High-definition magnetic resonance images on medial elbow injuries in preadolescent Little Leaguers

BackgroundThe incidence of throwing-related elbow injuries is still rising. The study aimed to enhance the pathology of acute medial elbow injuries among young Little Leaguers by examining the medial elbows of symptomatic 9–10 years old Little Leaguers using High-Definition Magnetic Resonance Images (HDMRI), which uses a small-diameter surface coil on the target area, leading to greater image resolution.MethodWe identified Little Leaguers aged 9–10 years old. To minimize the detection of the chronic adaptative changes, players who experienced the medial elbow pain previously and whose HDMRI had not been taken within 4 weeks from the onset of medial elbow pain were excluded. This study considered 21 players, and the mean age was 9.4 ± 0.5 years.ResultThe fragmentation of the medial epicondyle apophysis via HDMRI was found in 15 elbows (71.4%), while the avulsion was seen in three cases. The signal hyperintensity at the medial epicondyle apophysis was observed in 2 cases. Our data showed abnormal changes to the medial epicondyle apophysis and surrounding structures, such as the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL), flexor-pronator tendons or the coronoid process of the ulna. We detected 11 abnormalities on X-ray imaging, while 20 subjects showed some abnormal findings via HDMRI.DiscussionThe current study showed that initial medial elbow injury in Little Leaguers without a history of previous elbow injury could be attributed to multi-structure injury. Over 90% of subjects were injured in the perichondrium, while 71.4% demonstrated a fragmentation of the secondary ossification center, and 14.3% experienced an avulsion of the medial epicondyle apophysis. Because the injuries were not limited to bony structures, HDMRI may be beneficial for the appropriate evaluation of medial elbow pain. The pathology of initial medial elbow injuries in young baseball players may be due to acute trauma instead of repetitive microtrauma.     

Long-term outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty with cementless bioactive glass ceramic bottom-coated implants and highly cross-linked polyethylene: A minimum 10-year analysis

BackgroundCementless glass ceramics containing apatite and wollastonite (AW-GC) bottom-coated titanium hip implants were developed; early excellent clinical and radiographic results have been reported previously. This study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in detail, and the wear rate of HXLPE.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 99 patients (117 hips) between November 2001 and December 2007. The survival rate was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Hip joint function was evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. The extent of radiographic signs was determined from the radiographs performed at the last follow-up. Polyethylene wear was measured using Martell's Hip Analysis Suite. We assessed the possible factors affecting the steady-state linear wear rate.ResultsThe mean follow-up period was 14.8 ± 2.1 (10–18.6) years. The mean JOA score improved to 88.7 ± 9.4 (59–100) at the final follow-up from 47.8 ± 12.5 (17–76) before surgery. The overall survival rate with the end point of all-cause revision and wear-related revision was 99% and 100% respectively. There was no osteolysis or loosening of either the acetabular or femoral component. All hips were classified as having bone ingrowth fixation. The mean steady-state wear rate was 0.008 ± 0.025 mm/year. We found no significant correlation between the wear rate and age, body weight, body mass index, cup inclination and femoral head size.ConclusionThe combination of AW-GC bottom-coated implants and HXLPE showed excellent implant survival and wear resistance for 15 years.     

Inhibiting Heat Shock Protein 90 Attenuates Nucleus Pulposus Fibrosis and Pathologic Angiogenesis Induced by Macrophages via Down-Regulating Cell Migration–Inducing Protein

1. Download : Download high-res image (138KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Identifying Nursing Home Residents with Unmet Palliative Care Needs: A Systematic Review of Screening Tool Measurement Properties

ObjectivesDespite common use of palliative care screening tools in other settings, the performance of these tools in the nursing home has not been well established; therefore, the purpose of this review is to (1) identify palliative care screening tools validated for nursing home residents and (2) critically appraise, compare, and summarize the quality of measurement properties.DesignSystematic review of measurement properties consistent with Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Settings and participantsEmbase (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (Ovid) were searched from inception to May 2022. Studies that (1) reported the development or evaluation of a palliative care screening tool and (2) sampled older adults living in a nursing home were included.MethodsTwo reviewers independently screened, selected, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.ResultsWe identified only 1 palliative care screening tool meeting COSMIN criteria, the NECesidades Paliativas (NEC-PAL, equivalent to palliative needs in English), but evidence for use with nursing home residents was of low quality. The NEC-PAL lacked robust testing of measurement properties such as reliability, sensitivity, and specificity in the nursing home setting. Construct validity through hypothesis testing was adequate but only reported in 1 study. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to guide practice. Broadening the criteria further, this review reports on 3 additional palliative care screening tools identified during the search and screening process but which were excluded during full-text review for various reasons.Conclusion and ImplicationsGiven the unique care environment of nursing homes, we recommend future studies to validate available tools and develop new instruments specifically designed for nursing home use. In the meantime, we recommend that clinicians consider the evidence presented here and choose a screening instrument that best meets their needs.     

