Dashboard (in the) Knee

We present the case of a 19-year-old individual presenting to an orthopaedic outpatient clinic several months following a dashboard knee injury during a road traffic accident with intermittent mechanical symptoms. Despite unremarkable examination findings and normal magnetic resonance imaging, the patient was identified subsequently as having an intra-articular plastic foreign body consistent with a piece of dashboard on arthroscopic knee assessment, the retrieval of which resulted in a complete resolution of symptoms.     

EFFICACY OF RAMIPRIL VERSUS ENALAPRIL IN PATIENTS WITH MILD TO MODERATE ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION

SUMMARY This double-blind, randomised, cross-over study investigated the antihypertensive efficacy of ramipril and enalapril was completed by 30 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. After a four-week placebo run-in phase, the patients received either 2.5mg ramipril or 10mg enalapril once daily for four weeks. The dosages were increased to 5mg ramipril and 20mg enalapril for a further four weeks. After a placebo washout phase of four weeks, the patients were crossed over to the alternative treatment. The decrease in average 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure from week 0 to week 8 was 1.6mmHg greater with ramipril than enalapril (90% confidence interval 0.6-2.7mmHg). The corresponding reduction in for systolic blood pressure was also greater with ramipril than enalapril by 2.4mmHg (90% confidence interval: 0.5-4.2mmHg). For the difference in the drop of 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure between ramipril and enalapril the lower level of the 90% confidence interval (CI) is above the clinically relevant difference of -3mmHg. This is an indication that ramipril (2.5 and 5mg dose) is at least as effective as enalapril (10 and 20mg dose) in decreasing blood pressure in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. The duration of adequate antihypertensive effect was relatively long for both ramipril and enalapril; however, ramipril tended to have a more prolonged antihypertensive effect. Ramipril had a higher diastolic and systolic trough/peak ratio than enalapril, resulting in a more uniform antihypertensive effect over the 24-hour treatment period. Both ramipril and enalapril were well tolerated and the two treatment groups had similar safety profiles.     

OFLOXACIN VERSUS TRIMETHOPRIM AND CO-TRIMOXAZOLE IN THE TREATMENT OF UNCOMPLICATED URINARY TRACT INFECTION IN GENERAL PRACTICE

A large-scale, randomised, multicentre single-blind clinical trial was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and tolerance of ofloxacin, trimethoprim and co-trimoxazole in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection in general practice. A total of 1,069 patients from 76 centres across the UK were enrolled in the study, and randomised to one of the following treatment groups: ofloxacin (200 mg od), trimethoprim (200 mg bd) or co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim 160 mg and sulphamethoxazole 800 mg bd). Each patient received five days of medication. Clinically, ofloxacin was as effective as trimethoprim and co-trimoxazole. However, the bacteriological cure rate was significantly better for ofloxacin, with eradication of the initial causative pathogen by the end of treatment in 92% of patients in the ofloxacin group, compared with 81% for trimethoprim and co-trimoxazole (P = 0.0002). There was also a lower relapse rate for ofloxacin. Ofloxacin was well tolerated: adverse events were reported by 67 (12.4%) patients in the ofloxacin group, compared with 48 (18.7%) patients in the co-trimoxazole group and 37 (13.6%) patients in the trimethoprim group. Ofloxacin can therefore be considered a suitable alternative for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection.     

The Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale – Reablement Version (HRERS‐RV): Development and psychometric properties

Patient or user engagement with health and social care interventions is receiving increased attention and interest within practice settings and research. An English evaluation of three reablement services wished to include a measure of user‐engagement so as to explore its association with outcomes. As no measure of reablement engagement existed, an existing measure designed for use with physical rehabilitation patients (the Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale) was adapted and its psychometric properties were tested. The adapted version was completed by reablement staff at the time an individual (n = 129) was discharged from one of the three reablement services. Outcomes data (Barthel Index, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale, General Health Questionnaire‐12) collected by the evaluation study at baseline (that is, at entry into reablement), discharge and 6 months postdischarge was used for some psychometric testing. Internal consistency and construct, predictive and discriminant validity were investigated. The adapted scale measured a single construct and had good internal consistency. Tests of predictive and discriminant validity were positive. Findings from a separate, small‐scale (n = 31) test–retest study offer an early indication that this is acceptable. There was, however, evidence of a ceiling effect and we consider ways this may be ameliorated. The Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale – Reablement Version offers a means by which user engagement in reablement can be measured using a staff‐completed instrument. The association between engagement and reablement outcomes, revealed when testing for predictive validity, supports the argument for greater attention and investment in research on user engagement in reablement. More broadly, researching engagement within the context of an intervention often delivered by multiple practitioners offers the opportunity to further understand this concept which, in the past, has particularly focused on interventions delivered by a single practitioner. In addition, future work should include developing a companion measure completed by service users.