Severe axial vertebral rotation treated with a modified Boston brace: a case report

We report the case of a 13-year-old Caucasian girl suffering from severe axial rotation of the T5 to L4 vertebrae. The patient (initially examined during a school screening study) was at first considered to be suspicious of suffering from scoliosis due to a highly positive Adam's forward bending test. However, her radiographic evaluation revealed the existence of axial rotation in 12 of her vertebrae, without inclination in the sagittal and coronal planes. After an observation period of 12 months and due to the fact that both her physical appearance and the measured vertebral rotation deteriorated, the patient was given a modified thoracolumbar Boston brace that had an immediate positive derotational effect on all but two vertebrae. Twenty four months later, the progress of the vertebral rotation(s) seems to have been halted and most affected vertebrae appear to be stabilized in their new, 'post-brace', reduced position, with better results shown when the Boston brace is worn. The patient remains under constant medical observation. The application of a modified Boston brace seems to have served well (so far) a useful purpose for reducing and stabilizing this case of severe axial vertebral rotation, providing less deformity and (possibly) offering a better final cosmetic result

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries