1/17. Permanent iatrogenic vocal cord paralysis after I-131 therapy: a case report and literature review.A patient who underwent I-131 therapy for a solitary toxic thyroid nodule subsequently experienced vocal cord paralysis, a rare complication. The patient was examined because of hoarseness 1 week after treatment. Indirect laryngoscopy at the time confirmed right vocal cord paralysis. When the examination was repeated in 6 months, no improvement was noted; vocal cord paralysis was then declared permanent. Surprisingly, 11 months after the onset of symptoms, the patient observed improvement in her voice. At 14 months, she experienced complete vocal recovery. However, a computed tomography performed after this showed that her right vocal cord paralysis was unresolved. The apparent complete recovery of her voice is believed to be a result of adaptive compensatory mechanisms. patients who recover from hoarseness after injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve should have cord function documented by indirect laryngoscopy or other means before the physician performs a procedure that could harm the contralateral nerve, because damage to this nerve could result in devastating consequences.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 1keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
2/17. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures.Interventional radiology (fluoroscopically-guided) techniques are being used by an increasing number of clinicians not adequately trained in radiation safety or radiobiology. Many of these interventionists are not aware of the potential for injury from these procedures or the simple methods for decreasing their incidence. Many patients are not being counselled on the radiation risks, nor followed up when radiation doses from difficult procedures may lead to injury. Some patients are suffering radiation-induced skin injuries and younger patients may face an increased risk of future cancer. Interventionists are having their practice limited or suffering injury, and are exposing their staff to high doses.In some interventional procedures, skin doses to patients approach those experienced in some cancer radiotherapy fractions. Radiation-induced skin injuries are occurring in patients due to the use of inappropriate equipment and, more often, poor operational technique. Injuries to physicians and staff performing interventional procedures have also been observed. Acute radiation doses (to patients) may cause erythema at 2 Gy, cataract at 2 Gy, permanent epilation at 7 Gy, and delayed skin necrosis at 12 Gy. Protracted (occupational) exposures to the eye may cause cataract at 4 Gy if the dose is received in less than 3 months, at 5.5 Gy if received over a period exceeding 3 months.Practical actions to control dose to the patient and to the staff are listed. The absorbed dose to the patient in the area of skin that receives the maximum dose is of priority concern. Each local clinical protocol should include, for each type of interventional procedure, a statement on the cumulative skin doses and skin sites associated with the various parts of the procedure. Interventionists should be trained to use information on skin dose and on practical techniques to control dose. Maximum cumulative absorbed doses that appear to approach or exceed 1 Gy (for procedures that may be repeated) or 3 Gy (for any procedure) should be recorded in the patient record, and there should be a patient follow-up procedure for such cases. patients should be counselled if there is a significant risk of radiation-induced injury, and the patient's personal physician should be informed of the possibility of radiation effects. Training in radiological protection for patients and staff should be an integral part of the education for those using interventional techniques. All interventionists should audit and review the outcomes of their procedures for radiation injury. Risks and benefits, including radiation risks, should be taken into account when new interventional techniques are introduced.A concluding list of recommendations is given. Annexes list procedures, patient and staff doses, a sample local clinical protocol, dose quantities used, and a procurement checklist.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 2keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
3/17. Protecting patients by training physicians in fluoroscopic radiation management.During the past 15 years, developments in x-ray technologies have substantially enhanced the ability of practitioners to treat patients using fluoroscopically guided interventional techniques. However, many of these procedures require a greater use of fluoroscopy and serial imaging (cine). This has increased the potential for radiation-induced dermatitis, epilation, and severe radiation-induced burns to patients. It has also increased the potential for radiation injury and radiation-induced cancer in personnel. This work will describe a number of the cases that have appeared in the literature and current recommendations and credentialing requirements of various organizations whose members use fluoroscopy. Finally, a program for implementing training of physicians in radiation management as a means of reducing the risk of injury to patients and personnel is recommended.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 5keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
