Are displaced distal clavicle fractures associated with inferior clinical outcomes following nonoperative management? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Management of displaced distal clavicle fractures remains a topic of discussion because of notoriously high nonunion rates, but there is little documented in the literature as to what effect this may have on patient-reported function. The aim of this systematic review was to look at nonoperative management following displaced distal clavicle fractures to determine union rates, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: A review of the online databases MEDLINE and Embase was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical studies that included a cohort of nonoperatively managed displaced distal clavicle fractures and reported on union rate, complications, and patient-reported functional scores were included. RESULTS: Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion (2 randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective noncomparative cohort study, 5 retrospective comparative cohort studies, and 3 case series) with a total of 779 patients included in this review. Average union rate was 63.2% (22.2%-94.4%) in nonoperatively managed patients, compared with 96.3% (87.9%-100%) in operatively managed patients. The Constant-Murley score and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire were the most frequently used outcome measure tools. No study demonstrated any significant difference in any outcome measure when comparing nonoperative with operative treatment. Complication rate (including nonunion) in nonoperatively managed patients was 45.1%, with 11.1% requiring delayed surgery. Average complication rate in the operatively managed groups was 41.2%, with 40.1% requiring a second operation. CONCLUSION: Nonoperative management of displaced distal clavicle fractures results in higher nonunion rates, but shoulder function remains excellent, and risk of complications and delayed surgery are low. Decision making must take into account patient factors and expectations to provide high-quality, individualized care.

Willingness and ability of existing mosquito control and public health agencies in New Jersey to assume responsibilities for management of ticks and tick-borne disease.

We conducted surveys of New Jersey mosquito control and public health agencies to determine their willingness and ability to expand or create and maintain publicly funded tick and tick-borne disease (T/TBD) management programs. Nearly all (86%) of 21 county mosquito control agencies (MCAs) completed the survey, while only 25% of the 102 health departments (HDs) responded, probably reflecting traditional agency responsibilities. Although few of either group had formal programs, many were engaged in T/TBD-related activities. Many MCAs rated their ability to assume T/TBD responsibilities as high or moderate, while most HDs rated their capabilities as low. With the exceptions of lack of sustainable funding and possible legal constraints, the groups differed regarding perceived barriers to program creation and maintenance. Both groups envisioned comprehensive programs emphasizing public education, but program priorities differed between the groups. MCAs were willing to include most program activities, while HDs felt that some activities should be the responsibility of other agencies. MCAs were generally more familiar than HDs with tick control methods and while both groups would include control in a comprehensive program, both would limit control to public lands. Estimated program costs varied widely, probably reflecting responding agency size and complexity of envisioned programs. These results in a state with a system of existing agencies staffed by highly competent professionals suggest that more than simply additional funding (e.g., established guidelines for tick control and surveillance) is needed to create a network of practice necessary to address the growing incidence of TBD.

The effect of tranexamic acid and epinephrine on visual clarity during arthroscopic shoulder surgery: A meta-analysis of RCTs.

INTRODUCTION: Visual clarity in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is essential to reduce the operative time and for efficiency of repair. Tranexamic acid (TXA) in open shoulder surgery has been shown to reduce blood loss but its use in shoulder arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair for improved clarity is not understood. The purpose of this SR is to determine the effect of TXA and epinephrine on visual clarity in shoulder arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesise that visual clarity should improve in those that have TXA compared to those who do not receive TXA. METHODS: A review of the online databases MEDLINE and Embase was conducted on 8th October 2022 according to PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in the PROSPERO database. Randomised clinical trials reporting visual clarity and/or, operative time, volume of irrigation fluid used and mean arterial pressure were included. The studies were appraised using the CONSORT tool. RESULTS: Seven studies met eligible criteria, all of which were double-blinded RCTs. Five studies reported no difference in visual clarity between TXA vs. saline, while two reported a significant improvement with TXA. Pooling of data showed that visual clarity was significantly better in the TXA group vs. saline, on a standardised 10-point Likert scale (mean difference 0.73 points, p=0.03). However, the use of epinephrine was reported in two studies and its administration offered significantly better visual clarity than TXA (mean difference 0.9 points, p=0.02). There was no significant difference with TXA use in MAP (mean difference 1.2mmHg, p=0.14), operative time (mean difference 6.8minutes, p=0.11), irrigation volume used (mean difference 0.2L, p=0.88), or postoperative pain (mean difference 3.89 on a 0-100 VAS, p=0.34). CONCLUSION: The use of TXA in shoulder arthroscopy has shown to have significantly improved visual clarity in comparison to saline irrigation alone. This may not necessarily result in a significant clinical difference and may not translate to significantly less operative time or postoperative pain score. Furthermore, epinephrine use alone offers significantly better clarity than TXA. There may not be an added benefit to give both, but this area requires further research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II; systematic review.