Necrotising myositis – learnings for a plastic surgeon

BackgroundNecrotising myositis (NM) is a life-threatening emergency. Prompt treatment is associated with more favourable outcomes, but early diagnosis is challenging. The initial absence of cutaneous signs and symptoms coupled with delayed recognition commonly result in higher rates of morbidity and mortality.ObjectivesAnalyse data regarding demographics, epidemiology, aetiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment of previously reported cases. This publication is intended for plastic surgeons in training to help them look out for this disease.Search methods/criteriaPublications reporting necrotising myositis between 1974 to January 2020 were identified from Embase, Medline All, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial.Data collection and analysis: Identified studies were exported to an end note library. In animal studies, studies relating to statin-induced myotoxicity and auto-immune myositis were excluded. The quality of included case reports was assessed using JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports.Main resultsThe most common initial presentation was a few days of antecedent prodromal flu-like symptoms associated with muscle pain. The mean age was 43.3 years and 82% had no significant medical history. The most frequent misdiagnoses were muscle strain (11%), deep vein thrombosis (10%) and viral illness (9%). Seventy-four per cent of presentations were due to Group A Streptococcus infections and only 3.5% of cases were polymicrobial. The most common clinical course following the initial presentation was rapid deterioration into profound sepsis and progression into multi-organ failure. The overall mortality rate was 36.5%.ConclusionsNM is a life-threatening muscle infection. It is a diagnostic conundrum as initial presentation is often only myalgia without features of preceding trauma. We propose that a high index of suspicion and increased awareness will reduce morbidity.OtherPROSPERO (registration number CRD42018087060). Nil funding/conflict of interest.     

Ankle fractures: High implant cost is not associated with better patient reported outcomes

IntroductionAnkle fractures comprise 9% of all fractures and are among the most common fractures requiring operative management. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws is the gold standard for the treatment of unstable, displaced ankle fractures. While performing ORIF, orthopaedic surgeons may choose from several fixation methods including locking versus nonlocking plating and whether to use screws or suture buttons for syndesmotic injuries.Nearly all orthopaedic surgeons treat ankle fractures but most are unfamiliar with implant costs. No study to date has correlated the cost of ankle fracture fixation with health status as perceived by patients through patient reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a relationship between increasing implant cost and PROs after a rotational ankle fracture.MethodsAll ankle fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) at a level I academic trauma center from January 2018 to December 2022 were identified. Inclusion criteria included all rotational ankle fractures with a minimum 6-month follow-up and completed 6-month PRO. Patients were excluded for age <18, polytrauma and open fracture. Variables assessed included demographics, fracture classifications, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activities of Daily Living (FAAM-ADL) score, implant type, and implant cost.ResultsThere was a statistically significant difference in cost between fracture types (p < 0.0001) with trimalleolar fractures being the most expensive. The mean FAAM-ADL score was lowest for trimalleolar fractures at 78.9, 95% CI [75.5, 82.3]. A diagnosis of osteoporosis/osteopenia was associated with a decrease in cost of $233.3, 95% CI [−411.8, −54.8]. There was no relationship between syndesmotic fixation and implant cost, $102.6, 95% CI [−74.9, 280.0]. There was no correlation between implant cost and FAAM-ADL score at 6 months (p = 0.48).ConclusionsThe utilization of higher cost ankle fixation does not correlate with better FAAM-ADL scores. Orthopaedic surgeons may choose less expensive implants to improve the value of ankle fixation without impacting patient reported outcomes.     

Validation of an on-screen application-based measurement of shoulder range of motion over telehealth medium

1. Download : Download high-res image (239KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

The effect of drugs on implant osseointegration- A narrative review

ObjectiveThis narrative review aims to investigate the effects of drugs on implant osseointegration, analyzing their potential positive or negative impact on the direct structural and functional connection between bone and load-carrying implants.BackgroundThe review seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of osseointegration, which refers to the successful integration of an implant with living bone, resulting in no progressive relative movement between them. Exploring the effects of drugs on implant osseointegration is crucial for optimizing outcomes and enhancing patient care in orthopedic implant procedures.MethodsRelevant studies on the effects of drugs on implant osseointegration were identified through a literature search. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, were utilized, employing appropriate keywords and MeSH terms related to osseointegration, implants, and drug interventions. The search was limited to English studies.DiscussionThis overview presents a detailed analysis of the effects of drugs on implant osseointegration. It explores drugs such as bisphosphonates, teriparatide, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, nitrites, and thiazide diuretics as promoters of osseointegration. Conversely, loop diuretics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, cyclosporine A, cisplatin, methotrexate, antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antiepileptics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and anticoagulants are discussed as inhibitors of the process. The role of vitamin D3 remains uncertain. The complex relationship between drugs and the biology of implant osseointegration is emphasized, underscoring the need for further in vitro and in vivo studies to validate their effectsConclusionThis narrative review contributes to the literature by providing an overview of the effects of drugs on implant osseointegration. It highlights the complexity of the subject and emphasizes the necessity for more extensive and sophisticated studies in the future. Based on the synthesis of the reviewed literature, certain drugs, such as bisphosphonates and teriparatide, show potential for promoting implant osseointegration, while others, including loop diuretics and certain antibiotics, may impede the process. However, additional research is required to solidify these conclusions and effectively inform clinical practice.