Atraumatic versus cutting needles in fluoroscopic lumbar puncture.

OBJECTIVES: Atraumatic needles are known to reduce complication rates of blind lumbar punctures (LP), however, their use in fluoroscopically guided LP is less studied. This study assessed the comparative difficulty of performing fluoroscopic lumbar puncture with atraumatic needles. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective case-control study comparing atraumatic and conventional or "cutting" needles using fluoroscopic time and radiation dose (Dose Area Product or DAP) as surrogate markers. Patients were assessed from two comparable eight-month periods before and after a policy change to primary use of atraumatic needles. RESULTS: 105 procedures with a cutting needle were performed in the group prior to the policy change. Median fluoroscopy time was 48 sec and median DAP was 3.14. Of 102 procedures performed in the group after the policy change, 99 were performed with an atraumatic needle and three with a cutting needle after initial attempt with an atraumatic needle. Median fluoroscopy time was 41 sec and median DAP was 3.28. The mean number of attempts was 1.02 in the cutting needle group and 1.05 in the atraumatic needle group. There was no significant difference in median fluoroscopy time, median DAP, or mean number of attempts. CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopic screening time, DAP and mean number of attempts were not significantly increased with primary use of atraumatic needles for LP. Use of atraumatic needles should be considered in fluoroscopic LP given the lower complication rates. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides new data showing that the use of atraumatic needles does not increase the difficulty of fluoroscopically guided LP.

Rheumatology expertise in advising immunocompromised healthcare workers: Insights from a survey of Australian rheumatologists.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW) with an inflammatory disease may be at increased risk of infections and their complications, however there is no evidence to guide specific measures to reduce the risk of immunocompromised HCW acquiring infection in the workplace. This cross-sectional study aimed to define the attitudes of rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees towards counselling immunocompromised healthcare workers about additional workplace precautions to minimise workplace risk of infection. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered via Zoom poll during a webinar held in August 2020. Participants were Victorian and Tasmanian members of the Australian Rheumatology Association, which includes consultant rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse survey responses. RESULTS: Of the 52 participants, 41 provided care to at least one immunocompromised healthcare worker. 21 out of 52 participants estimated that the majority of these patients sought their advice about infection risk in the workplace. The most common source of information for counselling patients on workplace infection risks were colleagues (38/50). Participants were most confident in providing information on influenza and hepatitis but less confident in providing information in tuberculosis, shingles and COVID-19. Most participants believed employers of immunocompromised HCW should play a role in providing advice on managing infection risks in the workplace. CONCLUSION: Our study reveals a level of uncertainty and discomfort amongst rheumatologists in providing recommendations to immunocompromised healthcare workers about managing their workplace risk of infection. We recommend the development of a framework to guide the clinician in making individualised recommendations for immunocompromised HCW.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of atraumatic shoulder conditions: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder conditions are a major cause of morbidity in the general population. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for shoulder conditions have been developed. Their purpose is to provide evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing optimal care to maximise patient outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and compare the content and quality of CPGs for atraumatic shoulder conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CPGs for atraumatic shoulder conditions will be included provided they make recommendations about diagnosis and/or management, are identified by their authors as a guideline and are consistent with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II definition of a guideline. A systematic search of electronic databases, online guideline repositories and the websites of relevant professional societies will be conducted to identify eligible CPGs. Search terms relating to shoulder conditions (eg, 'adhesive capsulitis', 'rotator cuff' and 'bursitis') will be combined with a validated search filter for CPGs. Pairs of independent reviewers will determine eligibility of CPGs identified by the search. Quality appraisal of included CPGs will be performed using the AGREE II instrument. Recommendations from each CPG and how they were determined will be extracted and compared across similar CPGs. Results from this systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The results from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to professional societies that publish shoulder CPGs, clinical policy groups, clinicians, researchers and consumers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020182723.