Highlights Inguinal bladder hernia is an unusual condition that requires a high index of clinical suspicion for diagnosis. This case demonstrates the importance of preoperative diagnosis in avoiding surgical complications including bladder injury.

The effect of timing in patients requiring tracheostomy varies in the literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of early tracheostomy on outcomes in trauma patients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study is a four-year review of trauma patients undergoing tracheostomy. Patients were divided into two groups based on TBI/non-TBI. Each group was divided into three subgroups based on tracheostomy timing: zero to three days, four to seven days, and greater than seven days postadmission. TBI patients were stratified by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and non-TBI patients were stratified by the Injury Severity Score (ISS). The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs). Significance was defined as P < 0.05. Two hundred eighty-nine trauma patients met the study criteria: 151 had TBI (55.2%) versus 138 (47.8%) non-TBI. There were no significant differences in demographics within and between groups. In TBI patients, statistically significant increases in VFDs were observed with GCS 13 to 15 for tracheostomies performed in four to seven versus greater than seven days ( P = 0.005). For GCS <8 and 8 to 12, there were significant increases in VFDs for tracheostomies performed at days 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 versus greater than seven days (P << 0.05 for both). For non-TBI tracheostomies, only ISS ≥ 25 with tracheostomies performed at zero to three days versus greater than seven days was associated with improved VFDs. Early tracheostomies in TBI patients were associated with improved VFDs. In trauma patients with no TBI, early tracheostomy was associated with improved VFDs only in patients with ISS ≥ 25. Future research studies should investigate reasons TBI and non-TBI patients may differ.

While previous studies have examined factors that affect research productivity for surgeons in general, few studies address research productivity specifically of burn specialists. This study aimed to identify factors that promote and impede research participation and productivity of burn surgeons and help elucidate what changes can be made by departments/divisions to improve the research productivity. A 44-question anonymous research survey tool was administered to burn surgeons who are members of the American Burn Association (ABA). The questions analyzed factors such as demographics, career accomplishments, current institution type, educational background, research background, barriers to conducting research, and current research productivity. Chi-square tests were used to analyze significance at P &lt; .05. Most respondents reported not having any protected research time (71.4%) or resources provided by their institution (84.5%). A majority believed increasing regulatory policies/institutional review board restrictions have negatively impacted productivity (65.1%). Factors associated with positive impact on research productivity included having a mentor, conducting research prior to completing residency, and provision of research resources from the institution such as statistical support, start-up funds, grant writing support, and laboratory space. Age and sex had no statistical impact on research productivity. Burn surgeons are more likely to publish research and to receive grants when they have mentors, a history of research prior to completion of residency, and research resources from their institution. Barriers to research productivity include lack of institutional support, lack of protected research time, and increased regulatory policy.

Background: Surgical management of unstable distal clavicle fractures (DCFs) remains controversial. Traditional open techniques result in acceptable union rates but are fraught with complications. In response to these limitations, arthroscopic techniques have been developed; however, clinical outcome data are limited. Purpose: The primary purpose was to systematically evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic fixation of unstable DCFs. The secondary purpose was to characterize the overall complication rate, focusing on major complications and subsequent reoperations. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and included a search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. English-language studies between 2008 and 2019 that reported on outcomes of patients with DCFs who underwent operative fixation using an arthroscopic or arthroscopically assisted surgical technique were included. Data consisted of patient characteristics, fracture type, surgical technique, concomitant injuries, union rates, functional outcomes, and complications. Results: A total of 15 studies consisting of 226 DCFs treated using an arthroscopically based technique were included in the systematic review. The majority of fractures were classified as Neer type II. Most (97%) of the fractures underwent arthroscopic fixation using a cortical button coracoclavicular stabilization surgical technique. Bony union was reported in 94.1% of the fractures. Good to excellent outcomes were recorded in most patients at the final follow-up. The Constant-Murley score was the most widely used functional outcome score; the pooled mean Constant score was 93.06 (95% CI, 91.48-94.64). Complications were reported in 14 of the 15 studies, and the overall complication rate was 27.4%. However, only 12% of these were considered major complications, and only 6% required a reoperation for hardware-related complications. Conclusion: Arthroscopic fixation of DCFs resulted in good functional outcomes with union rates comparable to those of traditional open techniques. While the overall complication profile was similar to that of other described techniques, there was a much lower incidence of major complications, including hardware-related complications and reoperations.

No abstract

No abstract

This study aimed to identify factors that promote and impede research participation and productivity by Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) surgeons. In addition, the study aimed to determine what changes can be implemented by surgical departments to improve this research productivity and granting. A 25-question anonymous research survey tool was offered to EAST surgeons. The questions analyzed factors including demographics, career accomplishments, current institution type, educational/research background, perceived barriers to research, and current research productivity, including grants. Chi-square tests were used to analyze significance at P < 0.05. The overall response rate was 26.2 per cent (445/1699). Most respondents reported not having any protected research time (86.3%), and no research resources were provided by their institution (78.7%). Factors that were significantly associated with greater research productivity included protected research time ( P < 0.0001), having a mentor ( P < 0.001), practicing in a university-affiliated hospital ( P < 0.0001), publication(s) before completing residency training ( P = 0.02), having institutional resources dedicated to research ( P = 0.015), and male gender ( P = 0.003). Age, race, marital status, and additional educational qualifications were not associated with statistically significant differences in research productivity in this study ( P > 0.05). EAST surgeons are more likely to have scholarly productivity if they are supported with protected time, mentors, nonclinical staff dedicated to research, a history of research before completion of residency, and research resources from their institution. Barriers to research productivity include lack of institutional support, lack of protected research time, and increased regulatory policies.

No abstract