Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for :
- Author or Editor: Andrew J. Meyr x
- Original Articles x
- Refine by access: All Content x
Background
Although clinical findings, laboratory serum markers, and radiographic images are also used, the purported gold standard or standard reference test for the diagnosis of gout is microscopic analysis of aspirated joint fluid. This observational investigation sought to identify the level of agreement with the microscopic analysis of joint fluid aspirate for the diagnosis of gout in the lower extremity between two departments in a single health-care center.
Methods
A retrospective medical record review identified consecutive patients seen for suspected gout who underwent diagnostic joint aspiration. Patients were included if a lower-extremity joint synovial fluid sample was obtained and were excluded if they were not independently evaluated by both the departments of rheumatology and pathology. We categorized the documented joint fluid findings into four groups: no crystals, sodium urate crystals, calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystals, or both sodium urate and calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystals. We defined a “clinically significant disagreement” as one department observing any type of crystals and the other department observing no crystals.
Results
We observed a clinically significant disagreement rate of 23.26% (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.496). The department of rheumatology was more likely to observe the presence of crystals in a sample compared with the department of pathology (88.37% versus 65.12%; P = .02).
Conclusions
These results provide evidence that microscopic analysis of joint fluid aspirate might lack the accuracy and reliability needed to be considered a gold standard diagnostic test for gout in the lower extremity.
This investigation presents a review of all of the clinical outcome measures used by authors and published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015. Of 1,336 articles published during this time frame, 655 (49.0%) were classified as original research and included in this analysis. Of these 655 articles, 151 (23.1%) included at least one clinical outcome measure. Thirty-seven unique clinical outcome scales were used by authors and published during this period. The most frequently reported scales in the 151 included articles were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scales (54.3%; n = 82), visual analog scale (35.8%; n = 54), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (any version) (10.6%; n = 16), Foot Function Index (5.3%; n = 8), Maryland Foot Score (4.0%; n = 6), and Olerud and Molander scoring system (4.0%; n = 6). Twenty-four articles (15.9%) used some form of original/subjective measure of patient satisfaction/expectation. The results of this investigation detail the considerable variety of clinical outcome measurement tools used by authors in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery and might support the need for a shift toward the consistent use of a smaller number of valid, reliable, and clinically useful scales in the podiatric medical literature.
Background:
We sought to determine the prevalence of lower-extremity arterial calcification in a cohort of patients with diabetes and associated foot pathology receiving inpatient treatment at an urban US tertiary health-care system.
Methods:
The primary outcome measure was defined as either radiographic evidence of vessel calcification or noninvasive vascular testing that resulted in any reporting of vessel noncompressibility or an ankle-brachial index greater than 1.1. Radiographic evidence of vessel calcification was defined as radiodense calcification in the proximal first intermetatarsal space (deep plantar perforating artery), anterior ankle (anterior tibial artery), or posterior ankle (posterior tibial artery) on dorsoplantar and lateral foot projections.
Results:
Of the 367 individuals included in the study, 359 underwent radiography, with radiographic evidence of calcification in 192 (53.5%). Noninvasive vascular testing was performed on 265 participants, with any reporting of noncompressibility or an ankle-brachial index greater than 1.1 observed in 153 (57.7%). Ninety-four participants (25.6%) demonstrated evidence of arterial calcification on the radiographs and noninvasive testing, meaning that 251 participants (68.4%) demonstrated evidence of arterial calcification on at least one test, including 63.6% of participants classified as black/African American race, 65.4% as white race, and 78.3% as Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.
Conclusions:
The results of this investigation increase the body of knowledge with respect to the evaluation and treatment of diabetic foot disease and may lead to future investigations on the topic of lower-extremity arterial calcification.
Background
The objective of this investigation was to determine the level of agreement between a systematic clinical Doppler examination of the foot and ankle and diagnostic peripheral angiography.
Methods
The described Doppler examination technique attempted to determine the patency, quality, and direction of the flow through the dorsalis pedis artery, posterior tibial artery, terminal branches of the peroneal artery, and vascular arch of the foot. These results were then compared with angiographic distal run-off images as interpreted by a blinded vascular surgeon.
Results
Levels of agreement with respect to artery patency/quality ranged from 64.0% to 84.0%. Sensitivity ranged from 53.8% to 84.2%, and specificity ranged from 64.7% to 91.7%. Agreement with respect to arterial flow direction ranged from 73.3% to 90.5%.
Conclusions
We interpret these results to indicate that this comprehensive physical examination technique of the arterial flow to the foot and ankle with a Doppler device might serve as a reasonable initial surrogate to diagnostic angiography in some patients with peripheral arterial disease.
Background:
One relatively universal functional goal after major lower-limb amputation is ambulation in a prosthesis. This retrospective, observational investigation sought to 1) determine what percentage of patients successfully walked in a prosthesis within 1 year after major limb amputation and 2) assess which patient factors might be associated with ambulation at an urban US tertiary-care hospital.
Methods:
A retrospective medical record review was performed to identify consecutive patients undergoing major lower-limb amputation.
Results:
The overall rate of ambulation in a prosthesis was 29.94% (50.0% of those with unilateral below-the-knee amputation [BKA] and 20.0% of those with unilateral above-the-knee amputation [AKA]). In 24.81% of patients with unilateral BKA or AKA, a secondary surgical procedure of the amputation site was required. In those with unilateral BKA or AKA, statistically significant factors associated with ambulation included male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.50) and at least 6 months of outpatient follow-up (OR = 8.10), survival for at least 1 postoperative year (OR = 8.98), ambulatory preamputation (OR = 14.40), returned home after the amputation (OR = 6.12), and healing of the amputation primarily without a secondary surgical procedure (OR = 3.62). Those who had a history of dementia (OR = 0.00), a history of peripheral arterial disease (OR = 0.35), and a preamputation history of ipsilateral limb revascularization (OR = 0.14) were less likely to walk. We also observed that patients with a history of outpatient evaluation by a podiatric physician before major amputation were 2.63 times as likely to undergo BKA as opposed to AKA and were 2.90 times as likely to walk after these procedures.
Conclusions:
These results add to the body of knowledge regarding outcomes after major amputation and could be useful in the education and consent of patients faced with major amputation.
