26.2±5.7 kg/m2 vs. 32.9±9.1 kg/m2; P<0.05) and trended towards shorter hospital length of stay (11.3 days vs. 17.9 days; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Both single and delayed-stage approaches are appropriate methods with comparable outcomes for reconstruction for SCJ osteomyelitis. When clinically indicated, a single-stage reconstruction approach may be preferable in order to avoid a second operation as associated with the delayed phase, and possibly shortening total hospital length of stay.
RESUMO
Objective: Postmastectomy radiation therapy is a well-established risk factor for complications after breast reconstruction. Even if the surgeon has a suspicion that radiation therapy may be needed, it may be beneficial to place tissue expanders during the mastectomy procedure as a temporizing measure, complete radiation therapy, and then reconstruct the breast with a latissimus flap. The purpose of this study was to examine the complication rates of the latissimus dorsi flap as compared with the complication rates of implant-based reconstruction in the setting of radiation therapy. Methods: A 16-year retrospective chart review from 2000 to 2016 was conducted. All patients who underwent temporizing tissue expander placement for radiotherapy with subsequent latissimus flap reconstruction were included in the study. Patients who did not follow up for implant exchange were excluded from the study. Results: Fifty-five patients were identified with an average age of 46.0 years (range, 27-67 years) and an average body mass index of 24.2 (range, 18.9-31.9). Five patients (9.1%) developed capsular contractures amenable to surgical intervention. One patient (1.8%) developed infection of the tissue expander, requiring removal. There were no incidences of flap failure or wound dehiscence. The average follow-up after latissimus flap reconstruction was 25.3 months (range, 3.7-121.6 months). Conclusions: We feel that the latissimus dorsi flap after postmastectomy radiation therapy represents the preferred implant-based reconstruction option to consider when the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy is anticipated. The latissimus dorsi flap remains a safe, effective solution to postmastectomy radiation therapy that every plastic surgeon should offer.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Osteocutaneous free flaps have become the primary reconstructive modality for segmental mandibulectomy defects. The advent of preoperative virtual surgical planning with stereolithic models and cutting templates has led to significant refinements in operative technique. In this article, the authors examine the value of computed tomography-guided preoperative virtual surgical planning on operative outcomes and efficiency after mandibular reconstruction with osteocutaneous free flaps. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing free flap mandible reconstruction at a single cancer center from 2002 to 2013. Surgical technique and operative time were assessed, as were overall complications and outcomes. Postoperative computed tomographic scans were also examined to determine the accuracy of osteotomies with and without virtual surgical planning. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients underwent osteocutaneous free flap reconstruction of the mandible during the study period. In 43 patients, the shaping of the neomandible was performed based on the prefabricated stereolithic models. The remaining 49 patients underwent preoperative computed tomographic imaging to design patient-specific cutting guides for the native mandible and the osteocutaneous flap. The use of preoperative computed tomography-guided planning resulted in less burring, fewer osteotomy revisions, and less bone grafting. Virtual surgical planning also significantly decreased operative time (666 minutes versus 545 minutes; p < 0.005). Review of postoperative computed tomographic scans demonstrated decreased rates of bony nonunion with virtual surgical planning, and there were no significant differences in overall outcomes or complications between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative virtual surgical planning has refined mandible reconstruction with osteocutaneous free flaps through the introduction of patient-specific models, prebent plates, and osteotomy guides. Virtual surgical planning decreases operative time and improves the accuracy of free flap mandibular reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
