A 34-year-old post-partum female having dermatomyositis developed headache and became comatose after a seizure episode. Magnetic resonance imaging of brain showed a massive left ganglio-capsular bleed for which decompressive surgery was done. Computed tomographic angiography showed multiple foci of narrowing and irregularities in distal cerebral vessels. In view of dermatomyositis, the diagnosis of vasculitis was considered and pulse therapy of intravenous methylprednisolone was started. The patient, however, showed no improvement and developed new brain infarcts. She was subsequently taken up for a diagnostic cerebral angiography which showed multifocal severe narrowing in bilateral major cerebral arteries. These angiographic abnormalities showed excellent reversibility to intra-arterial milrinone and hence, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) was diagnosed. Normal angiographic findings in the first week do not rule out the disease and a repeat angiography should be considered if the clinical suspicion of the RCVS is high. Intra-arterial milrinone has a high diagnostic utility.

Purpose: The prognosis of total hip replacement (THR) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus THR following non-operative treatment of acetabular fractures is unclear. Few studies have been conducted in this regard. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to perform an assessment and compare the functional outcomes for study subjects in the ORIF and non-ORIF groups during the follow-up period compared to baseline. Materials and Methods: This longitudinal comparative study, which included 40 patients who underwent THR for either posttraumatic arthritis after fixation of an acetabular fracture or arthritis following conservative management of a fracture, was conducted for 60 months. Twenty-four patients had undergone ORIF, and 16 patients had undergone nonoperative/conservative management for acetabular fractures. Following THR, the patients were followed up for monitoring of functional outcomes for the Harris hip score (HHS) and comparison between the ORIF and non-ORIF groups was performed. Results: The HHS showed significant improvement in both ORIF and non-ORIF groups. At the end of the mean follow-up period, no significant variation in scores was observed between the groups, i.e., ORIF group (91.61±6.64) compared to non-ORIF group (85.74±11.56). A significantly higher number of re-interventions were required for medial wall fractures and combined fractures compared to posterior fractures (P<0.05). Conclusion THR resulted in improved functional outcome during follow-up in both the groups; however, the ORIF group was observed to have better functional outcome. Re-intervention was not required for any of the posterior fractures at the end of the mean follow-up period.

Purpose: The prognosis of total hip replacement (THR) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus THR following non-operative treatment of acetabular fractures is unclear. Few studies have been conducted in this regard. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to perform an assessment and compare the functional outcomes for study subjects in the ORIF and non-ORIF groups during the follow-up period compared to baseline. Materials and Methods: This longitudinal comparative study, which included 40 patients who underwent THR for either posttraumatic arthritis after fixation of an acetabular fracture or arthritis following conservative management of a fracture, was conducted for 60 months. Twenty-four patients had undergone ORIF, and 16 patients had undergone nonoperative/conservative management for acetabular fractures. Following THR, the patients were followed up for monitoring of functional outcomes for the Harris hip score (HHS) and comparison between the ORIF and non-ORIF groups was performed. Results: The HHS showed significant improvement in both ORIF and non-ORIF groups. At the end of the mean follow-up period, no significant variation in scores was observed between the groups, i.e., ORIF group (91.61±6.64) compared to non-ORIF group (85.74±11.56). A significantly higher number of re-interventions were required for medial wall fractures and combined fractures compared to posterior fractures (P<0.05). Conclusion THR resulted in improved functional outcome during follow-up in both the groups; however, the ORIF group was observed to have better functional outcome. Re-intervention was not required for any of the posterior fractures at the end of the mean follow-up period.

