Given an abstract of a paper, generate a title for this paper such that conveys the key focus of the paper.

Q: Abstract: The authors report a case of cervical chondroma presenting with a syndrome of spinal cord compression in a 76-year-old woman. Total surgical removal of the lesion was followed by partial neurological recovery. Chondromas of the vertebral column are rarely reported in the literature.

A: Chondroma of the cervical spine. Case report.
****
Q: Abstract: Attempts to follow the treatment progress of patients with multiple personality have been limited to a few single case studies and, in the only large series, to those most successfully treated. This study followed the treatment progress of 20 patients for a mean of 39 months after intake. The study included a detailed history, neurological examination, and psychological testing on each patient. At follow-up each patient was interviewed and a questionnaire was completed by his or her therapist to assess treatment response. Although nine patients achieved partial or full integration, complete integration was maintained by only five. During therapy the unintegrated patients experienced emotional trauma at approximately twice the rate as did the patients who eventually became integrated. Psychodynamic psychotherapy and hypnosis were the most widely prescribed therapies. The improvement in multiple personality appeared to proceed in a stepwise fashion from acceptance of the diagnosis to integration. The progress of therapy was hindered most commonly by the overuse of the mental mechanisms of repression and denial, the continued utilization of secrecy, which began during child abuse, and the production of numerous crises. The most common countertransferences included anger, exasperation, and emotional exhaustion. Although the psychotherapy of patients with multiple personality is tedious and time consuming, it can be eminently successful if the patient and therapist persevere.

A: Treatment progress in 20 patients with multiple personality disorder.
****
Q: Abstract: The choice of which intraoperative monitors to use for routine cases is difficult, because a multitude of monitors is available today. Monitoring is deemed necessary to avoid problems, although there is little hard evidence that a specific monitor will improve outcome. The risk associated with modern noninvasive monitors, however, is negligible, and they should be considered for routine use in all patients. Although errors in the variables displayed or misuse of correct information can cause difficulties, these result from a lack of education and are not a valid reason to abandon a particular monitoring modality. Regular use of such monitoring tools as the electroencephalogram would allow clinicians to become familiar with how to interpret it in normal and crisis situations. The cost of a disaster during anesthesia (such as unrecognized hypoxia) is high. The dollars spent to cover a single major malpractice award could buy a tremendous number of monitors. The state of the art in the mid-1980s demands traditional anesthesia monitors plus continuous capnography and measurement of peripheral oxygenation. Other negligible-risk monitors should also be used when feasible. Improvement in monitoring design, particularly in output formats and in integration of monitored data, will be essential in the next few years, as will training in the proper use of monitors.

A:
Do we monitor enough? We don't monitor enough.
****