Diagnosis of hypertension: Ambulatory pediatric American Heart Association/European Society of Hypertension versus blood pressure load thresholds.

The agreement between the traditionally-used ambulatory blood pressure (ABP)-load thresholds in children and recently-recommended pediatric American Heart Association (AHA)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) ABP thresholds for diagnosing ambulatory hypertension (AH), white coat hypertension (WCH), and masked hypertension (MH) has not been evaluated. In this cross-sectional study on 450 outpatient participants, the authors evaluated the agreement between previously used ABP-load 25%, 30%, 40%, 50% thresholds and the AHA/ESH thresholds for diagnosing AH, WCH, and MH. The American Academy of Pediatrics thresholds were used to diagnose office hypertension. The AHA threshold diagnosed ambulatory normotension/hypertension closest to ABP load 50% in 88% (95% CI 0.79, 0.96) participants (k 0.67, 95% CI 0.59, 0.75) and the ESH threshold diagnosed ambulatory normotension/hypertension closest to ABP load 40% in 86% (95% CI 0.77, 0.94) participants (k 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.74). In contrast, the AHA/ESH thresholds had a relatively weaker agreement with ABP load 25%/30%. Therefore, the diagnosis of AH was closest between the AHA threshold and ABP load 50% (difference 3%, 95% CI -2.6%, 8.6%, p = .29) and between the ESH threshold and ABP load 40% (difference 4%, 95% CI -2.1%, 10.1%, p = .19) than between the AHA/ESH and ABP load 25%/30% thresholds. A similar agreement pattern persisted between the AHA/ESH and various ABP load thresholds for diagnosing WCH and MH. The AHA and ESH thresholds diagnosed AH, WCH, and MH closest to ABP load 40%/50% than ABP load 25%/30%. Future outcome-based studies are needed to guide the optimal use of these ABP thresholds in clinical practice.

Low-Cost Self-Made Arthroscopic Training Camera Is Equally as Effective as Commercial Camera: A Comparison Study.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of a low-cost self-made arthroscopic camera (LAC) in basic arthroscopic skills training compared with a commercial arthroscopic camera (CAC). METHODS: One hundred fifty-three orthopaedic residents were recruited and randomly assigned to either the LAC or CAC. They were allocated 2 practice sessions, with 20 minutes each, to practice 4 given arthroscopic tasks: task 1, transferring objects; task 2, stacking objects; task 3, probing numbers; and task 4, stretching rubber bands. The time taken for participants to complete the given tasks was recorded in 3 separate tests; before practice, immediately after practice, and after a period of 3 months. A comparison of the time taken between both groups to complete the given tasks in each test was measured as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Significant improvements in time completion were seen in the post-practice test for both groups in all given arthroscopic tasks, each with P < .001. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for task 1 (P = .743), task 2 (P = .940), task 3 (P = .932), task 4 (P = .929), and total (P = .944). The outcomes of the tests (before practice, after practice, and at 3 months) according to repeated measures analysis of variance did not differ significantly between the groups in task 1 (P = .475), task 2 (P = .558), task 3 (P = .850), task 4 (P = .965), and total (P = .865). CONCLUSIONS: The LAC is equally as effective as the CAC in basic arthroscopic skills training with the advantage of being cost-effective. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In view of the scarcity in commercial arthroscopic devices for trainees, this low-cost device, which trainees can personally own and use, may provide a less expensive and easily available way for trainees to improve their arthroscopic skills. This might also cultivate more interest in arthroscopic surgery among junior surgeons.