OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a scoping review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) concerning the use of functional anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) braces and to clarify the nomenclature for bracing relevant to ACL injury treatment in order to support prescribing clinicians.
METHODS: A PubMed search for CPGs for the use of braces following ACL injury or reconstruction was performed. CPGs on the treatment of ACL injuries with sufficient attention to postoperative braces were included in this scoping review. The references used for supporting the specific CPG recommendations were reviewed. Specific indications for brace use including brace type, period of use following surgery and activities requiring brace use were collected.
RESULTS: Six CPGs were identified and included this this review. Three randomised trials provided the evidence for recommendations on functional brace use following ACL reconstruction in the six CPGs. Functional ACL braces were the primary focus of the three randomised trials, although extension braces (postoperative knee immobilisers) were also discussed. A novel dynamic ACL brace category has been described, although included CPGs did not provide guidance on this brace type.
CONCLUSIONS: Guidance on the use of functional ACL braces following ACL reconstruction is provided in six CPGs supported by three randomised trials. However, the brace protocols and patient compliance in the randomised trials render these CPGs inadequate for providing guidance on the use of functional ACL braces in the general and high-risk patient populations when returning to sport after ACL reconstruction. Functional ACL braces are commonly utilised during the course of ACL injury treatment although there is presently limited evidence supporting or refuting the routine use of these braces. Future studies are, therefore, necessary in order to provide guidance on the use of functional and dynamic ACL braces in high-risk patient populations.
METHODS: Level II.

BACKGROUND: Nanoscale connectomics, which aims to map the fine connections between neurons with synaptic-level detail, has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Currently, the automated reconstruction algorithms in electron microscope volumes are in great demand. Most existing reconstruction methodologies for cellular and subcellular structures are independent, and exploring the inter-relationships between structures will contribute to image analysis. The primary goal of this research is to construct a joint optimization framework to improve the accuracy and efficiency of neural structure reconstruction algorithms.
RESULTS: In this investigation, we introduce the concept of connectivity consensus between cellular and subcellular structures based on biological domain knowledge for neural structure agglomeration problems. We propose a joint graph partitioning model for solving ultrastructural and neuronal connections to overcome the limitations of connectivity cues at different levels. The advantage of the optimization model is the simultaneous reconstruction of multiple structures in one optimization step. The experimental results on several public datasets demonstrate that the joint optimization model outperforms existing hierarchical agglomeration algorithms.
CONCLUSIONS: We present a joint optimization model by connectivity consensus to solve the neural structure agglomeration problem and demonstrate its superiority to existing methods. The intention of introducing connectivity consensus between different structures is to build a suitable optimization model that makes the reconstruction goals more consistent with biological plausible and domain knowledge. This idea can inspire other researchers to optimize existing reconstruction algorithms and other areas of biological data analysis.

暂无摘要。

Breast reconstruction is an important part of the cancer treatment paradigm and the psychosocial benefits are well described in the literature. Notably, breast reconstruction restores both the functional and emotional losses patients experience due to tumor resection. Post-cancer quality of life is an important benchmark of successful treatment; therefore, breast reconstruction is an essential component that should be offered whenever possible. Over time, reconstructive techniques and outcomes have improved dramatically resulting in better patient safety and decreased operative morbidity. When counseling a patient for surgery, the provider must consider all aspects of a patient\'s health. Ideally, breast cancer patients should be physically, emotionally, and oncologically appropriate candidates for reconstruction. However, in concerted effort to provide opportunities for as many patients as possible, the definition of who is a good candidate for reconstruction has evolved to include higher risk patients. These patients include those with advanced age, nicotine use, obesity, and significant ptosis. With improvements in surgical procedures and perioperative care, this population may also benefit from restorative surgery. However, the exact risk of complications and necessary counseling has gone largely undefined in this population. This article examines particular \"high-risk\" groups that may be challenging for extirpative and reconstructive surgeons and offers current guidelines for practice.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate what proportion of breast cancer patients were offered reconstruction following mastectomy (to assess compliance with national guidelines) and to consider the reasoning if patients were not given this option.
METHODS: Records of all mastectomies were obtained from a prospectively maintained database (September 2018-October 2019). The following were collected: demographics, indication for surgery, tumour properties, and indication for mastectomy over breast-conserving surgery. Clinic letters were used to determine whether patients were offered reconstruction and whether they accepted. If a patient was not offered reconstruction, the rationale for this was recorded.
RESULTS: 201 mastectomies were carried out on 179 patients. 77.3% of women were offered reconstruction following mastectomy for cancer and 92.9% of women were offered reconstruction following mastectomy for non-invasive disease. Patients were not offered reconstruction only if they had significant co-morbidities (ASA grade III or higher); no patients who expressed an interest in reconstruction were declined. The most common reasons reconstruction was not offered included: deemed too frail following surgeon assessment (29.7%), advanced cancer (16.2%), and deemed high-risk following anaesthetist assessment (16.2%). 59.1% of patients who were offered reconstruction declined. Mean age in those who declined was significantly higher (P > 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our unit now complies with national guidelines when offering reconstruction to mastectomy patients; this service was not previously offered. Further research into the reasons behind why women are declining reconstruction is necessary to ensure we are providing adequate information in an appropriate format.