经口咽JeRP内固定治疗不稳定型Jefferson骨折的生物力学和初期临床研究

目的 :评估Jefferson骨折复位钢板(Jefferson fracture reduction plate,Je RP)内固定治疗不稳定型Jefferson骨折的生物力学实验结果及临床应用效果。方法:(1)2012年5月~2014年3月于郑州市骨科医院收集人体上颈椎尸体标本6例,2014年6月模拟不稳定型Jefferson骨折中的前弓双骨折类型,以Je RP内固定系统模拟进行复位内固定术,并以三维运动实验机对标本C0-3节段在正常、骨折、内固定3种状态的负载(前屈、后伸、左侧屈、右侧屈加载的水平方向载荷为20N,左旋转、右旋转采用的载荷为2.0N·m的力矩)六向运动中性区及运动范围(ranges of motion,ROM)进行检测及分析。(2)2008年4月~2014年1月广州军区广州总医院收治不稳定型Jefferson骨折患者8例,男6例,女2例;年龄29~67岁,平均39岁;均以颈项部疼痛、活动受限为主,其中7例无脊髓及神经损伤症状,1例合并脊髓损伤,Frankel分级为D级,寰椎环3处骨折5例,单侧前后弓骨折3例;术前MRI均显示寰椎横韧带完整。8例均采用经口咽Je RP内固定手术治疗,术后定期随访并应用CT扫描及颈椎过伸过屈位X线片观察骨折愈合情况及评估寰枢椎稳定性。结果:骨折组中性区与正常组中性区在屈伸、侧屈、旋转3个运动维度的差异均有统计学意义(P0.05),骨折组的三维中性区值均明显大于正常组;固定组的中性区与正常组中性区在3个运动维度的差异均无统计学意义(P0.05),固定组的ROM与正常组ROM在3个运动维度的差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。8例患者术后随访6~15个月,平均7.2个月,所有患者术后枕颈部疼痛不适症状均获得改善,1例合并脊髓损伤的患者术后6个月Frankel分级由D级改善至E级。所有患者口咽后壁切口愈合良好,无感染发生,术后CT示骨折均达良好复位;术后6个月CT示骨折均骨性愈合,未见寰枢椎失稳及活动受限,初期临床应用效果良好。结论:Je RP内固定系统固定在实现对不稳定型Jefferson骨折复位及固定的基础上保留了上颈椎活动度,为不稳定型Jefferson骨折的临床手术治疗提供了更多选择。     

COVID-19疫情下普通患者脊柱外科手术的围手术期管理专家共识

新型冠状病毒(SARS-CoV-2)感染引起的2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)目前呈世界大流行趋势,中国的疫情已经得到控制,现阶段的主要任务是防止外源性输入病例及无症状感染者导致的二次爆发[1-2].     

How Long-Term Care Quality Measures Address Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias in European Countries

ObjectivesAlzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are prevalent conditions in long-term care homes (LTCHs) with most LTCH residents living with ADRD in many countries. Despite the prevalence of ADRD in LTCHs, a recent examination of LTCH quality measurement programs in 4 countries revealed few LTCH quality measures addressed ADRD, most commonly as a risk adjuster. We sought to better understand how quality measurement programs address ADRD internationally.DesignInternational comparative analysis.Setting and ParticipantsWe examined LTCH quality measures in 4 European countries—Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands.MethodsThe specifications to calculate each measure were assessed to determine whether the measure was calculated without assessing for ADRD, included only residents with ADRD, excluded residents with ADRD, or was risk adjusted for the presence of ADRD among the LTCH residents.ResultsA total of 143 measures were examined across 4 quality measurement programs. Thirty-seven percent of the measures explicitly address ADRD. The programs addressed ADRD in starkly different ways. In Germany, most (13 of 15) measures addressed ADRD, and did so as an exclusion or inclusion criterion, and in Switzerland all the measures addressed ADRD through risk adjustment. In Flanders, Belgium, all measures were calculated without assessing for ADRD. In the Netherlands, one-third of the measures explicitly addressed ADRD by restricting the measure to psychogeriatric units.Conclusions and ImplicationsAlthough limited to examining measures from LTCH quality measurement programs in 4 European countries, this study adds evidence that ADRD tends not to be addressed by LTCH quality measures, but when ADRD is addressed, it tends to be through inclusion or exclusion criteria. LTCH regulators, policymakers, and providers can use this information to assess options for addressing ADRD in quality measurement programs. Future research is needed to assess how standard indicators of ADRD care quality differ across quality measurement programs.