BackgroundOver recent years, wide ranging changes have occurred in undergraduate medical curricula with reduction of hours allocated for teaching anatomy. Anatomy forms the foundation of clinical practice. However, the challenge of acquiring sufficient anatomical knowledge in undergraduate medical education for safe and competent clinical practice remains. The purpose of this study is to identify clinically most valuable orthopaedic anatomy components that are relevant to current clinical practice in order to reinforce anatomy teaching.MethodsModified Delphi technique with three rounds involving twenty currently practicing orthopaedic consultants and senior speciality orthopaedic registrars (StR, year six and above) was conducted. Anatomical components applied in corresponding clinical situations were generated from the opinions of this expert panel in the first round and the clinical importance of each of these components were rated with a four point Likert scale in the subsequent two rounds to generate consensus. Percentage agreement was utilised as outcome measure for components rated as considerably/very important with consensus of more than 94%.ResultsResponse rates were 90% for the first round and 100% for the next two rounds. After three Delphi rounds, thirty four anatomy components applied in general/ specific clinical conditions and clinical tests were identified as clinically most valuable following iteration.ConclusionsThe findings of this study provide clinicians opinions regarding the current required essential anatomical knowledge for a graduating medical student to apply during their orthopaedic clinical encounters. The information obtained can be utilised to encourage further development of clinical anatomy curriculum reflecting the evolving nature of health care.
Background: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the results of the Sheffield bone block procedure for anteroinferior bone loss in traumatic shoulder instability. In this modified open technique, the medial half of coracoid process without its soft tissue attachments is used to provide congruent augmentation of the anteroinferior glenoid and secured with two screws. Methods: In this retrospective consecutive case series , all patients having recurrent traumatic instability with glenoid bone loss > 20% and/or a large Hill-Sachs lesion were included. The shoulder function was evaluated clinically and by Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS; by post/telephone). Results: There were 84 patients in this series with a large proportion engaged in contact sports. Mean (range) age was 33 years (16 years to 45 years); male : female, 59 : 8; mean (range) follow-up period was 48 months (36 months to 84 months) and the response rate 89% (75/84). Mean postoperative OSIS was 43 (33 to 46) and one patient had re-dislocation (1.3%). No neurovascular complications/hardware failure/non-union/infections were noted. By 6 months, 85% patients had returned to pre-injury sport and 93% had returned to pre-injury work. Conclusions: The Sheffield bone block procedure provides reliable and satisfactory results in patients having recurrent instability with glenoid bone loss and/or a large Hill-Sachs lesion with minimal complications and an excellent chance of returning to original sport and occupation.
Posterior fracture-dislocation of hip is uncommonly encountered in rugby injuries. We report such a case in an adult while playing rugby. The treating orthopaedician can be caught unaware and injuries in such sports can be potentially misdiagnosed as hip sprains. Immediate reduction of the dislocation was performed in theatres. The fracture was fixed with two lag screws and a neutralization plate. This led to early rehabilitation and speedy recovery with return to sporting activities by 12 months.
Bilateral ulna stress fractures are extremely rare. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have osteopenic bone secondary to a variety of causes. We report a case of bilateral stress fractures of the ulna in an elderly patient with rheumatoid arthritis, and literature on this condition is reviewed. Prompt recognition and activity modification are essential to treat this rare injury. Recovery can take up to 12 weeks.
Background: There are no clearly defined guidelines for the management of distal radial physeal injuries. We aimed to identify the risk factors for patients with distal radial physeal trauma for the risk of deformity, physeal closure, and revision procedure and develop a predictive model. Methods: The retrospective study included patients less than 16 years old with displaced distal radial physeal injuries treated between 2011 and 2018 across five centers in the United Kingdom. Deformity was defined as a volar angulation of >11°, dorsal angulation of >15°, a radial inclination of <15° or >23°, or positive ulnar variance. Presence of a bony bar spanning the physis was considered physeal closure. Results: This study comprised of 479 patients. In that, 32 (6.6%) patients had a second procedure. Also, 49 (10.2%) patients had closure of physis, and 28 (6%) patients had deformity at the end of follow-up. The occurrence of deformity had a strong correlation with age (p = 0.04) and immobilization duration (p = 0.003). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that age >12.5 years (p = 0.006) and sagittal angulation of >21.7° (p = 0.002) had a higher odd of deformity. Immobilization for <4.5 weeks (p = 0.01) had a higher revision rate. The nomograms showed good calibration, with a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 75%. Interpretation: The nomograms provide accurate, pragmatic multivariate predictive models. Anatomical reduction is recommended in patients >12.5 years of age with >22° of dorsal angulation with cast immobilization for no less than 4.5 weeks. Any revision procedure should be performed within 11 days from the date of injury to reduce the risk of physeal damage.
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.