Can patients determine the level of their dysphagia?

AIM: To determine if patients can localise dysphagia level determined endoscopically or radiologically and association of gender, age, level and pathology. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients presenting to dysphagia hotline between March 2004 and March 2015 was carried out. Demographics, clinical history and investigation findings were recorded including patient perception of obstruction level (pharyngeal, mid sternal or low sternal) was documented and the actual level of obstruction found on endoscopic or radiological examination (if any) was noted. All patients with evidence of obstruction including oesophageal carcinoma, peptic stricture, Schatzki ring, oesophageal pouch and cricopharyngeal hypertrophy were included in the study who had given a perceived level of dysphagia. The upper GI endoscopy reports (barium study where upper GI endoscopy was not performed) were reviewed to confirm the distance of obstructing lesion from central incisors. A previously described anatomical classification of oesophagus was used to define the level of obstruction to be upper, middle or lower oesophagus and this was compared with patient perceived level. RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred and sixty-eight patients were included, 42.0% of who were female, mean age 70.7 ± 12.8 years old. Of those with obstructing lesions, 726 gave a perceived level of dysphagia: 37.2% had oesophageal cancer, 36.0% peptic stricture, 13.1% pharyngeal pouches, 10.3% Schatzki rings and 3.3% achalasia. Twenty-seven point five percent of patients reported pharyngeal level (upper) dysphagia, 36.9% mid sternal dysphagia and 25.9% lower sternal dysphagia (9.5% reported multiple levels). The level of obstructing lesion seen on diagnostic testing was upper (17.2%), mid (19.4%) or lower (62.9%) or combined (0.3%). When patients localised their level of dysphagia to a single level, the kappa statistic was 0.245 (P < 0.001), indicating fair agreement. 48% of patients reporting a single level of dysphagia were accurate in localising the obstructing pathology. With respect to pathology, patients with pharyngeal pouches were most accurate localising their level of dysphagia (P < 0.001). With respect to level of dysphagia, those with pharyngeal level lesions were best able to identify the level of dysphagia accurately (P < 0.001). No association (P > 0.05) was found between gender, patient age or clinical symptoms with their ability to detect the level of dysphagia. CONCLUSION: Patient perceived level of dysphagia is unreliable in determining actual level of obstructing pathology and should not be used to tailor investigations.

Surveillance after treatment of children with developmental dysplasia of the hip: current UK practice and the proposed Stanmore protocol.

Monitoring of a patient with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is required after initial treatment to ensure early detection and correction of complications or poor progression. We established the current practice of surveillance in DDH in the UK. A protocol has been designed at this unit with the aim of identifying the stages in the progression of DDH when imaging of the hip is necessary to detect failure or possible complications of treatment. The outcomes and secondary procedure rates under the surveillance protocol used at this unit, for a UK population, have been reviewed with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. Frequency of follow-up has been reported as yearly or more frequently until skeletal maturity by 70% of respondents. Ninety patients presenting with DDH were managed under the protocol developed at this unit, with equivalent outcomes as those in patients who reported yearly follow-up. Following our proposed protocol we believe it is possible to limit disruption to the patient's life, reduce costs and maintain compliance and ensure timely detection of any complications, without significant increase in secondary procedure rates.

Total hip arthroplasty in teenagers: an alternative to hip arthrodesis.

Debilitating arthritis in teenage patients is a complex problem with limited surgical options. Hip arthrodesis is unpopular amongst patients, and contemporary total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be a promising alternative. We report on the outcomes of THA in patients less than 20 years of age. All consecutive teenage patients undergoing THA at a tertiary referral centre were reviewed. Mean follow-up was 3.4 years (range 0.6-6.8) and 9 patients had at least 5 years follow-up. There were 51 THAs in 43 patients with a mean age of 17 years (range 12-19). The commonest indication was osteonecrosis (35 cases), mostly secondary to slipped upper femoral epiphysis (15 cases). Forty-six were uncemented and 5 were reverse hybrid THAs of which 7 were computer assisted design/manufacture (CADCAM) components. The commonest bearing surface used was ceramic on ceramic (40 cases). The survival rate was 96% and there were 2 complications. At latest follow-up, the mean Harris hip score was 90 (range 68-99) and UCLA activity score was 6 (range 4-9). Radiological analysis showed 2 patients with lucent lines around the acetabular component, but no signs of osteolysis or wear. We report good short to intermediate term survivorship and outcomes, and feel THA represents a valid alternative option to hip arthrodesis.