Comparison of Hip and Low Back Loads between Normal Gait, Axillary Crutch Ambulation and Walking with a Hands-free Crutch in a Healthy Population.

BACKGROUND: Instead of using axillary crutches, using a hands-free crutch (HFC) has been associated with higher functional outcome scores. However, hip and back pain have been reported as side effects. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare range of motion and joint reaction forces at the hip and low back between HFC walking, normal walking, and standard crutch walking. It was hypothesized that hip joint reaction forces and low back joint reaction forces would be higher with HFC walking compared with normal walking and axillary crutch walking. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled Laboratory Study. METHODS: Using 3D motion analysis and force plates, kinematics and ground reaction forces were measured in 12 healthy subjects during gait, crutch ambulation and HFC walking. Gait speed, hip and trunk range of motion, and hip and low back reaction forces, were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Gait speed during HFC ambulation was reduced 33% compared to crutch ambulation (P<0.001) and 44% compared to normal gait (p<0.001). Hip range of motion was reduced during both crutch conditions compared to gait (p<0.001). Trunk range of motion was greatest during HFC walking compared to both gait and crutch ambulation (p<0.001). Peak hip joint reaction force during HFC walking was 11% lower than during gait (p=0.026) and 30% lower than during crutch walking (p<0.001). Peak low back reaction force during HFC walking was 18% higher than during gait (p=0.032) but not different than during crutch walking. CONCLUSION: Hip joint reaction forces during HFC walking did not exceed those during gait or axillary crutch ambulation. However, a reduction in hip motion using the HFC was associated with increases in trunk motion and low-back loading. These could be a cause for reports of low-back pain accompanying HFC usage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Intranasal ketamine for acute traumatic pain in the Emergency Department: a prospective, randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine has been well studied for its efficacy as an analgesic agent. However, intranasal (IN) administration of ketamine has only recently been studied in the emergency setting. The objective of this study was to elucidate the efficacy and adverse effects of a sub-dissociative dose of IN Ketamine compared to IV and IM morphine. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, prospective, parallel clinical trial of efficacy and safety of IN ketamine compared to IV and IM morphine for analgesia in the emergency department (ED). A convenience sample of 90 patients aged 18-70 experiencing moderate-severe acute traumatic pain (≥80 mm on 100 mm Visual Analog Scale [VAS]) were randomized to receive either 1.0 mg/kg IN ketamine, 0.1 mg/kg IV MO or 0.15 mg/kg IM MO. Pain relief and adverse effects were recorded for 1 h post-administration. The primary outcome was efficacy of IN ketamine compared to IV and IM MO, measured by "time-to-onset" (defined as a ≥15 mm pain decrease on VAS), as well as time to and degree of maximal pain reduction. RESULTS: The 3 study groups showed a highly significant, similar maximal pain reduction of 56 ± 26 mm for IN Ketamine, and 59 ± 22 and 48 ± 30 for IV MO and IM MO, respectively. IN Ketamine provided clinically-comparable results to those of IV MO with regards to time to onset (14.3 ± 11.2 v. 8.9 ± 5.6 min, respectively) as well as in time to maximal pain reduction (40.4 ± 16.3) versus (33.4 ± 18), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IN ketamine shows efficacy and safety comparable to IV and IM MO. Given the benefits of this mode of analgesia in emergencies, it should be further studied for potential clinical applications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered on 27 June 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02817477.

