Validation of mangled extremity severity score in assessing the need for extremity amputation

INTRODUCTION: The decision to either salvage or amputate a mangled extremity poses great challenge to a surgeon.Different scoring systems were therefore developed to aid orthopaedic surgeons in this decision,eitherto contemplate amputation or proceed to salvage a mangled extremity. Of these scoring systems, the mangled extremity severity score (MESS) is mostly used.However,the high predictive accuracy reported by its developers has not been replicated by other authors. This study was carried out to validate the use of this scoring system in Nigeria and by extension, Africa.PATIENTS MATERIALS AND METHOD:The study was a hospital based prospective descriptive one which studied all patients with mangled extremities that were admitted into the Accident and Emergency room of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Idi- Araba, from April 2014 to March 2015. Injured patients with mangled extremities were resuscitated and relevant investigations conducted. The MESS was calculated at presentation in the emergency room by two senior doctors in orthopaedic and trauma units (not lower than senior registrar cadres) independently and an average score calculated, rounded up to the nearest positive integer and documented.Type of treatment offered was based on the experience of the managing consultants. Patients' progresses were monitored and functional outcomes documented. All data generated during the study were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS inc. Chicago, Illinois. version 21.0.Year of release - 2012).RESULTS: Twenty-nine mangled extremities in 27 patients were studied.The male: female ratio was 3.5:1.Age of patients ranged between 21-70 years with a mean age of 39.9 ±12.3years. Nineteen (65.5%) extremities were salvaged while 10(34.5%) were primarily amputated. Average MESS of all mangled limbs reviewed was 8.1+ 2.6 with scores that ranged from 3 to 13. The mean MESS for limb salvage was 7.0 +2.2while that for primary amputation was 10.1+2.0(P value- 0.01).MESS in this study had a sensitivity of 90%,specificity of 47.4%,positive predictive value of 47.4%, negative predictive value of 90%.AUROC in this study was 0.853.The cost of treatment, number of surgeries, and duration of hospital stay were higher in those with Salvaged limbs.The functional outcome for salvaged upper and lower extremities were better than for those whose limbs were amputated.Level of satisfaction was better in the limbs salvaged group than for those who had ablative surgery with statistical significance (P value- .000).CONCLUSION: This study validated the clinical utility of MESS in predicting the need for amputation in patients with mangled extremity injuries but it had a low predictive accuracy for extremities that would eventually enter the limb salvage pathway.Therefore,when contemplating limb salvage for a patient with mangled extremity,in addition to the result of the MESS score,the surgeons experience cannot be overemphasized.KEY WORDS: Open fracture,mangled limb,amputation,MESS score,classificatio

Morbidity of Open Tibia Fractures in Lagos, Nigeria

No Abstract

Spectrum of musculo-skeletal disorders in sickle cell disease in Lagos, Nigeria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sickle cell anemia (SCA) is a common genetic disease in Nigeria. Past studies from West Africa focused on isolated aspects of its medical and surgical presentations. To the best of our knowledge, the musculo-skeletal presentations amongst Nigerians with SCA have not been documented in a single all encompassing study. This work aims to prospectively document the musculo-skeletal disease burden among SCA patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a prospective study of 318 consecutive patients with genotype-confirmed SCA at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), the musculo-skeletal pathologies, anatomic sites, grade of disease, age at presentation and management outcome were recorded over a one-year period. Data obtained were analyzed using Epi-Info software version 6.0. Data are presented as frequencies (%) and mean values (SD) as appropriate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The HbSS genotype occurred in 296 (93.0%), while 22 (7.0%) were HbSC. 100 (31.4%) patients with average presenting haemoglobin concentration of 8.2 g/100 ml in the study group, presented with 131 musculo-skeletal pathologies in 118 anatomic sites. Osteomyelitis 31 (31%) and septic arthritis 19 (19%) were most commonly observed in children less than 10 years. Skin ulcers and avascular necrosis (AVN) occurred predominantly in the older age groups, with frequencies of 13 (13.0%) and 26 (26.0%) respectively. 20 (71.5%) of diagnosed cases of AVN presented with radiological grade 4 disease. The lower limbs were involved in 84 (71.1%) of sites affected. Lesions involving the spine were rare 11 (0.9%). Multiple presentations occurred in 89 (28.0%) of patients; 62 (69.7%) of which were children below 10 years.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Musculo-skeletal complications are common features of sickle cell anaemia seen in 31.4%. Infectious aetiologies predominate with long bones and joints of lower limbs more commonly affected by osteomyelitis and septic arthritis. Healthcare providers managing SCA should be aware of the potential morbidity and mortality of these conditions to ensure early diagnosis and adequate management.</p

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES:To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; Iand#178; = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; Iand#178; = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; Iand#178; = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.</p

Neuromyelitis Optica: An Often Forgotten Cause of Intractable Nausea and Vomiting

Neuromyelitis optica, also known as Devic's disease, is a rare autoimmune disorder in which a patient's immune system affects the optic nerves and the spinal cord, leading to loss of vision and spinal cord dysfunction. We present our experience with a 38-year-old female who presented to our facility with complaints of intractable nausea and vomiting. After extensive evaluation, she was found to have neuromyelitis optica. Her symptoms completely resolved following institution of appropriate therapy. She made a significant recovery and has since been placed on chronic immunosuppressive therapy. Through this article we hope to bring attention to a significant cause of intractable nausea and vomiting that may often be forgotten in general medicine or gastroenterology services

From Acute Pancreatitis to Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer in 12 Weeks

Pancreatic cancer is well known to be an aggressive and highly malignant condition with varied ways of presentation. Pancreatic cystic neoplasms are very uncommon causes of pancreatic malignancy and can often be ignored or missed, especially in the early stages. We present the case of a 49-year-old Caucasian male with no past medical history presenting to an outside facility with sudden epigastric pain that was eventually diagnosed as acute pancreatitis. On transfer to our facility, he was eventually found to have metastatic malignant mucinous cystic pancreatic neoplasm. Barely 12 weeks after his initial presentation and following an aggressive hospital course, he passed away