Occupational vs. non-occupational equestrians: Differences in demographics and injury patterns

IntroductionNineteen million people participate in horseback riding activities in the US, and the horse industry employs more than 460,000 full-time workers. Emergency department data suggest young female amateurs and male professionals are most at risk of death from horse-related injuries. However, there has been no investigation into factors that may increase severe injury and mortality risk in these populations. This study investigates demographics and injury pattern differences between occupational and non-occupational horse-related injuries in the US.MethodsThe 2017 American College of Surgeons National Trauma Databank (ACS NTDB) was analyzed for horse-related injury using ICD 10 codes. Demographics, injury data, protective device use, and hospital procedures were analyzed. Occupational versus non-occupational injuries based on incident location (farm, sports, recreational, residential) were compared using ANOVA or Pearson's Chi-squared test.ResultsOf 3911 incidents, the most common injury mechanism was falling from the horse, but occupational and non-occupational farm injuries showed higher incidence of being struck by a horse. One-third required surgery. Upper extremity injuries were most common. Occupational injuries more often affected upper extremities of working age, minority males with commercial insurance. Non-occupational injuries most often affected heads of women at the extremes of age. Helmet use was higher in occupational, non-occupational sports, and non-occupational recreation injuries, and severe head injury incidence was decreased in these groups. Complications and discharge dispositions were not different across groups.ConclusionsIn the largest trauma center study to date, we have shown equine-related trauma to be common and affect a predictable demographic that may permit injury prevention initiatives. Helmets may reduce severe head injury, but the efficacy of protective clothing remains to be validated.     

Emergency physician performed ultrasound-assisted lumbar puncture in children: A randomized controlled trial

Background and objectiveLumbar puncture (LP) is one of the most common procedures performed in pediatric emergency departments but first-attempt success rates remain low and traumatic LP remains frequent. The aim of this study was to determine if ultrasound performed by emergency physicians improves the probability of first-attempt success for lumbar puncture in children.MethodsThis was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted in two tertiary care, pediatric, university-affiliated emergency departments in 2017–2018. Eligible participants were children younger than 19 years old requiring an LP in the emergency department. They were randomized to either the standard landmark-based LP (SLP) or ultrasound-assisted LP (UALP) groups. Our primary outcome was the first-attempt LP success rate.Results166 patients were enrolled, with 84 in the UALP and 82 in the SLP group. A total of 23 physicians performed ultrasounds in the study. The proportion of successful first-attempt LP was higher in the ultrasound group (60/84; 68%) than for the standard procedure (52/82; 60%), but this failed to reach statistical significance (difference: 8.1%; 95% CI: −6.4 to 22.2).ConclusionOur study does not support the routine use of ultrasound for performing lumbar puncture in children. Considering the minimal harm and ease of performance, ultrasound may be used as an adjunct and teaching tool in certain clinical situations.     

Head- and neck-related symptoms post-motor vehicle collision (MVC): Separate entities or two-sides of the same coin?

Background and AimAlthough post-motor vehicle collision (MVC) pain and symptoms are largely convergent among those with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and whiplash associated disorder (WAD), and patients oftentimes report initial neck and head complaints, the clinical picture of mTBI and WAD has been primarily studied as separate conditions which may result in an incomplete clinical picture. As such, this study was conducted to explore the role of pain and post-traumatic psychological features in explaining both head and neck-related symptom variability in a cohort of post-collision patients. This is with the goal of disentangling if contributory factors are uniquely related to each diagnosis, or are shared between the two.MethodsPatients recruited in the very early acute phase (<72 h) returned for clinical and psychological assessment at 6 months post-accident. In order to determine which factors were unique and which ones were overlapping the same potential contributors: mean head pain, mean neck pain, female gender, number of post-collision painful body areas, PTSD, and depression were included in the regression models for both neck disability index (NDI) and Rivermead post-concussion symptoms questionnaire (RPQ).ResultsOf 223 recruited participants, 70 returned for a follow-up visit (age range 18–64, mean(SD) 37.6 (11.9), 29F). This cohort primarily met the criteria for mTBI, but also fulfilled the criteria for whiplash, reinforcing the duality of injury presentation. Correlations existed between the NDI and RPQ scores (Spearman's ρ=0.66, p<0.001), however overlap was only partial. Regression analysis showed that after the removal of area-of-injury pain neck related disability (r = 0.80, p <0.001) was explained solely by number of painful body areas (ß=0.52, p <0.001). In contrast, post-concussion syndrome symptoms (r = 0.86, p<0.001) are influenced by clinical pain, painful body areas (ß=0.31, p = 0.0026), female gender (ß=0.19, p = 0.0053), and psychological factors of depression (ß=0.31, p = 0.0028) and PTSD symptoms (ß=0.36, p = 0.0013).ConclusionsIt seems that while mechanisms of neck- and head-related symptoms in post-collision patients do share a common explanatory feature, of residual body pain, they are not entirely overlapping. In that psychological factors influence post-concussion syndrome symptoms, but not post-whiplash neck disability.     

The history of the American boards of surgery and colon and rectal surgery

This chapter will cover the history of the American Boards of Surgery and Colon and Rectal Surgery, the importance and purpose of the boards, and lifelong learning. Specifics for continuing medical education and maintenance of certification will be detailed. Lastly, opportunities for getting involved in this educational process will be described .