Surgical management of patients with ventral abdominal wall defects, especially complex abdominal wall defects, remains a challenging problem for abdominal wall reconstructive surgeons. Effective surgical treatment requires appropriate preoperative assessment, surgical planning, and correct operative procedure in order to improve postoperative clinical outcomes and minimize complications. Although substantial advances have been made in surgical techniques and prosthetic technologies, there is still insufficient high-level evidence favoring a specific technique. Broad variability in existing practice patterns, including clinical pre-operative evaluation, surgical techniques and surgical procedure selection, are still common.
With the purpose of providing a best practice algorithm, a comprehensive search was conducted in Medline and PubMed. Sixty-four surgeons considered as experts on abdominal wall defect repair and reconstruction in China were solicited to develop a Chinese consensus and give recommendations to help surgeons standardize their techniques and improve clinical results.
This consensus serves as a starting point to provide recommendations for adult ventral abdominal wall repair and reconstruction in China and may help build opportunities for international cooperation to refine AWR practice.

To evaluate how common radiation therapy techniques perform in the setting of the new European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice (ESTRO-ACROP) delineation recommendations for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).
Seven Danish radiation therapy centres and six international European centres participated in this project. Two breast cancer cases (one left-sided and one right-sided) with a retropectoral implant were chosen for radiation therapy planning using deep-inspiration breath-hold. Target volumes were delineated according to ESTRO-ACROP delineation recommendations. The centres were asked to plan the cases using any radiation therapy technique according to the Danish Breast Cancer Group plan objectives.
In total, 35 treatment plans were collected. Half of the submitted plans, for both the left-sided and the right-sided case, used the field-in-field (FiF) technique (nine for each), a quarter used volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT; five for right-sided, four for left-sided) and the remaining quarter was a mix of inverse intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), helicoidal therapy and hybrid (combined open fields and VMAT) techniques. Mean clinical target volume doses were in the range 99-102% of the prescribed dose. The median FiF mean heart dose (MHD) for right-sided radiation therapy was 1 Gy (range 0.8-3.7) and 5.2 Gy for left-sided radiation therapy (range 2.2-6.5). For right-sided radiation therapy, the median VMAT MHD was 3.42 Gy, for IMRT was 2.3 Gy and for helicoidal therapy was 5.1 Gy. For left-sided radiation therapy, the median VMAT MHD was 6.3 Gy, for IMRT was 7.8 Gy and for helicoidal therapy was 7.3 Gy.
Different radiation therapy techniques could be used to plan radiation therapy in the setting of IBR. FiF provided good coverage with acceptable organ at risk doses. The best dose distribution results as a trade-off between the objectives of target volume coverage and high-dose organ at risk inclusion. The radiation therapy technique affects the interplay between these objectives.

UNASSIGNED: There is evidence that the use of WEIGHTBEARING imaging aids in the assessment of progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD). The following WEIGHTBEARING conventional radiographs (CRs) are necessary in the assessment of PCFD patients: anteroposterior (AP) foot, AP or mortise ankle, and lateral foot. If available, a hindfoot alignment view is strongly recommended. If available, WEIGHTBEARING computed tomography (CT) is strongly recommended for surgical planning. When WEIGHTBEARING CT is obtained, important findings to be assessed are sinus tarsi impingement, subfibular impingement, increased valgus inclination of the posterior facet of the subtalar joint, and subluxation of the subtalar joint at the posterior and/or middle facet.
UNASSIGNED: Level V, consensus, expert opinion.

UNASSIGNED: Progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD) is a complex 3D deformity with varying degrees of hindfoot valgus, forefoot abduction, and midfoot supination. Although a medial displacement calcaneal osteotomy can correct heel valgus, it has far less ability to correct forefoot abduction. More severe forefoot abduction, most frequently measured preoperatively by assessing talonavicular coverage on an anteroposterior (AP) weightbearing conventional radiographic view of the foot, can be more effectively corrected with a lateral column lengthening procedure than by other osteotomies in the foot. Care must be taken intraoperatively to not overcorrect the deformity by restricting passive eversion of the subtalar joint or causing adduction at the talonavicular joint on simulated AP weightbearing fluoroscopic imaging. Overcorrection can lead to lateral column overload with persistent lateral midfoot pain. The typical amount of lengthening of the lateral column is between 5 and 10 mm.
UNASSIGNED: Level V, consensus, expert opinion.
UNASSIGNED: Lateral column lengthening (LCL) procedure is recommended when the amount of talonavicular joint uncoverage is above 40%. The amount of lengthening needed in the lateral column should be judged intraoperatively by the amount of correction of the uncoverage and by adequate residual passive eversion range of motion of the subtalar joint.Delegate vote: agree, 78% (7/9); disagree, 11% (1/9); abstain, 11% (1/9).(Strong consensus).
UNASSIGNED: When titrating the amount of correction of abduction deformity intraoperatively, the presence of adduction at the talonavicular joint on simulated weightbearing fluoroscopic imaging is an important sign of hypercorrection and higher risk for lateral column overload.Delegate vote: agree, 100% (9/9); disagree, 0%; abstain, 0%.(Unanimous, strongest consensus).
UNASSIGNED: The typical range for performing a lateral column lengthening is between 5 and 10 mm to achieve an adequate amount of talonavicular coverage.Delegate vote: agree, 100% (9/9); disagree, 0%; abstain, 0%.(Unanimous, strongest consensus).

OBJECTIVE: A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect for establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. The aim of this consensus statement was to establish what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed.
METHODS: To establish a standardized approach to assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA; USA, in June 2019. The group reached consensus on nine statements by using a modified Delphi method.
RESULTS: In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into four robust categories-early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment following ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained re-injuries, validated knee-specific PROs and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid- to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment.
METHODS: V.