ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and outcome of image-guided sclerotherapy for treating venous malformations (VMs) of the face.Materials and methodsA multicenter cohort of 68 patients with VMs primarily affecting the face was retrospectively investigated. In total, 142 image-guided sclerotherapies were performed using gelified ethanol and/or polidocanol. Clinical and imaging findings were assessed to evaluate clinical response, lesion size reduction, and complication rates. Sub-analyses of complication rates depending on type and injected volume of the sclerosant as well as of pediatric versus adult patient groups were conducted.ResultsMean number of procedures per patient was 2.1 (±1.7) and mean follow-up consisted of 8.7 months (±6.8 months). Clinical response (n = 58) revealed a partial relief of symptoms in 70.7% (41/58), 13/58 patients (22.4%) presented symptom-free while only 4/58 patients (6.9%) reported no improvement. Post-treatment imaging (n = 52) revealed an overall objective response rate of 86.5% (45/52). The total complication rate was 10.6% (15/142) including 4.2% (7/142) major complications, mostly (14/15, 93.3%) resolved by conservative means. In one case, a mild facial palsy persisted over time. The complication rate in the gelified ethanol subgroup was significantly higher compared to polidocanol and to the combination of both sclerosants (23.5 vs. 6.0 vs. 8.3%, p = 0.01). No significant differences in complications between the pediatric and the adult subgroup were observed (12.1 vs. 9.2%, p = 0.57). Clinical response did not correlate with lesion size reduction on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).ConclusionImage-guided sclerotherapy is effective for treating VMs of the face. Clinical response is not necessarily associated with size reduction on imaging. Despite the complex anatomy of this location, the procedures are safe for both adults and children.
Background: Congestion of patient waiting areas at commencement of work is the usual scenario in Nigeria's public hospitals. This strains the personnel and facilities. Patients are dissatisfied and lose faith in the system. This study aims to audit the booking system, patient waiting time, and causes of congestion in an ultrasound unit. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective, descriptive study involving 350 patients referred from general outpatient and specialist clinics to the ultrasound unit, twice weekly for 6 weeks. Patients were grouped into two: those with scheduled appointments and the unbooked. The time of scheduled appointment and arrival in the unit and the time of commencement and conclusion of the examination were recorded. Results: Three hundred and eighteen patients had scheduled appointments, while 32 were unbooked. Half of the later were emergencies and the other half were walk-ins. There was no consistency in number of slots and block size. Large blocks of over 20 patients were observed on 33.3% of the days and 51.26% of the patients were given 8:00 am appointments. The average patient waiting time is 132.11 minutes but range from 62 to 220 minutes daily. The radiologists resumed work between 8:17 and 9:29 am each scan day. The average waiting time is shorter for patients who arrived after 11:00 am. Conclusion: Ineffective booking of appointments and Sonologist's tardiness are major predisposition to congestion. Appointments in small blocks at 30 minutes intervals will eliminate congestion, reduce patient waiting time, and improve satisfaction. Point-of-care ultrasound should be introduced in outpatient clinics.
Background: Ultrasound is operator-dependent, and its value and efficacy in fetal morphology assessment in a low-resource setting is poorly understood. We assessed the value and efficacy of fetal morphology ultrasound assessment in a Nigerian setting. Materials and Methods: We surveyed fetal morphology ultrasound performed across five facilities and followed-up each fetus to ascertain the outcome. Fetuses were surveyed in the second trimester (18th–22nd weeks) using the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) guideline. Clinical and surgical reports were used as references to assess the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound in livebirths, and autopsy reports to confirm anomalies in terminated pregnancies, spontaneous abortions, intrauterine fetal deaths, and still births. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, Area under the curve (AUC), Youden index, likelihood ratios, and post-test probabilities. Results: In total, 6520 fetuses of women aged 15–46 years (mean = 31.7 years) were surveyed. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 77.1 (95% CI: 68–84.6), 99.5 (95% CI: 99.3–99.7), and 88.3 (95% CI: 83.7–92.2), respectively. Other performance metrics were: positive predictive value, 72.4 (95% CI: 64.7–79.0), negative predictive value, 99.6 (95% CI: 99.5–99.7), and Youden index (77.1%). Abnormality prevalence was 1.67% (95% CI: 1.37–2.01), and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 254 (95% CI: 107.7–221.4) and 0.23 (95% CI: 0.16–0.33), respectively. The post-test probability for positive test was 72% (95% CI: 65–79). Conclusion: Fetal morphology assessment is valuable in a poor economics setting, however, the variation in the diagnostic efficacy across facilities and the limitations associated with the detection of circulatory system anomalies need to be addressed.
Duplex ultrasound has been shown to diagnose varied vascular pathologies even in a locale where it is a relatively new technique. It is recommended that timely referrals be made, and mobile Doppler units be acquired to save more lives and limbs in the developing world.
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.