4/17. High-dose fluoroscopy: the administrator's responsibilities.During the past 15 years, developments in x-ray technologies have substantially improved the ability of practitioners to treat patients using fluoroscopically guided interventional techniques. Many of these procedures require a greater use of fluoroscopy and serial imaging (cine). This has increased the potential for radiation-induced dermatitis, epilation and severe radiation-induced burns to patients. radiology administrators must realize that these high-dose procedures increase the risk for radiation injury and radiation-induced cancer in personnel as well as in patients. This article discusses particular clinical cases and describes positive, pro-active steps that practitioners and administrators can take to help prevent such injuries in their facilities. Unfortunately, with the exception of radiologists, a large proportion of physicians who use fluoroscopy have effectively no training or credentials in management of radiation or the biological effects associated with its use. In 1994, an FDA advisory warned that training of physicians for modern-day use of the fluoroscope was for the most part insufficient and needed to be expanded. Many prominent medical organizations such as the American College of cardiology (14) and the american heart association (15) have published strongly worded position papers agreeing that there is an urgent need for such training. The consensus is that "rubber-stamp" privileges (16,17) to perform fluoroscopic procedures should no longer be granted. At present, the JCAHO is considering the implementation of a statement regarding JCAHO standards and privileges for practitioners to use fluoroscopic x-ray equipment. Whether or not the JCAHO becomes involved, it is becoming increasingly clear that all practitioners who use fluoroscopic radiation should be required to complete focused training in radiation physics, radiation biology and radiation safety. Training should include the pertinent aspects of radiation management in the clinical setting so that these physicians will be able to acceptably control risks to patients and personnel. The task of securing these materials and lecturers and documenting everything may fall on the shoulders of the radiology administrator or radiation safety staff. Completion of an approved educational program (with appropriate testing) provides the evidence needed by the facility to approve the practitioner's qualifications. In summary, it will take a concerted effort on the part of professional medical organizations and regulatory agencies to insure that the wealth of preventative information now available is disseminated to and put to use by these physicians who may fail to fully appreciate the potential for imparting serious injury to their patients. Even one radiation injury caused by lack of education is unacceptable.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 4keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
5/17. Small bowel perforation after radiotherapy for cervical carcinoma.radiotherapy is the treatment of choice for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. We report on a 62-year-old Chinese woman with cervical carcinoma, in whom a small bowel perforation developed 5 months after radiotherapy. Ten centimetres of small bowel, including the perforation site, were resected. No bowel adhesion was detected during the operation. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged home 7 days after surgery. Histological examination confirmed post-irradiation injury. The presenting complaints of patients with bowel perforation following radiotherapy vary, and signs of peritonitis may be absent. Emergency physicians must be alert for these complications in patients who have been treated with radiotherapy.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 1keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
6/17. epididymitis after prostate brachytherapy.OBJECTIVES: To analyze the incidence, time-course, and potential predisposing factors for what was clinically diagnosed as postimplant epididymitis. methods: Of 517 patients randomized and treated on two treatment protocols, with a planned total accrual of 1200, 5 patients were identified who developed clinically diagnosed epididymitis after iodine-125 or pallidium-103 prostate brachytherapy. Implants were performed by standard techniques, using a modified peripheral loading pattern. Perioperative antibiotics (cefazolin and ciprofloxacin) were given to 258 patients, according to physician preference. Treatment-related morbidity was monitored by mailed questionnaires, using standard American Urological Association (AUA) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. patients who did not respond to the mailed questionnaires were interviewed by telephone. Although the patients were not queried specifically regarding epididymitis, its occurrence was noted when discovered in the course of follow-up examinations. RESULTS: Postimplant epididymitis occurred in 5 (1%) of 517 consecutive brachytherapy patients. None of the 5 patients had had a prior history of orchitis, epididymitis, vasectomy, or preimplant catheterization. The symptoms of epididymitis first appeared at 4, 7, 10, 150, and 300 days after implantation. patients with epididymitis had prostate volumes, preimplant AUA scores, and ages typical of other implant patients. No association was apparent between postimplant epididymitis and the degree of implant-related prostate swelling or the number of seeds implanted. Only the preimplant AUA score predicted for epididymitis, but 2 of the 5 patients had low scores. Only 1 (0.4%) of the 258 patients who received perioperative antibiotics developed epididymitis, and 4 (1.5%) of the 259 patients with prophylactic antibiotics developed epididymitis. CONCLUSIONS: epididymitis is an uncommon postimplant complication occurring in 1% of a large patient cohort. That epididymitis patients had greater preimplant AUA scores is consistent with a retrograde infection route, at least in some cases.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 1keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
