Update in rheumatology: evidence published in 2014

Osteoradionecrosis of the Hip, a Troublesome Complication of Radiation Therapy: Case Series and Systematic Review

Background

Osteoradionecrosis of the hip is a serious complication of radiotherapy that is easily overlooked by physicians and patients in the early stages. There are relatively few reports on this subject, so there is no clear scientific consensus for the pathogenesis, early diagnosis, and clinical treatment of hip osteoradionecrosis. In this paper, we report two cases of hip osteoradionecrosis and systematically review the related literature.

Case Presentation

We report two cases of hip osteoradionecrosis. One patient successfully underwent total hip arthroplasty in our hospital and recovered well postoperatively. Another patient although we offered a variety of surgical options for this patient, the patient was worried that the bone loss would lead to poor prosthesis fixation, resulting in prosthesis loosening and infection, and therefore ultimately refused surgical treatment.

Conclusion

With the development of radiological techniques, the incidence of hip osteoradionecrosis is decreasing year by year, but early diagnosis and rational treatment remain challenging. The effects of non-surgical treatment are limited. Early prevention, early detection, and early intervention are crucial to delay or prevent the emergence of more serious complications.

When Patients Write the Guidelines: Patient Panel Recommendations for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

How best to involve patients in the development of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations is not known. We sought to determine the feasibility and value of developing CPG recommendations based on a voting panel composed entirely of patients, with the ultimate goal of comparing the patients' recommendations to ones developed by a physician-dominated voting panel on the same clinical questions.

METHODS

Ten patients with rheumatoid arthritis completed 8 hours of training on evidence-based medicine and guideline development. They constituted a voting panel and, with 2 American College of Rheumatology staff with expertise in CPG development and a physician facilitator, subsequently met at a face-to-face meeting to develop recommendations. They applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to formulate recommendations on 18 questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate or high confidence.

RESULTS

The patient panel developed recommendations for 16 of the 18 questions; for the other 2, the panel thought there were insufficient data to support a recommendation. For 13 of the 16 questions, the patient panel recommended the same course of action as did the physician-dominated panel. Differences were due to how the 2 panels valued the balance between benefits and harms.

CONCLUSION

Patient and physician-dominated panels developed the same recommendations for most questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate to high confidence. Additional experiences are necessary to advance the evidence necessary to determine what panel composition is optimal to produce the best guidelines.