Our major trauma CT protocol, based on mechanism of injury, resulted in substantial changes in clinical management in a small number of patients without any increase in adverse events. However, it is not a substitute for clinical acumen in the initial assessment of trauma patients.

In total hip arthroplasty, determining the impingement free range of motion requirement is a complex task. This is because in the native hip, motion is restricted by both impingement as well as soft tissue restraint. The aim of this study is to determine a range of motion benchmark which can identify motions which are at risk from impingement and those which are constrained due to soft tissue. Two experimental methodologies were used to determine motions which were limited by impingement and those motions which were limited by both impingement and soft tissue restraint. By comparing these two experimental results, motions which were limited by impingement were able to be separated from those motions which were limited by soft tissue restraint. The results show motions in extension as well as flexion combined with adduction are limited by soft tissue restraint. Motions in flexion, flexion combined with abduction and adduction are at risk from osseous impingement. Consequently, these motions represent where the maximum likely damage will occur in femoroacetabular impingement or at most risk of prosthetic impingement in total hip arthroplasty.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11517-012-1016-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP url' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. (0) 2476 574 880 Abstract Objective: This study compared the experience of viewing 3D medical images, 2D medical images and no image presented alongside a diagnosis. Methods: We conducted two laboratory experiments, each with 126 healthy participants. Participants heard three diagnoses; one accompanied by 3D medical images, one accompanied by 2D medical images and one with no image. Participants completed a questionnaire after each diagnosis rating their experience. In Experiment 2, half of the participants were informed that image interpretation can be susceptible to errors. Results: Participants preferred to view 3D images alongside a diagnosis (p<.001) and reported greater understanding (p<.001), perceived accuracy (p<.001) and increased trust (p<.001) when the diagnosis was accompanied by an image compared to no image. There was no significant difference in trust between participants who were informed of errors within image interpretation and those who were not. Conclusion: When presented alongside a diagnosis, medical images may aid patient understanding, recall and trust in medical information. Practical Considerations: Medical images may be a powerful resource for patients that could be utilised by clinicians during consultations. KeywordsDoctor-patient communication; patient understanding; recall of medical information; patient trust in medical information.