RESUMEN
Introduction "When can I fly after my hip or knee replacement?" is a question frequently encountered by surgeons. Both air travel and arthroplasty increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, few studies examine the risk of air travel following arthroplasty. This study aimed to review the advice given to patients by surgeons, airlines, and insurance providers about flying after arthroplasty. We also review the current literature and available guidelines. Materials and methods A survey was sent to consultants with a special interest in hip or knee arthroplasty at 14 hospital trusts in the United Kingdom (UK) asking how long they would advise patients to avoid flying after surgery. We contacted all UK commercial airlines asking if they imposed any limitations on flying after arthroplasty. We contacted 15 UK insurance providers to determine whether they would provide insurance coverage following arthroplasty. Results A total of 110 knee surgeons and 105 hip surgeons were contacted. The response rate was 42% for hip surgeons and 44% for knee surgeons. Advised time to avoid flying varied widely from 14 to 180 days. A total of 22 airlines were contacted, and the response rate was 63% (n=14). Five airlines would not allow passengers to fly following arthroplasty and seven airlines required certification from a doctor. Fifteen insurance providers were contacted and the response rate was 73% (n=11). Seven insurance providers had restrictions on providing cover to passengers after arthroplasty. Conclusion Advice given to patients by surgeons, airlines, and insurance providers about flying following arthroplasty varies greatly. There is an absence of evidence-based guidelines to inform such advice. Further study is required to provide the evidence on which to base such advice. Therefore, we recommend that surgeons exercise caution when providing advice to patients.
RESUMEN
Background: Clavicle fractures are a common presentation to the emergency department after falls and sporting injuries. During 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought with it a long period of social isolation, resulting in a change of behavior patterns and, in return, the presentation of fractures to our local hospitals. The effects of this global pandemic on the presentation and management of clavicles were noted with particular interest to the change in mechanism and its future implications. Methods: We performed a longitudinal observational study in 10 hospitals in the North West of England, reviewing all patients presenting with a clavicle fracture during 6 weeks in the first peak of COVID-19 pandemic and compared these with the same period in 2019. Collection points included the patient demographics, fracture characteristics, mechanism of injury, and management. Results: A total of 427 clavicle fractures were assessed with lower numbers of patients presenting with a clavicle fracture during the COVID-2020 period (n = 177) compared with 2019 (n = 250). Cycling-related clavicle fractures increased 3-fold during the pandemic compared with the 2019 control group. We also noted an overall increase in clavicle fractures resulting from higher energy trauma as opposed to low energy or fragility fracture. We also found a faster time to surgery in the COVID cohort by 2.7 days on average when compared with 2019. Conclusions: Government restrictions and the encouragement of social distancing led to behavioral changes with a vast increase in cyclists on the road. This created a significant rise in clavicle fractures related to this activity. This is likely to be further driven by the government pledge to double cyclists on the road by 2025 in the United Kingdom. We forecast that this increase in cyclists, a behavior change accelerated by the pandemic, is a reliable predictor for future trauma trends.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) is characterised by pain and loss of range of motion of the glenohumeral joint. It can be present as primary (idiopathic) or secondary to surgery, trauma or other conditions that restrict the use of the shoulder joint. Various treatment options have been adopted including physiotherapy, manipulation under anaesthetic, hydrodilatation and arthroscopic or open capsular release but the optimal form of management remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to assess the clinical outcome of glenohumeral hydrodilatation in three cohorts of patients with different aetiologies with adhesive capsulitis. STUDY DESIGN & METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study of patient who underwent hydrodilatation for adhesive capsulitis between 2013 and 2015. The procedure was performed by a specialist musculoskeletal radiologist under radiological guidance. The injection consisted of steroids, local anaesthetics and NaCl solution with a target volume around 35 mL. Our outcome measures were range of motion, and pre- and post-operative pain. Patients were divided into three groups based on the presumed cause of their stiffness: idiopathic, post-traumatic and post-surgical. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty patients were included, with a mean age of 59 years (range: 20-79). Of these, 180 had idiopathic primary adhesive capsulitis (27 were diabetic), 23 were post-traumatic, and 20 following surgical procedures. Thirty-four required further intervention following initial hydrodilatation with 8 undergoing repeat hydrodilatation, and 26 requiring arthroscopic capsular release. The diabetic group accounted for 16 capsular releases and 4 repeat procedures, while the idiopathic group accounted for 9 and 4, respectively. One patient required capsular release in the surgical group. An improvement was recorded in ROM in all groups with mean abduction improving from 59° to 110°, flexion from 50° to 120° and external rotation from 20° to 50°. With regards to pain, the majority showed an improvement from severe or moderate pain to no or mild pain. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that hydrodilatation resulted in an improvement in all outcome measures, with only a small number of patients, especially those with diabetes, needing further procedures or showing no improvement in range of motion and pain. There was no difference between the post-traumatic and post-surgical groups.
RESUMEN
Purpose In this literature review, functional outcomes such as Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the visual analog scale (VAS) of pain along with clinical outcomes such as range of movement and grip strength of treated distal radius fractures (DRF) accompanied with ulnar styloid fractures (USF) will be compared with those with isolated DRF. Materials and Methods We analyzed articles from MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL that met our predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statements. This resulted in the identification of 464 articles with 18 potentially eligible studies of which 6 were included at the full-text screening stage. The primary outcomes were wrist pain, range of motion, functional outcome and satisfaction, such as VAS, and the DASH questionnaire along with radiological assessment and incidence of complications. Results These studies involved 796 participants with DRF and 806 wrists with DRF; 444 (55%) of DRF had an associated USF. Three studies did not report any statistically significant difference in DASH scores between the DRF patients with or without USF. Two studies reported worse DASH scores in the group with associated USF. Wrist pain was reported to be statistically significantly worse in patients with associated USF in two studies. Grip strength did not exhibit a statistically significant difference in any groups in four studies. On assessing the range of motion of the wrist and forearm, only one study reported a statistically significant difference in flexion at 2 years follow-up, with less flexion in patients with USF. Conclusion This review suggests that there is no significant correlation between a USF and the functional and clinical outcomes of DRF treatment, albeit wrist pain and less flexion were reported in some studies to be associated with USF. There is a need for more robust evidence from large randomized controlled trials to specifically look at the effects of fixation versus nonfixation of USF on DRF, or large prospective cohort studies assessing DRF with and without USF, with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Level of Evidence Level II-therapeutic.
