Prior surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures is associated with increased complications following subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare complication rates between patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after a prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) to those undergoing RSA as a primary treatment for PHFs, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).MethodsPatients who underwent RSA between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Mariner database. Patients were separated into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) RSA for osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear, or CTA (Control-RSA); (2) RSA as a primary treatment for PHF (PHF-RSA); and (3) RSA for patients with prior ORIF of PHFs (ORIF-RSA). Ninety-day medical and 2-year postoperative surgical complications were identified. In addition, patients in the PHF-RSA group were subdivided into those undergoing RSA for PHF within 3 months of the fracture (acute) vs. those treated greater than 3 months from diagnosis (delayed). Multivariate regression was performed to control for differences in comorbidities and demographics.ResultsA total of 30,824 patients underwent primary RSA for arthritis or CTA, 5389 patients underwent RSA as a primary treatment for a PHF, and 361 patients underwent RSA after ORIF of a PHF. ORIF before RSA was associated with an increased risk of overall revision (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, P = .002), infection (OR 2.40, P < .001), instability (OR 2.43, P < .001), fracture (OR 3.24, P = .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.59, P = .008), and readmission (OR 2.55, P = .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. RSA as a primary treatment for PHF was associated with an increased risk of 2-year revision (OR 1.60, P < .001), infection (OR 1.51, P < .001), instability (OR 2.84, P < .001), and fracture (OR 2.54, P < .001) in addition to major medical complications (OR 2.02, P < .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.92, P < .001), 90-day emergency department visits (OR 1.26, P < .001) and 90-day readmission (OR 2.03, P < .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. The ORIF-RSA group had an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (OR 1.94, P = .002) when compared with the PHF-RSA cohort. There were no differences in medical or surgical complications in the RSA-PHF cohort between patients treated in an acute or delayed fashion.ConclusionRSA following ORIF of a PHF is associated with increased complications compared with patients undergoing RSA for nonfracture indications. Prior ORIF of a PHF is also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection after RSA compared with patients who undergo RSA as a primary operation for fracture. The timing of RSA as a primary operation for PHF does not appear to impact the rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗急性结石性胆囊炎的疗效

目的探讨分析对急性结石性胆囊炎患者采用腹腔镜胆囊切除术进行治疗的临床效果,以及对患者的胃肠功能和C反应蛋白所造成的影响。方法本次研究对象乃是我院肝胆外科于2017年4月-2019年4月期间收治的急性结石性胆囊炎患者62例,按照患者就诊的先后顺序对其进行平均分组,比较两组患者的术后肠鸣音恢复时间、肛门排气时间、排便时间、C反应蛋白水平以及并发症发生率。结果腹腔镜手术组患者的术后肠鸣音恢复时间(13.6±3.5)小时、肛门排气时间(16.5±2.7)小时以及排便时间(25.7±3.3)小时,均明显少于开腹式手术组患者(P<0.05);腹腔镜手术组患者的术后并发症发生率(6.45%)明显低于开腹式手术组患者(25.80%)(P<0.05);腹腔镜手术组患者的C反应蛋白水平为(10.4±2.5)mg/L,少于开腹式手术组患者(P<0.05)。结论根据本次研究的结果可以确认,对急性结石性胆囊炎患者采用腹腔镜胆囊切除术进行治疗能够取得更好的效果,可以促使患者的胃肠功能在术后更快的恢复,提高患者的C反应蛋白,从而有效避免患者出现并发症。     

Losing the uphill battle? Emergent harm reduction interventions and barriers during the opioid overdose crisis in Canada

Canada continues to experience an escalating opioid overdose crisis that has claimed more than 8000 lives in the country since 2016. The presence of the synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogues is a central contributor to the increases in preventable opioid-related deaths. However, a number of converging social-structural factors (e.g., the continued criminalisation of drug use, political changes) and political barriers are also complicating and contributing to the current crisis. We briefly outline four harm reduction interventions (i.e., injectable opioid agonist treatment, naloxone distribution programs, overdose prevention sites, and drug checking services) as emerging and rapidly expanding responses to this crisis in Canada. These examples of innovation and expansion are encouraging but also occurring at the same time that the opioid overdose crisis shows few signs of abating. To truly address the crisis, Canada needs political environments at all government levels that are responsive and foster harm reduction innovation and drug policy experimentation.