Search

Background: Circular frames for ankle fusion are reserved for complex clinical scenarios. The literature is heterogenous and conflicting. We aim to present the indications and outcomes of this procedure. Methods: A retrospective cohort study based on a prospective database of frame surgeries performed in a tertiary institution. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing complex ankle fusion with circular frames between 2005 and 2020, with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Data were collected on patient demographics, surgical indications, comorbidities, surgical procedures, external fixator time (EFT), length of stay (LOS), radiologic and clinical outcomes, and adverse events. Factors influencing radiologic and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: 47 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range [IQR] 20-40). The median age at time of surgery was 63.5 years (IQR 58-71). Patients had a median of 2 previous surgeries (IQR 1-3). The median LOS was 8.5 days, and median EFT was 237 days (IQR 166-280). Simultaneous limb lengthening (median 3.3 cm, IQR 1.9-3.5) was performed in 11 patients, increasing the EFT by a mean of 4 months. Primary and final union rates were 91.5% and 95.7%, respectively. At last follow-up, ASAMI bone scores were excellent or good in 87.2%. ASAMI functional scores were good in 79.1%. Patient satisfaction was 83.7%. In addition, 97.7% of patients experienced adverse events, most commonly pin-site related, with major complications in 30.2% and reoperations in 60.5%. There were 3 amputations. Adverse events were associated with increased age, poor soft tissue condition, severe deformities, subtalar fusions, peripheral neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, and prolonged EFT. Conclusion: Complex ankle fusion using circular frames can achieve good outcomes, however time in frame may be prolonged with a high rate of adverse events. Identified risk factors for poorer outcomes should be considered in patient counselling and prognostication. Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic.

Superficial pin site infection is a common problem associated with external fixation, which has been extensively reported. However, the incidence and risk factors with regard to deep infection are rarely reported in the literature. In this study, we investigate and explore the incidence and risk factors of deep infection following circular frame surgery. For the purpose of this study, deep infection was defined as persistent discharge or collection for which surgical intervention was recommended.This study is retrospective review of all patients who underwent frame surgery between April 1, 2015 and April 1, 2019 in our unit with a minimum of 1 year follow-up following frame removal. We recorded patient demographics, patient risk factors, trauma or elective procedure, number of days the frame wasThree-hundred and four patients were identified. Twenty-seven patients were excluded as they were lost to follow-up or had their primary frame surgery as a treatment for infection. This provided us with 277 patients for analysis. The mean age was 47 years (range: 9-89 years), the male to female ratio was 1.5:1, and 80% were trauma frames. Thirteen patients (4.69%) developed deep infection, and all occurred in trauma patients. Of the 13 patients who developed deep infection, 4 had infection before frame removal, and infection occurred in 9 after frame removal. Deep infections occurred in 8 patients within a year of frame removal and in one patient between 1 and 2 years of frame removal.Within the 13 frame procedures for trauma, 12 were periarticular multi-fragmentary fractures, 3 of which were open, and the remaining were an open diaphyseal fracture. The periarticular fractures were more likely to develop deep infection than diaphyseal fractures (p = 0.033). Twelve patients (out of 13) also had concurrent minimally invasive internal fixation with screws in very close proximity of the wires.The rate of deep infection following circular frame surgery appears to be low. Pooled, multi-centre data would be required to analyse risk factors; however, multi-fragmentary, periarticular fracture and the requirement for additional internal fixation appear to be an associated factor.Ting J, Moulder E, Muir R

Objective: To identify and compare current modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for pancreatic cancer (PaCa) that may have potential application in PaCa risk stratification, prevention, and early detection.Material: All articles in this literature review were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases. All articles were published in the English language, between January 2000 to December 2021 and with an abstract. In this review study, we judge the evidence level of different PaCa risk factors through the criteria of grading evidence for cancer prevention.Results: The modifiable risk factors identified included cigarette smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, increased Body Mass Index (BMI) and abdominal obesity, chronic pancreatitis, diabetes, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, periodontal disease, cholecystectomy and chemicals and asbestos exposure. The non-modifiable risk factors included age, gender, ethnicity, blood type, family history, inherited syndromes, germline mutation, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). However, there are still some ambiguous risk factors for which the current evidence is inconclusive such as low physical activity, increased consumption of red/processed meat and dairy products, vitamin D insufficiency, and some medical-related conditions including gut microbiota such as Helicobacter Pylori infection, long-term usage of Proton-pump inhibitors (PPI), and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) history.Conclusions: This literature review summarizes the modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors of PaCa with strong evidence, which could be used to further establish PaCa predictive model as an application of PaCa risk stratification, raise public awareness and educate the public as a prevention program. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential risk factors.

