Search

Background: Ethics in biomedical research is still a fairly new concept in Africa. This work aims to assess the knowledge, attitude and experiences of Beninese researchers with regard to the national ethical regulatory framework of biomedical research in Benin., Methods: This was a cross-sectional and descriptive study, involving all the researchers fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Data were collected through a face-to-face interview using a questionnaire and analysed. Proportions and means were calculated with their confidence intervals and standard deviations, respectively., Results: Of the 110 participants included in the study, 40.9% were medical lecturers and 71.1% had been involved in more than 10 biomedical research as researcher. Less than three quarters (69.1%) were able to correctly quote the basic principles from Belmont report. The quarter (25.45%) of them knew the attributions of the National Ethics Committee for Health Research (CNERS in French) and 38.2%, the content of the legislation on health research ethics in Benin. The common ethical rules were known by 69.1% of the participants. A quarter (25.5%) of participants said they always present the study's briefing note to their study participants and 62.7% said they systematically request informed consent. For those who do not present the briefing note to participants, the main reasons provided were the researchers' difficulties in writing the note in plain language and the participants' limitation in understanding it., Conclusions: The foundations of a good ethical framework for health research exist in Benin. However, the deployment and use of the various legal texts deserve to be improved., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To study the management and evaluate anatomical and functional outcomes of patients with ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures., Methods: A retrospective, descriptive and analytic study lasted for ten years and a half ranging from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2015. The following parameters were studied: epidemiology, fracture characteristics, therapeutic, anatomical and functional outcomes. The correlation between different parameters was analyzed with Fischer test. The significant threshold was defined for p value <0.05., Results: Ten medical files were registered. There were 7 men and 3 women, with a sex ratio of 2.33. The average age was 46 years (range: 29-62 years). It was about traffic road accidents in all cases. Motorcycle-motorcycle and motorcycle-car collision were most frequent. Average admission delay was 7 h (range: 1.5-24 h). Left side was most reached in 8 cases. According to Garden classification, there was type III cervical fracture in 2 cases, type II in 1 case and type IV in 1 case. According to Ender classification, there was type I trochanteric fracture in 3 cases, type VI in 2 cases and type VII in 1 case. According to AO classification, there was type A shaft fracture in 6 cases (A2 in 4 cases and A3 in 2 cases), type B in 2 cases (B1 in 1 case and B2 in 1 case) and type C in 2 cases (C1 in 1 case and C2 in 1 case). Average surgical delay was 28.7 days (range: 11-61 days). For proximal femoral fracture, Moore prosthesis was used in 1 case, blade plate 130° in 2 cases, long Gamma nail in 4 cases, double screwing in 2 cases and dynamic hip screw in 1 case. For shaft femoral fracture, blade plate 95° was used in 3 cases, low compressive plate in 2 cases. Osseous contention was achieved in 4 cases with long Gamma nail and in 1 case with long blade plate 130°. Nonunion of cervical fracture was achieved in 2 cases. The average osseous healing delay was 5.14 months (range: 3-12 months) for proximal femoral fracture and 5 months (range: 3-8 months) for shaft femoral fractures. According to Friedman and Wyman criteria, functional results were good in 4 cases, average in 4 cases and bad in 2 cases. Regarding implants, healing delay showed no statistic difference between one-implant group and two-implant group (p = 0.52), and among the patients with different functional outcomes (p = 0.52). Functional outcomes showed no statistic difference between one-implant group and two-implant group (p = 0.46)., Conclusion: Ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures are relatively uncommon in our daily activities. It is difficult to recognize proximal femoral fractures which are unnoticed. Results are generally good if the doctors take the two fractures into account in the management., (Copyright © 2017 Daping Hospital and the Research Institute of Surgery of the Third Military Medical University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)