RESUMEN
Background Meniscal tears are the most common injury of the knee. Surgical treatment has fallen into contention recently and includes arthroscopic meniscectomy and meniscal repair. The primary aim of this study was to quantitatively evaluate patients with isolated meniscal tears and compare their outcomes with patients who have undergone arthroscopic meniscus surgery. The secondary aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone arthroscopic meniscectomy with patients who have undergone arthroscopic meniscal repair. Methods This comparative clinical study screened 334 patients to identify subjects who underwent arthroscopic knee surgery for isolated meniscal tears and compare them to patients with symptomatic isolated meniscal tears awaiting surgery using validated patient-reported outcome measures. These included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, Lysholm score, Tegner score, EuroQol-5 Dimension, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey. Results A total of 117 patients (Meniscal Tear group (n=36), Meniscectomy group (n=64), and Meniscal Repair group (n=17)) were included in the final data analysis. Both the Meniscectomy group and the Meniscal Repair group (mean 55-month follow-up) showed significantly better clinical outcomes than patients in the Meniscal Tear group (p<0.05). Overall, the Meniscal Repair group demonstrated superior clinical outcomes when compared to the Meniscectomy group (p<0.05). Conclusion Arthroscopic knee surgery showed significant clinical benefit at medium-term follow-up in treating patients with isolated meniscal tears. When feasible, meniscal repair should be performed preferentially over meniscectomy.
RESUMEN
A point-of-care ultrasound scan (POCUS) is a core element of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) specialty training curriculum. However, POCUS documentation quality can be poor, especially in the time-pressured environment of the emergency department (ED). A survey of 10 junior ED clinicians at the Princess Royal University Hospital (PRUH) found that total POCUS documentation was as low as 38% in some examinations.This quality improvement project aimed to increase the coverage and quality of POCUS documentation in the ED. This was done by using a plan-do-study-act (PDSA) regime to improve the quality of POCUS documentation from the original baseline to 80%. There were three discreet PDSA cycles and the interventions included improving education and training about POCUS documentation and the introduction of an original proforma, which incorporated six minimum requirements for POCUS documentation as per the joint RCEM and Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines for POCUS documentation (patient details, indications, findings, conclusions, signature and date).The project team audited the quality of all documented scans in the resuscitation department of the PRUH against the RCEM/RCR guidelines at baseline and following three discrete PDSA cycles. This was done over an 8-week period, spanning 696 attendances to the resuscitation area of the ED and 42 documented POCUS examinations.Quality recording of the six RCEM/RCR elements of POCUS documentation was poor at baseline but improved following three successful PDSA cycles. There was a demonstrated improvement in five of six documentation elements: patient details on POCUS documentation increased from 53.3% to the 66.7%, indication from 60.0% to 66.7%, conclusion from 13.0% to 83.0%, signature from 86.7% to 100.0% and date from 46.7% to 66.7%.These results suggest that the introduction of a proforma and a vigorous education strategy are effective ways to improve the quality of documentation of ED POCUS.