Treatment of a femoral shaft fracture in a patient with congenital hip disease: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>We present a rare case of two concomitant morbidities treated in one operation. To our knowledge, this is the first report of its kind in the literature.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 57-year-old Greek woman was admitted to the emergency department having sustained a spiral mid-shaft femoral fracture. She also suffered from an ipsilateral hip congenital dysplasia with ankylosed hip joint due to severe arthritis. She was treated with a total hip arthroplasty using a long stem performing as an intramedullary nail.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We undertook a complex operative treatment of both co-morbidities in a one stage procedure with a satisfactory clinical result.</p

Morbidity and mortality associated with mode of delivery for breech periviable deliveries

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the odds of morbidity and death that are associated with cesarean delivery, compared with vaginal delivery, for breech fetuses who are delivered from 23-24 6/7 weeks' gestational age. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of state-level maternal and infant hospital discharge data that were linked to vital statistics for breech deliveries that occurred from 23-24 6/7 weeks' gestation in California, Missouri, and Pennsylvania from 2000-2009 (N = 1854). Analyses were stratified by gestational age (23-23 6/7 vs 24-24 6/7 weeks' gestation). RESULTS: Cesarean delivery was performed for 46% (335 fetuses) and 77% (856 fetuses) of 23- and 24-week breech fetuses. In multivariable analyses, overall survival was greater for cesarean-born neonates (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.24-7.06; AOR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.76-4.81, respectively). When delivered for nonemergent indications, cesarean-born survivors were more than twice as likely to experience major morbidity (intraventricular hemorrhage, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, asphyxia composite; AOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.37-5.84; AOR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.11-3.86 at 23 and 24 weeks' gestation, respectively). Among intubated neonates, despite a short-term survival advantage, there was no difference in survival to >6-month corrected age (AOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.83-3.74; AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.81-2.76, respectively). There was no difference in survival for intubated 23-week neonates who were delivered by cesarean for nonemergent indications or cesarean-born neonates who weighed <500 g. CONCLUSION: Cesarean delivery increased overall survival and major morbidity for breech periviable neonates. However, among intubated neonates, despite a short-term survival advantage, there was no difference in 6-month survival. Also, cesarean delivery did not increase survival for neonates who weighed <500 g. Patients and providers should discuss explicitly the trade-offs related to neonatal death and morbidity, maternal morbidity, and implications for future pregnancies

Exploring the facilitators and barriers to using an online infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for young women with breast cancer: A qualitative study protocol

INTRODUCTION: As cancer treatments may impact on fertility, a high priority for young patients with breast cancer is access to evidence-based, personalised information for them and their healthcare providers to guide treatment and fertility-related decisions prior to cancer treatment. Current tools to predict fertility outcomes after breast cancer treatments are imprecise and do not offer individualised prediction. To address the gap, we are developing a novel personalised infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for premenopausal patients with breast cancer that considers current reproductive status, planned chemotherapy and adjuvant endocrine therapy to determine likely post-treatment infertility. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of implementing this FoRECAsT tool into clinical practice by exploring the barriers and facilitators of its use among patients and healthcare providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional exploratory study is being conducted using semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with 15-20 participants each from the following groups: (1) premenopausal patients with breast cancer younger than 40, diagnosed within last 5 years, (2) breast surgeons, (3) breast medical oncologists, (4) breast care nurses (5) fertility specialists and (6) fertility preservation nurses. Patients with breast cancer are being recruited from the joint Breast Service of three affiliated institutions of Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia-Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital, and clinicians are being recruited from across Australia. Interviews are being audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported into qualitative data analysis software to facilitate data management and analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia (HREC number: 2017.163). Confidentiality and privacy are maintained at every stage of the study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journals, national and international conference presentations, social media, broadcast media, print media, internet and various community/stakeholder engagement activities

Weight perceptions in older adults: findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

Objectives: To explore weight perceptions in a large, nationally-representative sample of older adults, and the extent to which they differ according to age and perceived health status. Setting: England. Participants: 5,240 men and women (≥50y) participating in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (2016/17). Main outcome measures: Weight perception was self-reported as too heavy, too light, or about right. Results: The majority of older adults endorsed a weight perception that matched their (objectively measured) BMI classification. However, one in ten (9.9%) older adults classified by BMI as normal-weight (18.5-24.9kg/m2) felt too light, with women at the upper end of the older age spectrum (OR=1.04, 95%CI=1.01-1.09), and men (OR=3.70, 95%CI=1.88-7.28) and women (OR=2.61, 95%CI=1.27-5.35) in poorer health more likely to do so. Almost half (44.8%) of older adults classified as overweight (25-29.9kg/m2) and one in ten (10.3%) classified as obese (≥30kg/m2) felt about the right weight, with this observed more frequently among men and women at the upper end of the older age spectrum (OR range 1.04-1.06). Conclusion: Older adults’ perceptions of their own weight generally correspond with traditional BMI cut-offs for normal-weight, overweight, and obesity. However, a substantial minority ‘underestimate’ their weight status, with those at the upper end of the age spectrum and those in poorer health more likely to do so

A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infection about the knee is a devastating complication that may affect between 1% and 5% of knee replacement. With over 79 000 knee replacements being implanted each year in the UK, periprosthetic infection (PJI) is set to become an important burden of disease and cost to the healthcare economy. One of the important controversies in treatment of PJI is whether a single stage revision operation is superior to a two-stage procedure. This study sought to systematically evaluate the published evidence to determine which technique had lowest reinfection rates. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases with the aim to identify existing studies that present the outcomes of each surgical technique. Reinfection rate was the primary outcome measure. Studies of specific subsets of patients such as resistant organisms were excluded. RESULTS: 63 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of which (58) were reports of two-stage revision. Reinfection rated varied between 0% and 41% in two-stage studies, and 0% and 11% in single stage studies. No clinical trials were identified and the majority of studies were observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for both one-stage and two-stage revision is largely of low quality. The evidence basis for two-stage revision is significantly larger, and further work into direct comparison between the two techniques should be undertaken as a priority