METHODS: An online REDCap questionnaire was circulated to surgeons in the Asia-Pacific region during the period of July 2019 to September 2019 to inquire about various components of nonoperative treatment for AIS. Aspects under study included access to screening, when MRIs were obtained, quality-of-life assessments used, role of scoliosis-specific exercises, bracing criteria, type of brace used, maturity parameters used, brace wear regimen, follow-up criteria, and how braces were weaned. Comparisons were made between middle-high income and low-income countries, and experience with nonoperative treatment.
RESULTS: A total of 103 responses were collected. About half (52.4%) of the responders had scoliosis screening programs and were particularly situated in middle-high income countries. Up to 34% obtained MRIs for all cases, while most would obtain MRIs for neurological problems. The brace criteria were highly variable and was usually based on menarche status (74.7%), age (59%), and Risser staging (92.8%). Up to 52.4% of surgeons elected to brace patients with large curves before offering surgery. Only 28% of responders utilized CAD-CAM techniques for brace fabrication and most (76.8%) still utilized negative molds. There were no standardized criteria for brace weaning.
CONCLUSION: There are highly variable practices related to nonoperative treatment for AIS and may be related to availability of resources in certain countries. Relative consensus was achieved for when MRI should be obtained and an acceptable brace compliance should be more than 16 hours a day.
Case presentation: A 33-year-old female presented with recurrent hypoglycemia. Endogenous hyperinsulinemia was confirmed by a prolonged fast, however serial imaging was negative. Incidental finding of an ovarian mass gave rise to the suspicion of an insulin-producing ovarian tumor. Subsequent multimodality pancreatic imaging remained negative, requiring more invasive investigations. The tumor was localized by specialized arteriography using calcium stimulation to support the diagnosis of an insulinoma. However, repeated negative imaging led to further delays in definitive management, with worsening hypoglycemia. The surgery was finally performed three years after the initial presentation with successful removal of the tumor using intra-operative ultrasound.
Clinical discussion: It is important to emphasize that preoperative radiological imaging is useful to localize pancreatic lesions. However, most insulinomas could only be detected intraoperatively. The absence of suggestive radiological evidence should not deter surgeons from proceeding with definitive surgical intervention.
Conclusion: The case highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in the management of a complicated case.
METHODS:: Eighty-six patients scheduled for trigger finger release between July 2016 and December 2017 were randomized into a control group (1% lignocaine and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate with arm tourniquet; given 10 min prior to procedure) and an intervention group (1% lignocaine, 1:100,000 of adrenaline and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate; given 30 min prior to procedure), with a total of 4 ml of solution injected around the A1 pulley. The onset of anesthesia and pain score upon injection of the first 1 ml were recorded. After the procedure, the surgeon rated for the hemostasis score (1-10: 1 as no bleeding and 10 being profuse bleeding). Duration of surgery and return of sensation were recorded.
RESULTS:: Hemostasis score was grouped into visibility score as 1-3: good, 4-6: moderate, and 7-10: poor. The intervention group (with adrenaline) had a 74% of good surgical field visibility compared to 44% from the controlled group (without adrenaline; p < 0.05). Duration of anesthesia was longer in the intervention group (with adrenaline), with a 2.77-h difference.
CONCLUSION:: WALANT provides excellent surgical field visibility and is safe and on par with conventional methods but without the usage of a tourniquet and its associated discomfort.
Materials and methods: The Duncan, HU, SMC, Pretzel, Nicky's and square knots were selected for comparisons with UM knot. All knots were prepared with size 2 HiFi® suture by a single experienced surgeon and tested with cyclic loading and load to failure tests. The ease of learning was assessed objectively by recording the time to learn the first correct knot and the total number of knots completed in 5 min by surgeons and trainees.
Results: The UM knot average failure load is significantly superior to the HU knot (p
Materials and Methods: We searched the databases of our institutions for the surgical procedures diagnosed as "fracture of the radial head" and for the procedures related to "prosthesis of the radial head" and "osteosynthesis of the radial head" in the period from May 2014 to October 2017. The fractures were first classified according to the Mason classification . We then allocated the patients into three study groups according to the site of the fracture, either the medial or lateral side of the radial head : Group A, with an isolated lateral fracture of the radius head; Group B1, with a medial fracture of the radius head with two medial fragments; and Group B2, with a medial fracture of the radius head with multiple medial fragments. We performed a multivariate analysis to identify statistically significant correlation between the pre-operative classifications of Mason and our study, the type of surgical procedure, and the clinical outcome.
Results: Mayo Elbow Performance (MEP) scores determined at the final follow-up of the study (mean 16.6 months, range 12-26 months) was excellent in 17 patients (4 in Group A, 6 in Group B1 and 7 in Group B2), and good in 12 patients (3 in Group A, 7 in Group B1, and 2 in Group B2). One patient showed a poor result in MEP score probably because of an infection and implant removal.
Conclusion: Regarding medial fractures of the radial head, our study showed satisfactory results with a radial head prosthesis for comminuted or multifragmentary radial head fractures. For surgeons with advanced elbow fracture expertise, osteosynthesis could be attempted in a fracture pattern that involved only two medial fragments.
METHODS: A steering group was formed to review the existing guideline and propose amendments to the 17-item checklist. A Delphi consensus exercise was utilised to determine agreement across a list of proposed modifications to the STROCSS 2017 guideline. An expert panel of 46 surgeons were invited to assess the proposed updates via Google Forms.
RESULTS: The response rate was 91% (n = 42/46). High agreement was reached across all the items and the guideline was finalised in the first round. The checklist maintained 17-items, with modifications primarily considered to improve content and readability.
CONCLUSIONS: The STROCSS 2019 guideline is hereby presented as a considered update to improve reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery.