SummaryOsteoporosis causes an elevated fracture risk. We propose the continued use of T-scores as one means for diagnosis but recommend that, alternatively, hip fracture; osteopenia-associated vertebral, proximal humerus, pelvis, or some wrist fractures; or FRAX scores with ≥3 % (hip) or 20 % (major) 10-year fracture risk also confer an osteoporosis diagnosis.IntroductionOsteoporosis is a common disorder of reduced bone strength that predisposes to an increased risk for fractures in older individuals. In the USA, the standard criterion for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men is a T-score of ≤ −2.5 at the lumbar spine, femur neck, or total hip by bone mineral density testing.MethodsUnder the direction of the National Bone Health Alliance, 17 clinicians and clinical scientists were appointed to a working group charged to determine the appropriate expansion of the criteria by which osteoporosis can be diagnosed.ResultsThe group recommends that postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years should be diagnosed with osteoporosis if they have a demonstrable elevated risk for future fractures. This includes having a T-score of less than or equal to −2.5 at the spine or hip as one method for diagnosis but also permits a diagnosis for individuals in this population who have experienced a hip fracture with or without bone mineral density (BMD) testing and for those who have osteopenia by BMD who sustain a vertebral, proximal humeral, pelvic, or, in some cases, distal forearm fracture. Finally, the term osteoporosis should be used to diagnose individuals with an elevated fracture risk based on the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Algorithm, FRAX.ConclusionsAs new ICD-10 codes become available, it is our hope that this new understanding of what osteoporosis represents will allow for an appropriate diagnosis when older individuals are recognized as being at an elevated risk for fracture.
The postoperative delirium in older adults guideline project was initiated by selecting an interdisciplinary, multi-specialty 23 member panel. The panel was chosen by the American Geriatrics Society's Geriatrics-for-Specialists Initiative (AGS-GSI) council with additional input from the panel co-chairs, with the goal of selecting participants with special interest and expertise in postoperative delirium. Represented disciplines included the fields of geriatric medicine, general surgery, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, geriatric surgery, gynecology, hospital medicine, critical care medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, nursing, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, palliative care, pharmacy, psychiatry, physical medicine and rehabilitation, thoracic surgery, urology, and vascular surgery.Additional ex officio panel members included a representative from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), a quality measures expert, and a caregiver representative. The following panel members served on the writing group for this best practices statement: Stacie Deiner, MD;Conflicts of interest were disclosed initially and updated three times during guideline development. Disclosures were reviewed by the entire panel and potential conflicts resolved by the co-chairs (see Appendix 1). LITERATURE REVIEWThe methods for postoperative delirium risk factors, screening (case finding), and diagnosis (Table 1, Topics I to III) were distinct from the other aims, because these topics were thoroughly addressed in recent high-quality guideline statements and systematic reviews upon which the recommendation statements in these sections were based. 4,20-22 Additionally, these topics were considered outside the scope of the main literature search, which focused on prevention and treatment of delirium in the perioperative setting. Key citations were included in the section summaries. Sections were drafted by panel groups and then refined with the committee co-chairs. Subsequently, full consensus of the panel was achieved for all recommendation statements and summary sections.The methods for the literature search for the aims addressing the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for the prevention or treatment of postoperative delirium in older adults (Table 1, Topics IV to X) included comprehensive searches, targeted searches, and focused searches. A more detailed description of the search methods is found in the accompanying clinical guideline document. 19 Comprehensive searches (1988( to December 2013 in PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL used the search terms delirium, organic brain syndrome, and acute confusion and resulted in a total of 6,504 articles. Additional, alternative terms included for the prevention and treatment of delirium were the words prevention, management, treatment, intervention, therapy, therapeutic, and drug therapy. Two additional targeted searches using the U.S. Library of National Medicine PubMed Special Queries on Comparative EffectivenessResearch and PubMed Cli...
