Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D N McNally

Publications and source records attributed to D N McNally.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Adherence of academic geriatric practitioners to osteoporosis screening guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the bone mineral density (BMD) testing habits of geriatricians and geriatric fellows at the University of Connecticut fellowship training program to evaluate their adherence screening guidelines. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: University based academic geriatric practice in Farmington, CT. PARTICIPANTS: Chart review of two hundred female patients over age 65 under care of seven faculty geriatricians and eight geriatric fellows in training. MEASUREMENTS: Data collected included BMD testing status, patient's osteoporosis risk factors and functional status. RESULTS: Physicians ordered BMD tests in 151 (76%) patients; 128 (64%) had a bone mineral density test within three years. A personal history of fracture was the only osteoporosis risk factor that correlated to higher rates of osteoporosis testing. Physicians were more likely to order BMD screening in younger patients (92% in 65-74 vs. 74% in ages 85+, P=.031), patients independent in activities of daily living (72% vs. 32, P=.002), and patients without dementia (70% vs.37%, p=.007). BMD testing results found 82% with osteopenia or osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: A geriatric group that is highly attuned to bone health demonstrated more optimal adherence to OP testing guidelines for all "at-risk" older women and better than reported previously. Functional status more strongly predicted BMD testing than osteoporosis risk factors. This study suggests that with improved physician education and familiarity with the disease, high rates of BMD testing for earlier identification of geriatric patients at risk for osteoporosis are achievable.

Activities of Daily Living↗

A modified classification for the maxillectomy defect.

BACKGROUND: At present no widely accepted classification exists for the maxillectomy defect suitable for surgeons and prosthodontists. An acceptable classification that describes the defect and indicates the likely functional and aesthetic outcome is needed. METHODS: The classification is made on the basis of the assessment of 45 consecutive maxillectomy patients derived prospectively from the database (September 1992) and retrospectively from 1989. RESULTS: The classification of the vertical component is as follows: Class 1, maxillectomy without an oro-antral fistula; Class 2, low maxillectomy (not including orbital floor or contents); Class 3, high maxillectomy (involving orbital contents); and Class 4, radical maxillectomy (includes orbital exenteration); Classes 2 to 4 are qualified by adding the letter a, b, or c. The horizontal or palatal component is classified as follows: a, unilateral alveolar maxillectomy; b, bilateral alveolar maxillectomy; and c, total alveolar maxillary resection. CONCLUSION: This practical classification attempts to relate the likely aesthetic and functional outcomes of a maxillectomy to the method of rehabilitation.

Adult↗