1.A rare case of Nonsyndromic Oligodontia with Ankyloglossia
Reshma Suvarna ; Prasanna Kumar Rao ; Raghavendra Kini ; Devika Shetty ; Vidya Holla
Pacific Journal of Medical Sciences 2018;18(1):56-60
Agenesis of teeth and ankyloglossia are common human developmental anomalies. Terms like Oligodontia, Anodontia and Hypodontia are used to describe agenesis of teeth. Oligodontia is a rare condition generally defined as agenesis of six or more teeth excluding the third molars. The condition is not frequently documented in Indian children. There is no much documentation on oligodontia with ankylogossia. Ankyloglossia can adversely affect the development of the surrounding structures including the alveolar process, teeth and can impair functions such as mastication, speech, and swallowing. The present article reports a rare case of non-syndromic oligodontia associated with ankyloglossia in an 8-year old male patient. Oligodontia is a relatively rare condition affecting 0.1-0.2% of the population. Our present case is even rare because of its association with ankyloglossia
2.Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy
Debnarayan DUTTA ; Kaushik Jagannath KATAKI ; Shibu GEORGE ; Sruthi K. REDDY ; Ajay SASHIDHARAN ; Rajesh KANNAN ; Ram MADHAVAN ; Haridas NAIR ; Tushar TATINENI ; Raghavendra HOLLA
Radiation Oncology Journal 2020;38(4):253-261
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.
3.Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy
Debnarayan DUTTA ; Kaushik Jagannath KATAKI ; Shibu GEORGE ; Sruthi K. REDDY ; Ajay SASHIDHARAN ; Rajesh KANNAN ; Ram MADHAVAN ; Haridas NAIR ; Tushar TATINENI ; Raghavendra HOLLA
Radiation Oncology Journal 2020;38(4):253-261
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.