CLINICAL PICTURE: A 51-year-old man had an uneventful anaesthesia lasting about 6.5 hours. Intubation was performed by a very junior medical officer and was considered difficult. He developed sore throat, chest pain, numbness of both hands and palpable crepitus around the neck postoperatively. Chest X-ray revealed diffuse subcutaneous emphysema, pneumomediastinum and possible pneumopericardium.
TREATMENT: He was treated conservatively with bed rest, oxygen, analgesia, antibiotic prophylaxis, reassurance and close monitoring.
OUTCOME: The patient made an uneventful recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: We discussed the possible causes.
METHODS: A multi-speciality expert panel consisting of nine Malaysian physicians from different healthcare settings who manage a diverse OA patient population was convened. Using a combination of the ADAPTE process and modified Delphi method, the panel reviewed current evidence on the management of knee OA and synthesised a set of nine recommendations on the management of knee OA, supported by an algorithm that summarises the consensus' core messages.
RESULTS: A multimodal intervention strategy is the mainstay of OA management and the choice of any single or multimodal intervention may vary over the course of the disease. Overall, a non-pharmacological core treatment set of patient education, weight loss and exercise is recommended for all patients. When pharmacotherapy is indicated, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis are recommended at the early stage of disease, and they can be paired with physical therapy as background treatment. Concurrent advanced pharmacotherapy that includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intraarticular injections and short-term weak opioids can be considered if patients do not respond sufficiently to background treatment. Patients with severe symptomatic knee OA should be considered for knee replacement surgery. Management should begin with specific treatments with the least systemic exposure or toxicity, and the choice of treatment should be determined as a shared decision between patients and their team of healthcare providers.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus presents nine recommendations that advocate an algorithmic approach in the management of patients living with knee OA. They are applicable to patients receiving treatment from primary to tertiary care providers in Malaysia as well as other countries.
METHOD: A randomized controlled trial was conducted recruiting patients from Hospital Melaka, Malaysia. Postoperative TKA patients with good hearing and visual acuity, fully conscious and prescribed with patients controlled analgesia (PCA) were randomized to either intervention or control groups using a sealed envelope. Patients in the intervention group received usual care with additional music therapy during recovery, while patients in the control group received the usual care provided by the hospital. Two factors identified affecting mental well-being were the pain (measured using numerical rating scale) and anxiety (measured using a visual analog scale) at five different minutes' points (0, 10, 20, 30, and 60).
RESULTS: A total of 56 (control: 28, intervention: 28) postoperative TKA patients consented in the study. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (p>0.05). Using Mann-Whitney U tests, patients in music therapy group showed significantly lower numerical pain score at 60min (p=0.045) whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups at all time points for anxiety scores (p>0.05). In the intervention group, Friedman tests showed that there was a significant difference in numerical pain (χ2=36.957, df=4, p<0.001) and anxiety score across times (χ2=18.545, p=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that pain score decreases over time among patients in the music therapy group while no effect is seen for anxiety. It is suggested that music therapy could not affect postoperative TKA patients' mental well-being. Nonetheless, patients reported better pain score despite the small sample.
METHODS: 14 common measures of hip dysplasia on anteroposterior pelvis radiographs were independently assessed by 2 orthopaedic specialists in 30 ambulant children with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Hip health was also categorised based on clinical impression to assess the sensitivity of radiographic measures to identify hip dysplasia status.
RESULTS: 8 measures (acetabular index, head width, lateral centre-edge angle, lateral uncoverage, medial joint width, migration percentage, neck shaft angle, triradiate status) exhibited 'excellent' reliability between clinical evaluators. 5 of the 30 patients (17%) were identified as having nascent hip dysplasia. Reliable radiographic measures that significantly distinguished between nascent hip dysplasia and healthy hips were acetabular index, lateral centre edge angle, medial joint width and migration percentage.
CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a subset of reliable and sensitive radiographic hip measures in children with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease to prioritise during hip screening to mitigate the deleterious effects of hip dysplasia, pain and disability in adulthood.