Morbidity Associated With Anterior Versus Posterior Cranial Vault Expansion for Early Treatment of Syndromic Craniosynostosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate and compare rates of unplanned reoperation and complications after undergoing either fronto-orbital advancement (anterior cranial vault expansion) or posterior cranial vault expansion as an early surgery in the management of syndromic craniosynostosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant articles were identified in 2 electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) from the time of electronic publication to November 2020. Quality assessment and risk of bias were appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. A meta-analysis was performed comparing rates of reoperation and complications between participants who underwent anterior or posterior cranial vault expansion as an early surgery. RESULTS: Of 1,373 screened records, 7 met inclusion criteria. Six were included in the meta-analysis. The studies that met inclusion criteria reported on 103 patients treated with anterior techniques and 72 patients treated with a posterior approach. Anterior cranial vault expansion was associated with significantly higher rates of reoperation (Peto odds ratio = 2.83; 95% confidence interval = 1.19, 6.74, P = .02) and complications (Peto odds ratio = 2.61; 95% confidence interval = 1.12, 6.12, P = .03) than posterior cranial vault expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Both anterior and posterior approaches are suitable options in the treatment of syndromic craniosynostosis depending on patient-specific factors. Anterior cranial vault expansion was associated with higher rates of unplanned reoperation and complications than posterior techniques in this analysis. Because of the paucity of literature which met inclusion criteria, this study was not able to assess critical outcome variables such as distance distracted/volumetric expansion, estimated blood loss, and cost. Larger studies evaluating both techniques under multiple institutions with long-term follow-up are indicated.

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Genomics will play an increasingly prominent role in clinical medicine. OBJECTIVE: To describe how primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and make clinical recommendations about genome sequencing results. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs and their generally healthy patients undergoing genome sequencing. APPROACH: Patients received clinical genome reports that included four categories of results: monogenic disease risk variants (if present), carrier status, five pharmacogenetics results, and polygenic risk estimates for eight cardiometabolic traits. Patients' office visits with their PCPs were audio-recorded, and summative content analysis was used to describe how PCPs discussed genomic results. KEY RESULTS: For each genomic result discussed in 48 PCP-patient visits, we identified a "take-home" message (recommendation), categorized as continuing current management, further treatment, further evaluation, behavior change, remembering for future care, or sharing with family members. We analyzed how PCPs came to each recommendation by identifying 1) how they described the risk or importance of the given result and 2) the rationale they gave for translating that risk into a specific recommendation. Quantitative analysis showed that continuing current management was the most commonly coded recommendation across results overall (492/749, 66%) and for each individual result type except monogenic disease risk results. Pharmacogenetics was the most common result type to prompt a recommendation to remember for future care (94/119, 79%); carrier status was the most common type prompting a recommendation to share with family members (45/54, 83%); and polygenic results were the most common type prompting a behavior change recommendation (55/58, 95%). One-fifth of recommendation codes associated with monogenic results were for further evaluation (6/24, 25%). Rationales for these recommendations included patient context, family context, and scientific/clinical limitations of sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs distinguish substantive differences among categories of genome sequencing results and use clinical judgment to justify continuing current management in generally healthy patients with genomic results.

Making the invisible visible: improving conspicuity of noncalcified gallstones using dual-energy CT.

PURPOSE: To determine whether virtual monochromatic imaging (VMI) increases detectability of noncalcified gallstones on dual-energy CT (DECT) compared with conventional CT imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study included consecutive patients who underwent DECT of the abdomen in the Emergency Department during a 30-month period (July 1, 2013-December 31, 2015), with a comparison US or MR within 1-year. 51 patients (36F, 15M; mean age 52 years) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All DECT were acquired on a dual-source 128 × 2 slice scanner using either 80/Sn140 or 100/Sn140 kVp pairs. Source images at high and low kVp were used for DE post-processing with VMI. Within 3 mm reconstructed images, regions of interest of 0.5 cm2 were placed on noncalcified gallstones and bile to record hounsfield units (HU) at VMI energy levels ranging between 40 and 190 keV. RESULTS: Noncalcified gallstones uniformly demonstrated lowest HU at 40 keV and increase at higher keV; the HU of bile varied at higher keV. Few of the noncalcified stones are visible at 70 keV (simulating a conventional 120 kVp scan), with measured contrast (bile-stone HU difference) <10 HU in 78%, 10-20 HU in 20%, and >20 HU in 2%. Contrast was maximal at 40 keV, where 100% demonstrated >20 HU difference from surrounding bile, 75% >44 HU difference, and 50% >60 HU difference. A paired t test demonstrated a significant difference (p < 0.0001) between this stone-bile contrast at 40 vs. 70 keV and 70 vs. 190 keV. CONCLUSION: Low keV virtual monochromatic imaging increased conspicuity of noncalcified gallstones, improving their detectability.