Joint contact forces during semi-recumbent seated cycling.

Semi-recumbent cycling performed from a wheelchair is a popular rehabilitation exercise following spinal cord injury (SCI) and is often paired with functional electrical stimulation. However, biomechanical assessment of this cycling modality is lacking, even in unimpaired populations, hindering the development of personalised and safe rehabilitation programs for those with SCI. This study developed a computational pipeline to determine lower limb kinematics, kinetics, and joint contact forces (JCF) in 11 unimpaired participants during voluntary semi-recumbent cycling using a rehabilitation ergometer. Two cadences (40 and 60 revolutions per minute) and three crank powers (15 W, 30 W, and 45 W) were assessed. A rigid body model of a rehabilitation ergometer was combined with a calibrated electromyogram-informed neuromusculoskeletal model to determine JCF at the hip, knee, and ankle. Joint excursions remained consistent across all cadence and powers, but joint moments and JCF differed between 40 and 60 revolutions per minute, with peak JCF force significantly greater at 40 compared to 60 revolutions per minute for all crank powers. Poor correlations were found between mean crank power and peak JCF across all joints. This study provides foundation data and computational methods to enable further evaluation and optimisation of semi-recumbent cycling for application in rehabilitation after SCI and other neurological disorders.

Maintaining soldier musculoskeletal health using personalised digital humans, wearables and/or computer vision.

OBJECTIVES: The physical demands of military service place soldiers at risk of musculoskeletal injuries and are major concerns for military capability. This paper outlines the development new training technologies to prevent and manage these injuries. DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: Technologies suitable for integration into next-generation training devices were examined. We considered the capability of technologies to target tissue level mechanics, provide appropriate real-time feedback, and their useability in-the-field. RESULTS: Musculoskeletal tissues' health depends on their functional mechanical environment experienced in military activities, training and rehabilitation. These environments result from the interactions between tissue motion, loading, biology, and morphology. Maintaining health of and/or repairing joint tissues requires targeting the "ideal" in vivo tissue mechanics (i.e., loading and strain), which may be enabled by real-time biofeedback. Recent research has shown that these biofeedback technologies are possible by integrating a patient's personalised digital twin and wireless wearable devices. Personalised digital twins are personalised neuromusculoskeletal rigid body and finite element models that work in real-time by code optimisation and artificial intelligence. Model personalisation is crucial in obtaining physically and physiologically valid predictions. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work has shown that laboratory-quality biomechanical measurements and modelling can be performed outside the laboratory with a small number of wearable sensors or computer vision methods. The next stage is to combine these technologies into well-designed easy to use products.

Regional collaborations as a tool for quality improvements in surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of the literature identifying regional collaborations in surgical practice examining practices related to quality improvement. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, were searched for published reports of regional collaborations in the surgical community relating to initiatives to enhance quality improvement, quality of care, patient safety, knowledge transfer, or communities of practice. RESULTS: Seven collaborative initiatives met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review of the evidence. Motivations for initiating collaborations were often in response to external demands for performance data. Changes in the processes of clinical care and improvements in clinical outcomes were reported on the basis of the collaborative efforts. Significant improvements in clinical outcomes such as decreases in mortality rates, lower duration of postoperative intubations, and fewer surgical-site infections were reported. Quality improvement process measures were also reported to be improved across all of the collaborative initiatives. Success factors included (a) the establishment of trust among health professionals and health institutions; (b) the availability of accurate, complete, relevant data; (c) clinical leadership; (d) institutional commitment; and (e) the infrastructure and methodological support for quality management. CONCLUSIONS: A community of practice framework incorporating the success elements described in the systematic review of the literature can be used as a valuable model for collaboration amongst surgeons and healthcare organizations to improve quality of care and foster continuing professional development.

Canadian consensus conference on the development of training and practice standards in advanced minimally invasive surgery: Edmonton, Alta., Jun. 1, 2007.

Despite the complexities of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), a Canadian approach to training surgeons in this field does not exist. Whereas a limited number of surgeons are fellowship-trained in the specialty, guidelines are still clearly needed to implement advanced MIS. Leaders in the field of gastrointestinal surgery and MIS attended a consensus conference where they proposed a comprehensive mentoring program that may evolve into a framework for a national mentoring and training system. Leadership and commitment from national experts to define the most appropriate template for introducing new surgical techniques into practice is required. This national framework should also provide flexibility for truly novel procedures such as natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery.

Development of communities of practice to facilitate quality improvement initiatives in surgical oncology.

BACKGROUND: The process of developing clinical guidelines and standards for cancer treatment and screening is well established in the Ontario health care system; however, the dissemination and implementation of such guidelines and standards are more recent undertakings. Traditional implementation strategies to improve surgical practice and the delivery of cancer care have not been consistently effective. There is a recognized need to develop integrated models that offer direct support for implementation strategies. Such a model should be feasible, adaptable, and open to evaluation across diverse surgical settings. DISCUSSION: Research suggests that successful implementation should consider tools and expertise from other disciplines. This article considers a community of practice (COP) model to provide a supportive infrastructure for quality improvements in cancer surgery. The COP model was adapted for cancer surgeons. It is supported by 5 enablers referred to as tools: communication system, project development support, access to data, access to evidence review, and accreditation with continued medical education and continued professional development. These tools need to be part of an infrastructure that is both provided and supported by a team of administrators and health care professionals, who have active roles and responsibilities. Therefore, the primary objective of this article is to describe our COP model in cancer surgery including the key success factors necessary for providing the infrastructure and tools. The secondary objective is to offer the integrated COP model as a basis for future research and the evaluation of various collaborative improvement projects. SUMMARY: Building on knowledge management concepts, we identified the 4 essential processes that should be targeted by implementation strategies. A common COP evaluation framework uses the outcomes of 4 knowledge conversion modes-organizational memory, social capital, innovation, and knowledge transfer-as proxies for actual provider and organizational behavior. Insights from different collaborative improvement projects described in a consistent way could inform future research and assist in the collation of systematic reviews on this topic.

Guideline for optimization of surgical and pathological quality performance for radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer management: evidentiary base.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to provide surgical and pathological guidelines for radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without concurrent pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) to achieve optimal benefit for patients, with minimal risk of harm. METHODS: For surgical questions, a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database was performed. A literature search for the pathological questions was not conducted since the protocol for invasive carcinomas of the prostate gland developed by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) was endorsed. Urologists and pathologists were consulted for their assessment of the surgical and pathological recommendations. RESULTS: Limited high-quality evidence from 95 primary studies was available and, therefore, the expert panel developed recommendations on the basis of a consensus of the expert opinion of the working group and through a consultation with urologists and pathologists. In addition to the CAP protocol, some technical recommendations related to the handling and processing of the specimen were made. CONCLUSION: Radical prostatectomy is recommended for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer, depending on a patient's preoperative risk profile. The panel unanimously determined that the goals for RP are to attain a positive margin rate of <25% for pT2 disease, a mortality rate of <1%, rates of rectal injury of <1% and blood transfusion rates of <10% in non-anemic patients. Standard PLND should be mandatory in high-risk patients, should be recommended for intermediate-risk patients and should be optional for low-risk patients. The quality and effectiveness of this treatment and of subsequent patient care depend on good management, effective communication and reporting between surgeons and pathologists working together as part of a multidisciplinary team. The complete guideline document is posted on the Cancer Care Ontario website (www.cancercare.on.ca); search in their Toolbox, Quality Guidelines & Standards, Clinical Program category under "surgery."