Clinical and functional outcome after acetabular labral repair in patients aged older than 50 years.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and functional outcome of labral repair in patients aged older than 50 years. METHODS: We performed a prospective analysis of 20 patients aged older than 50 years who had undergone arthroscopic repair of a torn acetabular labrum (6 men and 14 women; mean age, 58 years). The indication for surgery was groin pain due to various causes with or without associated mechanical symptoms that did not respond to nonoperative treatment for more than 6 months. Intraoperatively, all patients were diagnosed with labral pathology. The mean duration of symptoms was 3.1 years (range, 0.5 to 15 years). The mean follow-up period was 22 months (range, 12 to 35 months). The outcome was prospectively measured with the modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) and Hip Outcome Score (HOS). RESULTS: The indication for surgery was femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with cam deformity and a labral tear in 4 patients, FAI with pincer deformity and a labral tear in 1 patient, FAI with both deformities in 1 patient, a gluteus medius tear in 2 patients, and an isolated labral tear in 12 patients. Acetabular chondral lesions were present in 11 patients (55%). The mean preoperative and postoperative MHHS was 62.5 and 87.2, respectively (P < .001); the mean preoperative and postoperative HOS was 42.7 and 86.3, respectively (P < .001); and the mean preoperative and postoperative level of function during usual activities of daily living according to the HOS was 46.0% and 73.7%, respectively (P < .001). No significant difference was identified in MHHS and HOS between gender groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic management of FAI and labral repair in patients aged older than 50 years without significant arthritis (Tönnis grade 1 or better) are associated with significant improvement in outcome. Because of the potential importance of the labrum for long-term hip joint integrity, we advocate repair of the labrum in patients aged older than 50 years when possible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Anxiolytic medication as an adjunct to morphine analgesia for acute low back pain management in the emergency department: a prospective randomized trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded, and randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the added benefit of promethazine administration as an anxiolytic adjunct to morphine analgesia in reducing acute low back pain (LBP) compared with morphine alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Acute LBP is one of the most common reasons for emergency department (ED) visits. The optimal analgesic treatment for acute LBP remains controversial. Anxiety relief has been shown to improve pain management in the ED setting. We hypothesized that administration of the antihistamine promethazine as an anxiolytic adjunct to morphine analgesia will improve LBP management compared with morphine alone. METHODS: Fifty-nine adults, who were treated in our ED for severe acute LBP (visual analogue scale ≥ 70 mm), were randomly enrolled in the study. Thirty patients received slow infusion of intravenous (IV) morphine 0.1 mg/kg in normal saline and 29 patients received an analgesic regimen of IV morphine 0.1 mg/kg with promethazine 25 mg administered similarly. Pain and anxiety levels were subjectively assessed by the patients on a 100-mm visual analogue scale before and after treatment. Adverse event related to analgesia were recorded in real time. RESULTS: After analgesia administration patients' pain rating decreased by 43 mm in the morphine group and by 39 mm in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.26). Similarly, patients' anxiety decreased by 19 mm in the morphine group and by 13 mm in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.37). The average ED stay was 78 minutes longer in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.01), due to the strong sedative effect of promethazine. Patients' satisfaction and the rate of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: IV administration of morphine-promethazine regimen for pain and anxiety relief associated with acute LBP showed no advantage compared with IV morphine alone and significantly lengthened the overall ED stay. Thus, we think that promethazine has no place in acute LBP management in the adult ED setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Reduction of twin pregnancy to singleton: does it improve pregnancy outcome?

OBJECTIVE: To compare pregnancy complications, obstetrical and neonatal outcome of twin pregnancies reduced to singleton, with both non-reduced twin pregnancies and singleton pregnancies. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Ultrasound unit of a tertiary referral medical center. Patient's population included 32 bi-chorionic bi-amniotic twin pregnancies reduced to singleton and 35 non-reduced twin pregnancies. Thirty-six patients with singleton pregnancies comprised the second control group. Main outcome measures were rates of pregnancy complications, preterm delivery (both before 37 weeks of gestation and before 34 weeks of gestation), late abortions, intra-uterine growth retardation, cesarean section, mean birth weights, and mean gestational age at delivery. RESULTS: The reduced twin pregnancies group had similar rates of total pregnancy complications, preterm deliveries, and cesarean section as non-reduced twins. Gestational age at delivery and mean birth weight were also similar to non-reduced twins and significantly different compared with singletons. Preterm delivery and late abortion incidences were significantly higher when reduction was beyond 15 weeks gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction of twin pregnancy to singleton does not change significantly pregnancy course and outcome. Favorable obstetrical and neonatal outcomes could be achieved by performing early, first trimester reductions.