To evaluate the effect of adding topotecan to melphalan for the treatment of retinoblastoma using intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC).
 
  Single-center, consecutive case series.
 
  All eyes treated with IAC at the University of Siena, Siena, Italy, from 2008 to2019.
 
  Eyes were treated via IAC with either melphalan monotherapy or melphalan plus topotecan. The characteristics and outcomes of these 2 groups were compared.
 
  The main outcome measure was globe salvage rate.  https://www.selleckchem.com/  Additionally, a complete summary of all adverse events for all eyes was compared between groups and included local, regional, and systemic events causing both transient and permanent effects.
 
  A total of 193 patients and 208 eyes were treated with IAC between April 2008 and October 2019. Melphalan alone (MA) was used to treat 44 patients and 50 eyes for a total of 191 procedures. The combination of melphalan plus topotecan (MPT) was used to treat 149 patients and 158 eyes for a total of 780 procedures. Groups were similar in terms of age at presentation. The MPT group included more advanced eyes (P < 0.001) and had shorter follow-up time (mean 47 vs. 120 months in the MA group, P < 0.001). The MPT group required less laser and cryotherapy after treatment (32% of eyes vs. 50% of eyes in the MA group, P < 0.001); there was no other difference in the number of adjuvant treatments required between groups. There was no difference in the number of acute adverse events, both systemic and local, between groups. There was no difference in the number of transient or permanent intraocular side effects between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis estimated a better globe salvage rate in the MPT group (66%) compared with the MA group (58%, P= 0.05).
 
  In this case series, the addition of topotecan to melphalan did not alter the IAC side effect profile and may contribute to improved globe salvage.
 In this case series, the addition of topotecan to melphalan did not alter the IAC side effect profile and may contribute to improved globe salvage.
  Topical povidone-iodine (PI) is widely used as an ocular surface antiseptic for intravitreal injections (IVIs). Although PI is generally well tolerated, it can be associated with significant ocular irritation. Aqueous chlorhexidine (AqCHX) has been described as a possibly better tolerated antimicrobial for ophthalmic procedures. We compared patient pain scores, ocular surface characteristics, and antimicrobial efficacy between PI 5% and AqCHX 0.1% during IVIs.
 
  Prospective single-center, randomized clinical trial.
 
  Patients receiving same-day bilateral intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections.
 
  Each patient had 1 eye randomized to PI or AqCHX, and the second eye received the other agent. Both eyes received topical proparacaine 0.5%.
 
  After IVIs, participants rated their pain (Wong-Baker, scale 0-10) for each eye 1 minute after PI or AqCHX instillation and 1 day after the procedure. Each eye was assessed using a standardized quantitative grading system of corneal epitheliopa or adverse events. Aqueous chlorhexidine may be a better tolerated alternative to PI for antimicrobial prophylaxis during IVIs for some patients.
 Povidone-iodine demonstrated greater ocular surface discomfort and corneal epitheliopathy compared with AqCHX during same-day bilateral IVIs. The 2 agents otherwise demonstrated no difference in positive microbial cultures or adverse events. Aqueous chlorhexidine may be a better tolerated alternative to PI for antimicrobial prophylaxis during IVIs for some patients.
  The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a valuable tool for interpreting patient-reported outcomes. Previous studies have attempted to define the PASS in a heterogenous cohort with various lumbar spinal disorders and surgical procedures.
 
  We aimed to determine the PASS threshold for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) specifically for patients undergoing lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis-associated functional disability.
 
  Retrospective review of prospectively collected registry data.
 
  There were 692 patients who underwent primary single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2006 and 2014.
 
  The ODI was collected pre-operatively, at 6 months and 2 years postoperatively. An anchor question was adapted from the NASS questionnaire, "How would you rate the overall results of your treatment?" while a validation question was taken from the same questionnaire, "Has the surgery for your back condition met your expectations so far?"
 
  Rel variation across different patient subgroups and baseline score tertiles.
 
  Patients with an ODI of ≤15.27 can be considered to have achieved a PASS after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. These findings will help surgeons to contextualize a patient's functional recovery after lumbar spine surgery and enable researchers to define clinically relevant benchmarks when designing trials utilizing the ODI.
 Patients with an ODI of ≤15.27 can be considered to have achieved a PASS after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. These findings will help surgeons to contextualize a patient's functional recovery after lumbar spine surgery and enable researchers to define clinically relevant benchmarks when designing trials utilizing the ODI.
  Current surgical treatment options for early onset scoliosis (EOS), with distraction- or growth-guidance implants, show limited growth and high complication rates during follow-up. We developed a novel implant concept, which uses compressed helical springs positioned around the rods of a growth-guidance construct. This spring distraction system (SDS) provides continuous corrective force to stimulate spinal growth, can be easily contoured, and can be used with all standard spinal instrumentation systems.
 
  To assess curve correction and -maintenance, spinal growth, complication rate, and health-related quality of life following SDS treatment.
 
  Prospective cohort study.
 
  All skeletally immature EOS patients with an indication for growth-friendly surgery and without bone- or soft tissue weakness were eligible to receive SDS. For this study, all included patients with at least 2-year follow-up were analyzed.
 
  Coronal Cobb angle, sagittal parameters, T1-T12, T1-S1, and instrumented (ie, bridged segment) spinal height and freehand length, complications and re-operations, and the 24-Item Early Onset Scoliosis Questionnaires (EOSQ-24) score.