OBJECTIVEComparative effectiveness studies are needed for analyzing the clinical outcomes of treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis (SC) with endoscopic suturectomy (ES) or cranial vault remodeling (CVR).METHODSFrom 2004–2015, patients were consecutively reviewed and data recorded for operative details and complications. Cranial growth was measured by head circumference percentile (HCP) and cranial index (CI) Z-score. Aesthetic outcomes were compared using the Whitaker classification.RESULTSA total of 207 patients with nonsyndromic SC were treated with ES (n = 187) or CVR (n = 20). The ES group had a lower median operative duration (45 vs 195 minutes), length of stay (1 vs 3 days), and transfusion rate (2% vs 85%; p < 0.0001). Median age at follow-up was 3.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5–4.5, ES) and 3.9 years (IQR 2–5, CVR; p = 0.12). In both groups, HCP gradually decreased during a 3-year follow-up (p = 0.282). CI Z-scores were initially more favorable in the ES group (p < 0.05); 3 years following surgical intervention, Z-scores were equal between groups (p = 0.392). One nonsyndromic patient treated with ES (0.5%) demonstrated reossification and required secondary expansion. Most patients were Whitaker class I (99% of ES, 95% of CVR); 5% of CVR patients were class II and 1% of ES patients were class III. Four syndromic patients presented without clear evidence of a syndrome, were treated by ES, and subsequently required secondary expansion for raised intracranial pressure.CONCLUSIONSES is an effective treatment for nonsyndromic SC with comparable head growth, aesthetic outcomes, and less morbidity relative to CVR. In the absence of a syndrome, secondary cranial expansion following ES is rarely required.

Circulating angiogenic cells (CACs), represent a potential new therapeutic tool for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, but their regenerative function is impaired in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and cardiac risk factors. The objective of this study is to assess the effect of lentiviral overexpression of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) on the activity of CACs from patients with CAD and cardiac risk factors. In vitro and in vivo assays were employed to evaluate the regenerative capacity of the cells compared to CACs derived from healthy volunteers. Lentiviral eNOS transduction of cells from CAD patients significantly improved chemotactic migration compared with sham transduction, and increased the ability of CACs to induce angiogenic tube formation when cocultured with human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) on Matrigel. In addition, eNOS transduction restored the ability of patient-derived CACs to enhance neovascularization and improve ischemic hind limb perfusion, approaching the efficacy of cells from healthy donors. These data indicate that CAC dysfunction seen in high-risk patients can be partially reversed by eNOS overexpression, suggesting that ex vivo gene delivery may improve the efficacy of autologous cell therapy for cardiovascular disease.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges and restrictions in surgical access across Canada, including for breast reconstructive services which are an integral component of comprehensive breast cancer care. We sought to determine how breast reconstructive services are being restricted, and what strategies may be employed to optimize the provision of breast reconstruction through a pan-Canadian evaluation from the providers’ perspective. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of Canadian plastic and reconstructive surgeons who perform breast reconstruction. The 33-item web-based questionnaire was developed by a pan-Canadian working group of breast reconstruction experts and disseminated via email to members of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgery. The questionnaire queried respondents on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on surgeons’ breast reconstruction practice patterns and opinions on strategies for resource utilization. Results: Responses were received from 49 surgeons, who reported practicing in 8 of 10 Canadian provinces. Restrictions on the provision of breast reconstructive procedures were most limited during the First Wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, where all respondents reported at least some reduction in capacity and more than a quarter reporting complete cessation. Average reported reduction in capacity ranged from 31% to 78% across all 3 waves. Autologous, delayed, and prophylactic reconstructions were most commonly restricted. Conclusion: This study provides a pan-Canadian impact assessment on breast reconstructive services during the COVID-19 pandemic from the providers’ perspective. To uphold the standards of patient-centred care, a unified approach to strategically reorganize health care delivery now and in the future is needed.

Following an all-night fast, 45 patients with Parkinson's disease were examined using certain motor (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1993;56:65-68)

Background: Comparative effectiveness research is needed to optimize treatment of unilateral coronal synostosis. This study compares perioperative morbidity, ophthalmic, and aesthetic outcomes of patients with nonsyndromic unilateral coronal synostosis treated by endoscopic suturectomy or fronto-orbital advancement. Methods: From 2004 to 2015, patients with unilateral coronal synostosis were reviewed and data recorded for operative details, reoperations, and aesthetic results using the Whitaker classification, severity of strabismus, and need for surgical correction. Categorical data were analyzed using the Fisher’s exact test and continuous data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: Ninety-four patients were treated with endoscopic suturectomy (n = 60) or fronto-orbital advancement (n = 34). Median age at follow-up was 3.5 years (range, 1 to 9 years) for endoscopic suturectomy and 5.0 years (range, 2 to 11 years) for fronto-orbital advancement (p = 0.06). The endoscopic suturectomy group had a lower operative time (42 minutes versus 216 minutes), length of stay (1 day versus 4 days), blood loss (25 cc versus 260 cc), and transfusion rate (0 percent versus 88 percent). Two patients treated with fronto-orbital advancement required secondary intervention for intracranial pressure. Thirty-one percent (16 of 52) of the endoscopic suturectomy group and 65 percent (19 of 29) of the fronto-orbital advancement group developed clinically significant strabismus requiring surgical repair (p = 0.002). In the endoscopic suturectomy group, 88 percent (50 of 57) were Whitaker class I and 5 percent were class II. In the fronto-orbital advancement group, 41 percent (14 of 34) were class I and 44 percent class II. Need for bony revision (two of 57 versus three of 34) and need for secondary cranial procedure (two of 57 versus two of 34) were similar following endoscopic suturectomy and fronto-orbital advancement. Conclusions: For treatment of unilateral coronal synostosis, endoscopic suturectomy is associated with lower morbidity and comparable aesthetics. Patients treated with endoscopic suturectomy are half as likely to require strabismus surgery compared with those treated with fronto-orbital advancement. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.