Whitepapers

TASA ID:

Posted with permission. Originally published on Review Of Optometry,January 15, 2020.

A 45-year-old Hispanic male presented to clinic with a chief complaint of progressive blurry vision that started approximately four days earlier in his right eye. Accompanying symptoms included light sensitivity and ocular irritation. The patient denied any ocular discharge, ocular trauma or recent illness.

The patient’s ocular history was remarkable for penetrating keratoplasty (PK), which was performed 25 to 30 years ago in both eyes. At this visit, the patient denied using a topical steroid for maintenance therapy. His best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 20/70 OD, 20/50 OS. His anterior segment findings are provided (Figure 1). We observed no palpable preauricular node (PAN) at that visit. The rest of the exam was unremarkable. 

Click here to read more.

 

 

TASA ID: 15617

This article was posted with permission.

The number of individuals using these devices are living longer lives and enjoy a higher quality of life after receiving these life-saving implantable cardiac devices. Unfortunately, there are still several factors which can cause these devices to fail and not deliver the therapy to these patients as they are designed for. Some of these may include cardiac pacemaker lead failures ⁴, ICD lead failures ⁵ , pulse generator failures ⁶, interactions with electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems ⁷ , Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities ⁸, infection, and others which can potentially affect the proper functioning of these implantable cardiac devices.

TASA ID: 16998

Whether on the defense or the plaintiff’s side in dental malpractice allegations, there are key questions and considerations that underpin the validity of any claim. These include: What is the nature of the injury? Is the injury severe enough to bring litigation? What is the standard of care for the particular circumstances? Was the injury due to a violation of the standard of care? This article was written to help attorneys define the standard of care in dental malpractice cases, more readily evaluate if the standard has been violated and work more productively with their experts.  

TASA ID: 10840

Republished with permission.

Abstract 

Medical malpractice as it relates to transvaginal mesh implantation adds another level of responsibility when deciding on surgical options to repair stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. As mesh is a viable option for repair, the informed consent process must involve a time commitment to discuss thoroughly the knowns and unknowns about mesh, and potentially must cover other aspects related to surgery: FDA classification of mesh, experience, potential off label usage, and conflicts of interest. A therapeutic alliance must be developed between physician and patient to allay possible fears about the intrinsic uncertainty of surgery. Proper risk assessment of the patient and pre-operative judgment as to when and if mesh implantation is appropriate are decisions that must be documented. Resolution of a conflict from a complication can be dealt with formally or informally. Above all, sharp skills, good communication, broad knowledge base of mesh surgeries, complication management, knowledge of guidelines, along with methodical documentation can mitigate or avert mesh-related litigation.

To read more, download the PDF below.

TASA ID:

A spinal cord injury (SCI) is harm to the spinal cord which causes physical, physiological, and/or emotional changes in an individual. Each year, there are 17,500 new spinal cord injuries, in the United States, there are between 245,000 and 353,000 Americans living with a spinal cord injury. Most spinal cord injuries occur in people ages 16-30 years old. The leading causes of spinal cord injuries, in order of most common: motor vehicle accidents, followed by falls, violence, and sporting accidents.