Background:High tibial osteotomy (HTO) was developed to treat early medial compartment osteoarthritis in varus knees.Purpose:To evaluate the midterm and long-term outcomes of HTO in a large population-based cohort of patients.Study Design:Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development were used to identify patients undergoing HTO from 2000 to 2014. Patients with infectious arthritis, rheumatological disease, congenital deformities, malignancy, concurrent arthroplasty, or skeletal trauma were excluded. Demographic information was assessed for every patient. Failure was defined as conversion to total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Differences between patients requiring arthroplasty and those who did not were identified using univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was performed, and Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimates for 5- and 10-year survival were computed.Results:A total of 1576 procedures were identified between 2000 and 2014; of these, 358 procedures were converted to arthroplasty within 10 years. Patients who went on to arthroplasty after HTO were older (48.23 ± 6.76 vs 42.66 ± 9.80 years, respectively; P < .001), had a higher incidence of hypertension (25.42% vs 17.82%, respectively; P = .001), and had a higher likelihood of having ≥1 comorbidity (38.0% vs 31.4%, respectively; P = .044). Patients were 8% more likely to require arthroplasty for each additional year in age (relative risk [RR], 1.08). Female patients were also at an increased risk of conversion to arthroplasty compared with male patients (RR, 1.38). Survivorship at 5 and 10 years was 80% and 56%, respectively, and the median time to failure was 5.1 years.Conclusion:HTO may provide long-term survival in select patients. Careful consideration should be given to patient age, sex, and osteoarthritis of the knee when selecting patients for this procedure.
IntroductionTrauma is the leading cause of death and disability among Brazilian children and adolescents. Trauma protocols such as those developed by the Advanced Trauma Life Support course are widely taught, but few studies have assessed the degree to which the use of protocolized trauma assessment improves outcomes. This study aims to quantify the adherence of trauma assessment protocols among different types of frontline trauma providers.MethodsA prospective observational study of pediatric trauma care in one of the busiest Latin American trauma centers was conducted during 6 months. Trauma primary survey assessments were observed and adherence to each step of a standardized primary assessment protocol was recorded. Adherence to the assessment protocol was compared among different types of providers, the time of presentation and severity of injury. The relationship between protocol adherence and clinical outcomes including mortality, length of hospital stay, admission to pediatric intensive care unit, use of blood components, mechanical ventilation and number of imaging exams performed in the first 24 hours were also assessed.ResultsEmergency department evaluations of 64 patients out of 274 pediatric admissions were observed over a period of 6 months. 50% of the primary assessments were performed by general surgeons, 34.4% by residents in general surgery and 15.6% by pediatricians. There was an average adherence rate of 34.1% to the trauma protocol. Adherence among each specific step included airway: 17.2%; breathing: 59.4%; circulation: 95.3%; disability: 28.8%; exposure: 18.8%. No differences between specialties were observed. Patients with a more thorough primary assessment underwent fewer CT scans (receiver operating characteristic curve area: 0.661; p=0.027).ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that trauma assessment protocol adherence among trauma providers is low. Thorough initial assessment reduced the use of CT scans suggesting that standardized pediatric trauma assessments may be a way to reduce unnecessary radiological imaging among children.Level of evidenceIV.Study typePediatric and global trauma.
Background: Plastic surgery varies in scope, especially in different settings. This study aimed to quantify the plastic surgery workforce in low-income countries (LICs), understand commonly treated conditions by plastic surgeons working in these settings, and assess the impact on reducing global disease burden. Methods: We queried national and international surgery societies, plastic surgery societies, and non-governmental organizations to identify surgeons living and working in LICs who provide plastic surgical care using a cross-sectional survey. Respondents reported practice setting, training experience, income sources, and perceived barriers to care. Surgeons ranked commonly treated conditions and reported which of the Disease Control Priorities-3 essential surgery procedures they perform. Results: An estimated 63 surgeons who consider themselves plastic surgeons were identified from 15 LICs, with no surgeons identified in the remaining 16 LICs. Responses were obtained from 43 surgeons (70.5%). The 3 most commonly reported conditions treated were burns, trauma, and cleft deformities. Of the 44 “Essential Surgical Package'' procedures, 37 were performed by respondents, with the most common being skin graft (73% of surgeons performing), cleft lip/palate repair (66%), and amputations/escharotomy (61%). The most commonly cited barrier to care was insufficient equipment. Only 9% and 5% of surgeons believed that there are enough plastic surgeons to handle the burden in their local region and country, respectively. Conclusions: Plastic surgery plays a significant role in the coverage of essential surgical conditions in LICs. Continued expansion of the plastic surgical workforce and accompanying infrastructure is critical to meet unmet surgical burden in low- and middle-income countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.