Translate

Thursday 18 August 2016

The Break Pedal Injury - Always not too obvious

Injuries to the foot in connection with traffic accidents are difficult to diagnose. The linked case report gives an overview on injuries to the midfoot. This injury, better known as brake peadl injury, is easily missed.

Read more on EC Orthopaeics:

https://www.ecronicon.com/ecor/pdf/ECOR-03-000072.pdf

Tuesday 26 July 2016

Frustrating: Back schools without reliable benefit in low back pain

Back schools are interventions comprised of exercise and education components. We aimed to systematically review the randomized controlled trial evidence on back schools for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

By searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE CENTRAL as well as bibliographies we identified 31 studies for inclusion in our systematic review and five of these for inclusion in meta-analyses.

Meta-analyses for pain scores and functional outcomes revealed statistical superiority of back schools versus no intervention for some comparisons but not others. No meta-analysis was feasible for the comparison of back schools versus other active treatments. Adverse events were poorly reported so that no reliable conclusions regarding the safety of back schools can be drawn, although some limited reassurance in this regard may be derived from the fact that few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported in the back school groups in the studies that did report on safety.

Overall, the evidence base for the use of back schools to treat chronic low back pain is weak; in nearly a half-century since back schools were first trialled no unequivocal evidence of benefit has emerged.




Read more:
Straube S, Harden M, Schröder H, Arendacka B, Fan X, Moore RA, Friede T: Back schools for the treatment of chronic low back pain: possibility of benefit but no convincing evidence after 47 years of research - systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain:Post Acceptance: June 01, 2016 doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000640

 

Friday 10 June 2016

Medical errors are the third leading cause for death (in the US)

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer, according to findings published today in BMJ.

Medical error has been defined as an unintended act (either of omission or commission) or one that does not achieve its intended outcome, the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (an error of execution), the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (an error of planning), or a deviation from the process of care that may or may not cause harm to the patient. Patient harm from medical error can occur at the individual or system level. The taxonomy of errors is expanding to better categorize preventable factors and events. The autors focussed on preventable lethal events to highlight the scale of potential for improvement.

As such, medical errors should be a top priority for research and resources, say authors Martin Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery, and research fellow Michael Daniel, from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

But accurate, transparent information about errors is not captured on death certificates, which are the documents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses for ranking causes of death and setting health priorities. Death certificates depend on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for cause of death, so causes such as human and system errors are not recorded on them.
And it's not just the US. According to the World Health Organization, 117 countries code their mortality statistics using the ICD system as the primary health status indicator.
The authors call for better reporting to help capture the scale of the problem and create strategies for reducing it.

Cancer and Heart Disease Get the Attention
"Top-ranked causes of death as reported by the CDC inform our country's research funding and public health priorities," Dr Makary said in an university press release. "Right now, cancer and heart disease get a ton of attention, but since medical errors don't appear on the list, the problem doesn't get the funding and attention it deserves."

He adds: "Incidence rates for deaths directly attributable to medical care gone awry haven't been recognized in any standardized method for collecting national statistics. The medical coding system was designed to maximize billing for physician services, not to collect national health statistics, as it is currently being used."
The researchers examined four studies that analyzed medical death rate data from 2000 to 2008. Then, using hospital admission rates from 2013, they extrapolated that, based on 35,416,020 hospitalizations, 251,454 deaths stemmed from a medical error.
That number of deaths translates to 9.5% of all deaths each year in the US — and puts medical error above the previous third-leading cause, respiratory disease.
In 2013, 611,105 people died of heart disease, 584,881 died of cancer, and 149,205 died of chronic respiratory disease, according to the CDC.
The new estimates are considerably higher than those in the 1999 Institute of Medicine report "To Err Is Human." However, the authors note that the data used for that report "is limited and outdated."
Strategies for Change
The authors suggest several changes, including making errors more visible so their effects can be understood. Often, discussions about prevention occur in limited and confidential forums, such as a department's morbidity and mortality conference.
Another is changing death certificates to include not just the cause of death, but an extra field asking whether a preventable complication stemming from the patient's care contributed to the death.
The authors also suggest that hospitals carry out a rapid and efficient independent investigation into deaths to determine whether error played a role. A root cause analysis approach would help while offering the protection of anonymity, they say.
Standardized data collection and reporting are also needed to build an accurate national picture of the problem.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedist in Bedford, Indiana, and president of the Society for Patient Centered Orthopedics, told Medscape Medical News he was not surprised the errors came in at number 3 and that even those calculations don't tell the whole story.

"That doesn't even include doctors' offices and ambulatory care centers," he notes. "That's only inpatient hospitalization resulting in errors."

