Search

Purpose: This work evaluates the clinical characteristics, visual outcomes, and complications of patients treated for open-globe injuries (OGIs) caused by wooden objects., Methods: A retrospective review of medical records was conducted on patients presenting to a tertiary trauma center with an OGI between January 2005 and December 2017. Medical records were isolated for wounds caused by wooden objects. Patient demographics were recorded, with presenting visual acuity (VA), physical examination findings, and wound characteristics. After primary globe repair, secondary complications, need for additional surgery, and visual outcomes were noted until final examination. Main outcome measures were final VA and secondary complications. The Ocular Trauma Score (OTS) was computed and assessed for clinical relevance related to visual outcomes., Results: Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria, with 15 (47%) being injured by plant material. Thirty of the patients were men (94%). A large portion of patients presented with hand motion or worse vision (48%), and there were high rates of hyphema (59%), vitreous hemorrhage (31%), retinal detachment (28%), and endophthalmitis (9%). Two patients eventually required enucleation. At last follow-up, 19 patients achieved 20/100 VA or better (59.4%), which correlated with their OTS ( P < .001)., Conclusions: Despite the high clinical severity of wood OGIs, the potential for visual recovery remains high. The OTS appropriately assesses the severity of injuries and the likely prognosis in this cohort of patients., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: S.P. has received grant support from Alcon. T.P. and C.B. have nothing to declare., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

ER+/PR- (estrogen receptor positive and progesterone receptor negative) tumors constitute only a small portion of the breast cancer population. Patients with ER+/PR- tumors, however, are characterized by worse survival compared to patients with ER+/PR+ (estrogen receptor positive and progesterone receptor positive) tumors. Controversy exists regarding the efficacy of hormone blocking therapy for patients with ER+/PR- tumors. The NCDB was queried between 2004 and 2015, and patients with invasive ER+/PR- tumors were identified. We employed univariate Cox proportional hazards to compare outcomes among patients that did or did not receive hormone blocking therapy. We identified 138,398 patients with invasive ER+/PR- tumors, 32,044 (23%) of whom did not receive hormone blocking therapy. The reasons for not receiving hormone blocking therapy included contraindications to treatment, death, patient refusal, and unknown. There were no significant differences in race, income quartile, or education quartile between patients who did and did not receive hormone blocking therapy. Patients who did not receive hormone blocking therapy underwent surgical assessment of the axilla more frequently than those who did receive hormone therapy. Our analysis demonstrated that hormone blocking therapy administration was associated with increased overall survival for up to 10 years of follow up (HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.56-0.59, p < 0.001). Hormone blocking therapy may be associated with increased survival for breast cancer patients with ER+/PR- tumors. Although this benefit may last for years after completion of the course, up to 25% of patients do not receive this treatment. Strategies to increase the utilization and adherence to hormone blocking therapy regimens may improve patient survival outcomes.