The abstracted set of recommendations presented here provides essential guidance both on the prevention of postoperative delirium in older patients at risk of delirium and on the treatment of older surgical patients with delirium, and is based on the 2014 American Geriatrics Society (AGS) Guideline. The full version of the guideline, American Geriatrics Society Clinical Practice Guideline for Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults is available at the website of the AGS. The overall aims of the study were twofold: first, to present nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions that should be implemented perioperatively for the prevention of postoperative delirium in older adults; and second, to present nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions that should be implemented perioperatively for the treatment of postoperative delirium in older adults. Prevention recommendations focused on primary prevention (i.e., preventing delirium before it occurs) in patients who are at risk for postoperative delirium (e.g., those identified as moderate-to-high risk based on previous risk stratification models such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, Delirium: Diagnosis, Prevention and Management. Clinical Guideline 103; London (UK): 2010 July 29). For management of delirium, the goals of this guideline are to decrease delirium severity and duration, ensure patient safety and improve outcomes.
Patients with humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy display markedly increased serum calcium levels, reduced blood pressure, and tachycardia. The causative agent, humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy factor [also called PTH-related protein (PTHrp)] has been shown to interact with PTH receptors in bone and kidney. We compared human PTHrp-(1-34) with rat PTH-(1-34) for the effects of each peptide on cardiovascular function in unrestrained conscious rats. Both PTHrp and PTH decreased blood pressure in a dose-dependent manner over the concentration range of 0.3-30 micrograms/kg. PTHrp was approximately 3-fold more potent than PTH, producing up to a 50 mm Hg decrease in pressure within 2 min at 10 micrograms/kg. Both peptides increased heart rate more than 70 beats/min at this dose. However, PTH appeared to exert greater efficacy and potency than PTHrp in increasing heart rate in vivo. In the isolated and perfused rat heart, PTHrp and PTH produced positive chronotropic and positive inotropic effects as well as increased coronary flow. PTHrp was more potent and more effective than PTH. The time courses of these effects in the perfused heart preparations indicated that both peptides produced maximal effects within 1 min, with all responses returning to baseline within 10 min. In isolated helical strips of rat aorta, PTHrp and PTH relaxed norepinephrine-contracted tissues in a concentration-dependent fashion. A functional endothelium was not required for the relaxing effects of either peptide. These studies indicate that PTHrp and PTH decrease blood pressure by relaxing vascular tissue in an endothelium-independent manner. Also, these peptides directly increased heart rate, contractility, and coronary flow. Since PTHrp has recently been found in normal human cells, these studies suggest the possibility of PTHrp as a regulator or modulator of cardiovascular function.
Background Single large-fragment plate constructs currently are the norm for internal fixation of middiaphyseal humerus fractures. In cases where humeral size is limited, however, dual small-fragment locking plate constructs may serve as an alternative. The mechanical effects of different possible plate configurations around the humeral diaphysis may be important, but to our knowledge, have yet to be investigated. Questions/purposes We used finite element analysis to compare the simulated mechanical performance of five different dual small-fragment locking plate construct configurations for humeral middiaphyseal fracture fixation in terms of (1) stiffness, (2) stress shielding of bone, (3) hardware stresses, and (4) interfragmentary strain. Methods Middiaphyseal humeral fracture fixation was simulated using the finite element method. Three 90°and two side-by-side seven-hole and nine-hole small-fragment dual locking plate configurations were tested in compression, torsion, and combined loading. The configurations chosen are based on implantation using either a posterior or anterolateral approach. Results All three of the 90°configurations were more effective in restoring the intact compressive and torsional stiffness as compared with the side-by-side configurations, resulted in less stress shielding and stressed hardware, and showed interfragmentary strains between 5% to 10% in torsion and combined loading. Conclusions The nine-hole plate anterior and seven-hole plate lateral (90°apart) configuration provided the best fixation. Our findings show the mechanical importance of plate placement with relation to loading in dual-plate fracture-fixation constructs. Clinical Relevance The results presented provide novel biomechanical information for the orthopaedic surgeon considering different treatment options for middiaphyseal humeral fractures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.