"I think most people underestimate the risk of error when they seek medical care," he said.
He agrees that adding a field to death certificates to indicate medical error is likely the way to get medical errors the attention they deserve.

"It's public pressure that brings about change. Hospitals have no incentive to publicize errors; neither do doctors or any other provider," he said.

However, such a major step as adding error information to death certificates is unlikely if not accompanied by tort reform, he said.

Still, this study helps emphasize the prevalence of errors, he said.

Human error is inevitable, the authors acknowledge, but "we can better measure the problem to design safer systems mitigating its frequency, visibility, and consequences."

They add that most errors aren't caused by bad doctors but by systemic failures and should 'not be addressed with punishment or legal action.





BMJ. Published online May 3, 2016.

Thursday 2 June 2016

Whiplash and High Heels: How does one affect the other?


Wearing high heels is associated with chronic pain of the neck, lower back and knees. A lot of whiplash Clients complain that the most significant impact is not to be able to go out with their high heels. The mechanisms behind this have not been fully understood. The purpose of a study by Weitkunat was to investigate the influence of high-heeled shoes on the sagittal balance of the spine and the whole body in non-habitual wearers of high heels.

Methods

Lateral standing whole body low-dose radiographs were obtained from 23 female participants (age 29 ± 6 years) with and without high heels and radiological parameters describing the sagittal balance were quantified. These were analyzed for differences between both conditions in the total sample and in subgroups.

Results

Standing in high heels was associated with an increased femoral obliquity angle [difference (Δ) 3.0° ± 1.7°, p < 0.0001], and increased knee (Δ 2.4° ± 2.9°, p = 0.0009) and ankle flexion (Δ 38.7° ± 3.4°, p < 0.0001). The differences in C7 and meatus vertical axis, cervical and lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, spino-sacral angle, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, and spinal tilt were not significant. Individuals adapting with less-than-average knee flexion responded to high heels by an additional increase in cervical lordosis (Δ 5.8° ± 10.7° vs. 1.8° ± 5.3°).

Conclusions

In all participants, wearing high heels led to increased flexion of the knees and to more ankle flexion. While some participants responded to high heels primarily through the lower extremities, others used increased cervical lordosis to adapt to the shift of the body’s center of gravity. This could explain the different patterns of pain in the neck, lower back and knees seen in individuals wearing high heels frequently.





Read more:

Saturday 14 May 2016

The medicolegal aspect of the SL injury

Wrist sprains can turn out to be more complex than initially thought. In the medicolegal setting, falls are common and wrist injuries too. Either high velocity injuries as motorcyclist or low impact falls can result in injuries to the SL ligament that often go undetected.

In my Clinic, I could identify cases with a missed injury to the SL ligament. The relevance for this injury is presented in the article

The Medicolegal Aspect of the Scapholunate Injury 
By Ekkehard Pietsch. 3(3): 296-302.
Published: May 14, 2016

Friday 6 May 2016

Not even degenerative knees with mechanical symptoms benefit from arthroscopy

According to prevailing consensus, patients with mechanical symptoms are those considered to most likely benefit from arthroscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the value of using patients' pre-operative self-reports of mechanical symptoms as a justification surgery in patients with degenerative meniscus tear/knee disease.

A pragmatic prospective cohort of 900 consecutive patients with symptomatic degenerative knee disease and meniscus tear underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) during 2007–2011. The patients' subjective satisfaction, self-rated improvement, change in Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) score, and patients' ratings of the knee using a numerical rating scale (NRS) was assessed at 1 year postoperatively. Multivariable regression models, adjusted for possible confounders and intermediates, were used to compare the outcomes in those with and without preoperative mechanical symptoms.

The proportion of patients satisfied with their knee 12 months after arthroscopy was significantly lower among those with preoperative mechanical symptoms than among those without (61% vs 75%, multivariable adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76, 0.92). Similarly, the proportion reporting improvement was lower (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.85, 0.97). No statistically significant difference was found in change in WOMET or NRS between the two groups. Of those with preoperative mechanical symptoms, 47% reported persistent symptoms at 12 months postoperatively.

Findings contradict the current tenet of using patients' self-report of mechanical symptoms as a justification for performing arthroscopic surgery on patients with degenerative meniscus tear.




Wednesday 23 March 2016

How helpful is arthroscopy in the degenerative knee?

Objective To determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Main outcome measures Pain and physical function.
Data sources Systematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed.

Results The search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0–100 mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3–5 mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, −0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death.
Conclusions The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis.



J B Thorlund; C B Juhl; E M Roos; LS Lohmander: Arthroscopic Surgery for Degenerative Knee-Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Benefits and Harms. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(19):1229-1235.