PurposeOncofertility focuses on providing fertility and endocrine-sparing options to patients who undergo life-preserving but gonadotoxic cancer treatment. The resources needed to meet patient demand often are fragmented along disciplinary lines. We quantify assets and gaps in oncofertility care on a global scale.MethodsSurvey-based questionnaires were provided to 191 members of the Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network, a National Institutes of Health–funded organization. Responses were analyzed to measure trends and regional subtleties about patient oncofertility experiences and to analyze barriers to care at sites that provide oncofertility services.ResultsSixty-three responses were received (response rate, 25%), and 40 were analyzed from oncofertility centers in 28 countries. Thirty of 40 survey results (75%) showed that formal referral processes and psychological care are provided to patients at the majority of sites. Fourteen of 23 respondents (61%) stated that some fertility preservation services are not offered because of cultural and legal barriers. The growth of oncofertility and its capacity to improve the lives of cancer survivors around the globe relies on concentrated efforts to increase awareness, promote collaboration, share best practices, and advocate for research funding.ConclusionThis survey reveals global and regional successes and challenges and provides insight into what is needed to advance the field and make the discussion of fertility preservation and endocrine health a standard component of the cancer treatment plan. As the field of oncofertility continues to develop around the globe, regular assessment of both international and regional barriers to quality care must continue to guide process improvements.

PurposeIn the accompanying article, “Analysis of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe,” we showed that specific fertility preservation services may not be offered at various sites around the world because of cultural and legal barriers. We assessed global and regional experiences as well as the legal status of third-party reproduction and adoption to serve as a comprehensive international data set and resource for groups that wish to begin oncofertility interventions.MethodsWe provide data on the legalities of third-party assisted reproductive technologies and other family-building options in the 28 oncofertility-practicing countries surveyed.ResultsWe found regional and country differences that will be important in the development of tailored resources for physicians and for patient brochures that are sensitive to these local restrictions and cultural norms.ConclusionBecause many patients first consult Web-based materials, the formal assessment of the availability of these options provides members of the global oncofertility community with data to which they might otherwise not have ready access to better serve their patients.

The number of pediatric and young adult cancer survivors is increasing globally due to earlier diagnostics and expansion of targeted chemo- and biological-based therapeutics. As a consequence, cancer-related infertility and reproductive hormone loss is of increasing concern for both male and female survivors. We attempted to estimate the reproductive loss in oncofertility-practicing countries and to develop a global oncofertility index (OFI). This would allow an accounting of the level of urgency of the issue and would provide national comparisons of fertility loss, which differ based on the prevalence and/or diagnosis frequency and treatment variables by countries or region. While the goal is laudable, an index such as this is unachievable due to the lack of the kind of information that would be necessary to calculate such a meaningful index. Without this metric, we will be unable to assess how oncofertility concerns are being addressed and what lessons can be learned from countries that improve such an index over time.

We performed a systematic review on the success of different surgical techniques for the management of recurrent and persistent carpal tunnel syndrome. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria and were grouped by the type of revision carpal tunnel release, which were simple open release, open release with flap coverage or open release with implant coverage. Meta-analysis showed no difference, and pooled success proportions were 0.89, 0.89 and 0.85 for simple open carpal tunnel release, additional flap coverage and implant groups, respectively. No added value for coverage of the nerve was seen. Our review indicates that simple carpal tunnel release without additional coverage of the median nerve seems preferable as it is less invasive and without additional donor site morbidity. We found that the included studies were of low quality with moderate risk of bias and did not differentiate between persistent and recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome.

Background: Approximately 5% of patients experience recurrent symptoms after carpal tunnel release (CTR) and need revision surgery. Several surgical techniques have been described for recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) flap is one of them. Literature concerning clinical results of the ADM flap for recurrent CTS is lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of the ADM flap for recurrent CTS. Methods: We treated seven patients with the ADM flap (eight hands) between July 2016 and February 2019. Patient characteristics were assessed, and patients were asked about their symptoms (pain, sensation and paresthesia) before and after surgery. Postoperatively, we administered CTS symptoms, satisfaction with the surgery, patient-reported outcome measurements (BCTQ and QuickDASH) and whether they would undergo the same surgery again. Complications were also recorded Results: The median follow-up was 14 months. The success rate measured by CTS symptoms was 88%. Seven out of eight patients were satisfied with the results and two patients would not elect to undergo the same procedure again. Two patients reported having a weaker grip at the donor site. The median BCTQ symptom and function scores were 2.9 (1.7–3.5) and 2.6 (1.8–3.0) respectively. The median QuickDASH score was 41 (IQR 22–52). Complications reported were wound dehiscence (n = 1) and hypertrophic scar (n = 1). Conclusions: The outcomes of the ADM flap in patients with recurrent CTS were like other commonly used procedures in recurrent CTS. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic)

Background: Surgeons often prefer to use a tourniquet during minor procedures, such as carpal tunnel release (CTR) or trigger finger release (TFR). Besides the possible discomfort for the patient, the effect of tourniquet use on long-term results and complications is unknown. Our primary aim was to compare the patient-reported outcomes 1 year after CTR or TFR under local anesthesia with or without tourniquet. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, sonographically estimated scar tissue thickness after CTR‚ and postoperative complications. Methods: Between May 2019 and May 2020, 163 patients planned for open CTR or TFR under local anesthesia were included. Before surgery, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Boston Carpal Tunnel questionnaires were administered, and complications were noted. At 6 months postoperatively, an ultrasound was conducted to determine the thickness of scar tissue in the region of median nerve. Results: A total of 142 patients (51 men [38%]) were included. The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores improved significantly in both groups during follow-up, wherein most improvements were seen in the first 3 months. No difference in clinical outcome and scar tissue formation was found between the two groups after 12 months. The complication rate was comparable between both groups. Thirty-two (24%) patients had at least one complication, none needed surgical interventions, and no recurrent symptoms were seen. Conclusions: Our study shows similar long-term clinical outcomes, formation of scar tissue, and complication rates for patients undergoing CTR or TFR with or without a tourniquet. Tourniquet usage should be based on shared decision-making.