OBJECTIVE: Patients with advanced laryngeal cancer are typically presented with divergent treatment options, namely chemoradiation versus total laryngectomy. This study aims to understand general perspectives of the factors involved in this decision-making process. METHODS: Surveys were constructed using specialized conjoint analysis software. Seven attributes integral to the decision-making process for advanced laryngeal cancer treatment were included. RESULTS: Three hundred one healthy adult volunteers completed the decision-making program. The relative impact of each treatment attribute on decision making across all participants was scored with an average importance score (standard deviation) as follows: Lifespan 22.2% (±8.5), Voicing 21.4% (±5.9), Swallowing 19.1% (±7.3), Cancer Cure 14.9% (±6.2), Mode of Breathing 11.0% (±3.7), Self-Image 6.7% (±2.9), and Treatment Type 4.8% (±3.0). CONCLUSIONS: General public opinion ranked lifespan, voicing, and swallowing aspects as similarly important, and all were ranked more important than probability of cure. These data demonstrate a variety of priorities among participants and the need for tailored discussions when determining treatment choice for advanced laryngeal cancer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

The focused field and its intensity distribution achieved by the 4π-spherical focusing scheme are investigated within the framework of diffraction optics. Generalized mathematical formulas describing the spatial distributions of the focused electric and magnetic fields are derived for the transverse magnetic and transverse electric mode electromagnetic waves with and without the orbital angular momentum attribute. The mathematical formula obtained shows no singularity in the field in the focal region and satisfies the finite field strength and electromagnetic energy conditions. The 4π-spherical focusing of the transverse magnetic mode electromagnetic wave provides the highest field strength at the focus and the peak intensity reaches 10²⁶ W/cm² for the laser power of 100 PW at 800 nm wavelength. As an example of using the mathematical formula, the electron-positron pair production via the Schwinger mechanism is analyzed and compared with previous results.

Background

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is commonly utilized in lumbar degenerative pathologies. Standalone ALIF (ST-ALIF) systems were developed to avoid added morbidity, surgical time, and cost of anterior and posterior fusion (APF). Controversy exists in the literature about which of these two techniques yields superior clinical and radiographic outcomes, and few studies have directly compared them. This study seeks to compare ST-ALIF and APF in terms of sagittal correction and surgical complications.

Methods

Ninty-two consecutive ALIF cases performed from 2013-2018 were retrospectively reviewed and separated into 2 groups. Radiographic measurements were performed on pre- and post-operative radiographs, including segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). Surgical complications were determined. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test of homogeneity, Fisher's exact test, and independent sample t-test. Comparisons between groups were deemed statistically significant at the P<0.05 threshold.

Results

Fifty-seven ST-ALIF, 35 APF were identified. There were no differences in age, gender, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), preoperative diagnosis, or surgical level between the 2 cohorts. Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) was utilized in 24.6% of ST-ALIF versus none of APF (P=0.001). No differences were detected in SL, LL, and PI-LL mismatch. ST-ALIF cohort had significantly greater risk of subsidence and revision surgery versus APF (12.3% vs. 0%, RD 95% CI: 3.8-20.8%, P=0.042). Recurrent spondylolisthesis occurred in 5 ST-ALIF cases, 3 cases with implant failure, and 2 nonunions versus none in the APF group.

Conclusions

ST-ALIF was associated with significantly greater subsidence and revision surgery versus APF. Careful patient selection is paramount when considering ST-ALIF. The potential for revision surgery may offset the potential benefit in avoiding posterior fusion. Despite the greater risk of subsidence, sagittal alignment was not significantly affected.