Purpose: The prognosis of total hip replacement (THR) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus THR following non-operative treatment of acetabular fractures is unclear. Few studies have been conducted in this regard. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to perform an assessment and compare the functional outcomes for study subjects in the ORIF and non-ORIF groups during the follow-up period compared to baseline. Materials and Methods: This longitudinal comparative study, which included 40 patients who underwent THR for either posttraumatic arthritis after fixation of an acetabular fracture or arthritis following conservative management of a fracture, was conducted for 60 months. Twenty-four patients had undergone ORIF, and 16 patients had undergone nonoperative/conservative management for acetabular fractures. Following THR, the patients were followed up for monitoring of functional outcomes for the Harris hip score (HHS) and comparison between the ORIF and non-ORIF groups was performed. Results: The HHS showed significant improvement in both ORIF and non-ORIF groups. At the end of the mean follow-up period, no significant variation in scores was observed between the groups, i.e., ORIF group (91.61±6.64) compared to non-ORIF group (85.74±11.56). A significantly higher number of re-interventions were required for medial wall fractures and combined fractures compared to posterior fractures (P<0.05). Conclusion THR resulted in improved functional outcome during follow-up in both the groups; however, the ORIF group was observed to have better functional outcome. Re-intervention was not required for any of the posterior fractures at the end of the mean follow-up period.

Background: Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis(PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement. Results: One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was “good” in 24(67%), “fair” in 4(11%), and “poor” in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in “poor”, “fair”, and “good” score was 2/2(100%), 4/5(80%), and 24/27(89%), respectively(p=0.001). Child-Pugh score(p=0.080), performance status(PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during “learning curve”(p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time(p=0.055), recovery time(p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications(p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved(p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer(BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. “Good” placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort(p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively(p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0–1 in 26 patients(72%) and pain score 3–4 was in 2(6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in “day-care”(2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient(3%) admitted for hemothorax. Conclusion Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, “quality” of placement is “good” in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the “learning curve”. Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications.

Background: Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis(PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement. Results: One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was “good” in 24(67%), “fair” in 4(11%), and “poor” in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in “poor”, “fair”, and “good” score was 2/2(100%), 4/5(80%), and 24/27(89%), respectively(p=0.001). Child-Pugh score(p=0.080), performance status(PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during “learning curve”(p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time(p=0.055), recovery time(p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications(p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved(p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer(BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. “Good” placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort(p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively(p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0–1 in 26 patients(72%) and pain score 3–4 was in 2(6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in “day-care”(2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient(3%) admitted for hemothorax. Conclusion Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, “quality” of placement is “good” in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the “learning curve”. Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications.

Background & Objective: The Indian data comparing the efficacy and safety outcomes of tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke is scarce. We aimed to compare the outcomes of two agents in an Indian population. Methods: TENVALT study was a single centre, retrospective study. Patients aged 18 years or older with acute ischemic stroke were included in this study if they presented within 3 hours of symptom onset and had a deficit with National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score > 4, had a modified Rankin score (mRS) of 2 or less before the stroke onset and had no evidence of hemorrhage on non-contrast computed tomography of brain. A good functional recovery (mRS score of 0-2) at the end of three months was defined as the primary efficacy outcome. The development of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was considered as the primary safety outcome. Results: A total of 120 patients (alteplase, n=65; tenecteplase, n=55) underwent stroke thrombolysis during this study. The mean age of the presentation in tenecteplase group was 66.6 years and in alteplase group was 62.5 years. Most of the study subjects were males in both the groups (tenecteplase, 78.2%; alteplase, 61.5%). Hypertension was the most common comorbidity in both the groups (tenecteplase, 67.3%; alteplase, 76.9%). Median mRS score at 3 months of follow up was 2 in tenecteplase and 1 in alteplase group; however, the difference between the total number of patients having good functional recovery (mRS 0-2) in the two groups was not statistically significant (tenecteplase 74.5 vs alteplase 87.7%, P=0.09). The total number of patients who had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was comparable between the two groups (tenecteplase, 5.5%; alteplase, 6.2%). Conclusion: Tenecteplase appears to be an efficacious alternative to alteplase for stroke thrombolysis and may be better suited to developing countries considering its low cost and ease of administration.