Cas D’une Fausse Fracture De La Verge Par Rupture De La Veine Dorsale Profonde Au Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Departemental -Oueme Plateau De Porto Novo, Benin

Introduction : Les traumatismes du pénis intéressant le réseau vasculaire sont rarement rapportés dans la littérature. La rupture de la veine profonde du pénis est une urgence urologique dont la clinique peut simuler une fracture de la verge.Nous rapportons un cas de rupture de la veine profonde du pénis survenue lors d’un faux pas de coït.Patient et Méthodes : Il s’est agi d’un patient âgé de 26 ans présentant une tuméfaction de tout le pénis précédée d’une douleur minime et d’une détumescence progressive survenue au décours d’un coït. L’exploration chirurgicale a mis en évidence une lésion incomplète de la veine dorsale profonde et qui a été réparée.Conclusion : La rupture de la veine dorsale profonde est rare et peut simuler une fracture des corps érectiles. . L’exploration chirurgicale reste un moyen diagnostique et thérapeutique accessible. Introduction: Penile trauma involving the vascular network is rarely reported in this paper. The rupture of the deep vein of the penis is a urological emergency which can simulate a fracture of the penis. A case of rupture of the deep vein of the penis is reported, which occurred during a false coitus.Patient and Methods: The case study was a 26-year-old patient with swelling of the entire penis. This was preceded by minimal pain and progressive detumescence during coitus. Surgical exploration revealed an incomplete lesion of the deep dorsal vein, which was repaired.Conclusion: Rupture of the deep dorsal vein is rare and may simulate a fracture of the erectile bodies. Surgical exploration remains an accessible diagnostic and therapeutic means

Adaptation of the Wound Healing Questionnaire universal-reporter outcome measure for use in global surgery trials (TALON-1 study): mixed-methods study and Rasch analysis

BackgroundThe Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) is a universal-reporter outcome measure developed in the UK for remote detection of surgical-site infection after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to explore cross-cultural equivalence, acceptability, and content validity of the WHQ for use across low- and middle-income countries, and to make recommendations for its adaptation.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study within a trial (SWAT) embedded in an international randomized trial, conducted according to best practice guidelines, and co-produced with community and patient partners (TALON-1). Structured interviews and focus groups were used to gather data regarding cross-cultural, cross-contextual equivalence of the individual items and scale, and conduct a translatability assessment. Translation was completed into five languages in accordance with Mapi recommendations. Next, data from a prospective cohort (SWAT) were interpreted using Rasch analysis to explore scaling and measurement properties of the WHQ. Finally, qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated using a modified, exploratory, instrumental design model.ResultsIn the qualitative phase, 10 structured interviews and six focus groups took place with a total of 47 investigators across six countries. Themes related to comprehension, response mapping, retrieval, and judgement were identified with rich cross-cultural insights. In the quantitative phase, an exploratory Rasch model was fitted to data from 537 patients (369 excluding extremes). Owing to the number of extreme (floor) values, the overall level of power was low. The single WHQ scale satisfied tests of unidimensionality, indicating validity of the ordinal total WHQ score. There was significant overall model misfit of five items (5, 9, 14, 15, 16) and local dependency in 11 item pairs. The person separation index was estimated as 0.48 suggesting weak discrimination between classes, whereas Cronbach's α was high at 0.86. Triangulation of qualitative data with the Rasch analysis supported recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ items 1 (redness), 3 (clear fluid), 7 (deep wound opening), 10 (pain), 11 (fever), 15 (antibiotics), 16 (debridement), 18 (drainage), and 19 (reoperation). Changes to three item response categories (1, not at all; 2, a little; 3, a lot) were adopted for symptom items 1 to 10, and two categories (0, no; 1, yes) for item 11 (fever).ConclusionThis study made recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ for use in global surgical research and practice, using co-produced mixed-methods data from three continents. Translations are now available for implementation into remote wound assessment pathways