Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background and Aims Due to the high symptom and treatment burden in myasthenia gravis (MG), understanding patient and care partner perspectives and preferences is crucial. Methods This study used voice analysis and virtual focus groups to understand patient and care partner experiences with MG‐related symptoms, treatments, and preferences. The voice analysis via social media listening used artificial intelligence‐powered tools to gather and structure public digital conversations on MG. Focus groups included people living with MG and care partners who completed a questionnaire and participated in a 1‐h virtual session facilitated using a semi‐structured interview guide. Qualitative data were aggregated, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Results The voice analysis examined 11,554 posts from 8321 individuals, discussing MG symptoms, treatments, and burden. Of 7563 symptom‐related posts, 5902 (78%) conveyed negative, 1427 (19%) neutral, and 234 (3%) positive sentiment. The most frequently mentioned symptoms were categorized as dysarthria, muscle weakness, and dysphagia. MG treatment sentiment analysis identified 6667 posts (67%) as neutral, 2887 (29%) as negative, and 350 (4%) as positive. For the focus groups, 15 individuals (12 patients and 3 care partners) completed the questionnaire and 14 participated in the virtual focus group sessions. The 15 participants who completed the questionnaire prioritized treatment convenience, symptom control for improved quality of life, and preventing potential MG crises in their current treatment. New treatment expectations included increased effectiveness, less frequent dosing, faster onset, and fewer side effects. Participants were also receptive to wearable medication delivery systems placed on the body and valued direct involvement in treatment decisions. Conclusion Patients and care partners are often negatively impacted by MG symptoms and value convenient and fast‐acting treatments that control symptoms with minimal side effects. Considering patient preferences may help optimize treatment decisions and improve patients' overall well‐being and satisfaction in their care. Key points Recognizing and valuing patients' expertise in their health and treatment preferences is vital, especially since factors such as daily functioning, symptoms, and treatment administration impact patients' daily lives and influence myasthenia gravis (MG) treatment management. Patients and care partners are often negatively impacted by MG symptoms and prioritize convenient treatments that control symptoms with minimal side effects. A greater understanding of these preferences and perspectives may encourage more personalized treatment plans and improved patient experiences in MG.

Abstract Hip preservation surgeries, including hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), are crucial interventions for patients with labral pathology and hip disorders aiming to alleviate pain and improve function. However, the optimal perioperative approach with regards to timing and outcomes of these procedures remains debated. This prospective study aims to compare outcomes between patients undergoing staged hip arthroscopy and PAO surgery versus those receiving both procedures simultaneously under one anesthetic. A prospective comparative cohort study will be conducted including patients diagnosed with hip dysplasia requiring both arthroscopic intervention and PAO surgery. Patients will be placed into one of two equally sized groups based on their treatment approach: Group A receiving separate arthroscopy and PAO surgery, and Group B undergoing both procedures concurrently under one anesthetic. Outcome measures will include postoperative pain levels, functional scores (e.g., iHOT-33, Modified Harris Hip Score), complication rates, and short, mid, and long-term patient-reported outcomes. Data collection and analysis are ongoing. We anticipate that this study will provide valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness and safety of the two surgical approaches for hip preservation patients.

Abstract Hip preservation surgeries, such as hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), are critical for managing conditions that impair hip functionality and quality of life. While these procedures are traditionally performed separately, there is a growing interest in the potential of their combined execution under a single anesthesia to reduce hospital costs and patient burden. However, comprehensive data comparing the economic impacts of these surgical approaches are currently lacking. This study seeks to analyze and compare the hospital costs associated with two surgical approaches in hip preservation: 1) patients undergoing separately staged hip arthroscopy and PAO surgeries, and 2) patients receiving both procedures under a single anesthesia. A retrospective cohort study will be conducted using hospital financial and medical record data about patients who have undergone hip preservation surgeries. Patients will be grouped based on whether they received staged or combined surgeries. The primary analysis will focus on direct hospital costs, encompassing surgical time, anesthesia duration, consumables, and postoperative care expenses. It is anticipated that combined surgical procedures in the context of hip preservation will have significant cost benefits to hospitals.