Introduction: The purpose of this national study was to audit the weight-bearing practice of orthopaedic services in the National Health Service (NHS) in the treatment of operatively and non-operatively treated ankle fractures. Methods: A multicentre prospective two-week audit of all adult ankle fractures was conducted between July 3rd 2017 and July 17th 2017. Fractures were classified using the AO/OTA classification. Fractures fixed with syndesmosis screws or unstable fractures (>1 malleolus fractured or talar shift present) treated conservatively were excluded. No outcome data were collected. In line with NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) criteria, “early” weight-bearing was defined as unrestricted weight-bearing on the affected leg within 3 weeks of injury or surgery and “delayed” weight-bearing as unrestricted weight-bearing permitted after 3 weeks. Results: 251 collaborators from 81 NHS hospitals collected data: 531 patients were managed non-operatively and 276 operatively. The mean age was 52.6 years and 50.5 respectively. 81% of non-operatively managed patients were instructed for early weight-bearing as recommended by NICE. In contrast, only 21% of operatively managed patients were instructed for early weight-bearing. Discussion: The majority of patients with uni-malleolar ankle fractures which are managed non-operatively are treated in accordance with NICE guidance. There is notable variability amongst and within NHS hospitals in the weight-bearing instructions given to patients with operatively managed ankle fractures. Conclusion: This study demonstrates community equipoise and suggests that the randomized study to determine the most effective strategy for postoperative weight-bearing in ankle fractures described in the NICE research recommendation is feasible.

Background Improving cancer survival in the UK, despite recent significant gains, remains a huge challenge. This can be attributed to, at least in part, patient and diagnostic delays, when patients are unaware they are suffering from a cancerous symptom and therefore do not visit a general practitioner promptly and/or when general practitioners fail to investigate the symptom or refer promptly. To raise awareness of symptoms that may potentially be indicative of underlying cancer among members of the public a symptom-based risk assessment model (developed for medical practitioner use and currently only used by some UK general practitioners) was utilized to develop a risk assessment tool to be offered to the public in community settings. Such a tool could help individuals recognize a symptom, which may potentially indicate cancer, faster and reduce the time taken to visit to their general practitioner. In this paper we report results about the design and development of the REACT (Risk Estimation for Additional Cancer Testing) website, a tool to be used in a community setting allowing users to complete an online questionnaire and obtain personalized cancer symptom-based risk estimation. Objective The objectives of this study are to evaluate (1) the acceptability of REACT among the public and health care practitioners, (2) the usability of the REACT website, (3) the presentation of personalized cancer risk on the website, and (4) potential approaches to adopt REACT into community health care services in the UK. Methods Our research consisted of multiple stages involving members of the public (n=39) and health care practitioners (n=20) in the UK. Data were collected between June 2017 and January 2018. User views were collected by (1) the “think-aloud” approach when participants using the website were asked to talk about their perceptions and feelings in relation to the website, and (2) self-reporting of website experiences through open-ended questionnaires. Data collection and data analysis continued simultaneously, allowing for website iterations between different points of data collection. Results The results demonstrate the need for such a tool. Participants suggest the best way to offer REACT is through a guided approach, with a health care practitioner (eg, pharmacist or National Health Service Health Check nurse) present during the process of risk evaluation. User feedback, which was generally consistent across members of public and health care practitioners, has been used to inform the development of the website. The most important aspects were: simplicity, ability to evaluate multiple cancers, content emphasizing an inviting community “feel,” use (when possible) of layperson language in the symptom screening questionnaire, and a robust and positive approach to cancer communication relying on visual risk representation both with affected individuals and the entire population at risk. Conclusions This study illustrates the benefits of involving public and stakeholders in developing and implementing a simple cancer symptom check tool within community. It also offers insights and design suggestions for user-friendly interfaces of similar health care Web-based services, especially those involving personalized risk estimation.