7/17. Gemcitabine-related radiation recall in a patient with pancreatic cancer.Radiation recall refers to inflammatory reactions triggered by chemotherapeutic agents and develops cutaneously in the previously irradiated areas. Such agents include anthracyclines, taxanes and capecitabine. Radiation recall related to gemcitabine has been reported in lung and breast cancer. Similar phenomenon associated with gemcitabine, the only FDA-approved drug for pancreatic cancer, is rarely reported. We report a patient with inoperable pancreatic cancer who developed gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to radiation-recall related to gemcitabine and review literature. A 57-year-old white male with unresectable pancreatic cancer received capecitabine in combination with radiation therapy followed by capecitabine alone given over approximately a 3-month time period. Computed tomography re-evaluation demonstrated a new liver lesion. The patient was then treated with gemcitabine and irinotecan. On day 15 of cycle 1, he reported progressive worsening of weakness and fatigue, and melena. physical examination revealed hypotension (84/47 mmHg) and heme-positive stool on rectal examination. He denied aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Chemotherapy was held. hematocrit was 20% (previously 33%). He was transfused with 3 units of packed red blood cells. An esophago-gastro-duodenal examination was performed which showed antritis and duodenitis consistent with radiation therapy. A single site of oozing was injected with epinephrine. The diffuse gastritis was aggressively treated with proton pump inhibitors. The patient's hematocrit eventually stabilized and was 30% at discharge. Gemcitabine was not resumed. Radiation recall from gemcitabine is rare, but can potentially arise in any site that has been previously irradiated. Gemcitabine should be added to the list of drugs known to cause radiation recall. Treating physicians must be aware of this potential toxicity from gemcitabine either given concomitantly or followed by radiation. We suggest discontinuing gemcitabine if radiation recall is observed. Further studies are warranted into the pathogenesis of this unique phenomenon.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 1keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
8/17. Pelvic radiation necrosis and osteomyelitis following chemoradiation for advanced stage vulvar and cervical carcinoma.BACKGROUND: The treatment regimen indicated for most advanced stage vulvar, vaginal, and cervical cancer usually involves adjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Although the risk of complications is low, there have been reported cases of radiation necrosis and osteomyelitis following treatment for vulvar, vaginal, and cervical cancer. CASES: We present a vulvar cancer patient and a cervical cancer patient, both of whom were treated with radical surgery and postoperative chemoradiation. Following therapy, they were afflicted with pelvic radiation necrosis and osteomyelitis. The patients underwent surgery to resect the necrotic bone tissue and long-term antibiotic therapy to treat their osteomyelitis. They have since recovered and are followed closely by their gynecologic oncology and infectious disease physicians. CONCLUSION: The radiotherapy utilized to treat advanced stage gynecologic cancer can cause intestinal, vaginal, and urologic complications from micro-vascular damage to the organs. Pelvic bone osteonecrosis is a rare but disabling complication of pelvic radiation. Fortunately, with aggressive therapy, these patients may do well clinically.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 1keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
9/17. Chronic radiation enteritis complicating non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.A case of radiation enteritis in a patient with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is described. The patient's complaints suggested recurrence of her lymphoma and radiographic studies were nondiagnostic of radiation-induced enteritis, delaying diagnosis and appropriate therapy. An inadvertent error in radiotherapy technic and fibrous adhesions resulting from the staging laparotomy contributed to the radiation injury. Radiation enteritis is a rare complication of irradiation of abdominal lymphoma, but it must be considered by physicians who encounter a similar situation.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 1keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
10/17. osteoradionecrosis of the temporal bone.Six cases of osteoradionecrosis of the temporal bone are described. Persistent symptoms of otitis externa refractory to local treatment measures should alert the physician to the possibility of underlying osteoradionecrosis. Treatment of superficial parotidectomy and partial temporal bone resection with preservation of the facial nerve is indicated if local aggressive conservative measures fail to control the disease. Benign mixed tumors of the parotid gland should be treated surgically with avoidance of radiotherapy.- - - - - - - - - - ranking = 1keywords = physician (Clic here for more details about this article) |
| | Next -> |