BACKGROUND Improving cancer survival in the UK, despite recent significant gains, remains a huge challenge. This can be attributed to, at least in part, patient and diagnostic delays, when patients are unaware they are suffering from a cancerous symptom and therefore do not visit a general practitioner promptly and/or when general practitioners fail to investigate the symptom or refer promptly. To raise awareness of symptoms that may potentially be indicative of underlying cancer among members of the public a symptom-based risk assessment model (developed for medical practitioner use and currently only used by some UK general practitioners) was utilized to develop a risk assessment tool to be offered to the public in community settings. Such a tool could help individuals recognize a symptom, which may potentially indicate cancer, faster and reduce the time taken to visit to their general practitioner. In this paper we report results about the design and development of the REACT (Risk Estimation for Additional Cancer Testing) website, a tool to be used in a community setting allowing users to complete an online questionnaire and obtain personalized cancer symptom-based risk estimation. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study are to evaluate (1) the acceptability of REACT among the public and health care practitioners, (2) the usability of the REACT website, (3) the presentation of personalized cancer risk on the website, and (4) potential approaches to adopt REACT into community health care services in the UK. METHODS Our research consisted of multiple stages involving members of the public (n=39) and health care practitioners (n=20) in the UK. Data were collected between June 2017 and January 2018. User views were collected by (1) the “think-aloud” approach when participants using the website were asked to talk about their perceptions and feelings in relation to the website, and (2) self-reporting of website experiences through open-ended questionnaires. Data collection and data analysis continued simultaneously, allowing for website iterations between different points of data collection. RESULTS The results demonstrate the need for such a tool. Participants suggest the best way to offer REACT is through a guided approach, with a health care practitioner (eg, pharmacist or National Health Service Health Check nurse) present during the process of risk evaluation. User feedback, which was generally consistent across members of public and health care practitioners, has been used to inform the development of the website. The most important aspects were: simplicity, ability to evaluate multiple cancers, content emphasizing an inviting community “feel,” use (when possible) of layperson language in the symptom screening questionnaire, and a robust and positive approach to cancer communication relying on visual risk representation both with affected individuals and the entire population at risk. CONCLUSIONS This study illustrates the benefits of involving public and stakeholders in developing and implementing a simple cancer symptom check tool within community. It also offers insights and design suggestions for user-friendly interfaces of similar health care Web-based services, especially those involving personalized risk estimation.

Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) is a common disease syndrome in calves reared in the UK, costing the industry an estimated £60m annually, through lower growth rates, treatments and mortality. The incidence at slaughter of lung pathology can be over 70%, whilst clinical signs may be much lower, suggesting that many cases go undetected. In this Clinical Forum, Dr Richard Murray reviews BRD and discusses the practical aspects of its control with a panel of leading cattle practitioners and researchers.

We report a case of acute carpal tunnel syndrome caused by periarticular calcification (hydroxyapatite deposition disease) around the wrist joint in a 64-year-old woman. She had acute severe pain, exacerbated by wrist movements and extension of the fingers. Her full blood count, urea, electrolytes, uric acid, calcium, phosphate, alkaline phosphatase, and thyroid function levels were all within normal ranges, and her serum was negative for rheumatoid factor. Computed tomography revealed lobulated calcification close to the volar capsule. She underwent an emergency surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel under general anaesthesia within 3 hours of presentation. The flexor tendon sheaths were excised, and ‘toothpaste-like’ chalky material (hydroxyapatite crystals) in the capsule was removed. The pain was relieved dramatically and her median nerve function recovered. She was symptom-free at the one-year follow-up.

The Lisfranc injury is relatively uncommon yet remains popular in the literature due to its variable causative mechanisms and subtleties in radiographic features despite its potential for disabling long term outcomes if treatment is inadequate, inappropriate or delayed. These injuries are especially pertinent in diabetic patients, especially those with neuropathy, since they are more common, can lead to Charcot neuropathic joint, ulcers and have different causative mechanisms compared to the general population. We describe the case of a neuropathic diabetic patient who presented with a Lisfranc injury which precipitated the development of acute Charcot arthropathy in the right foot. The case serves to illustrate several salient points about the Lisfranc joint and related injuries in diabetic patients.