RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Unlike orthopedic or visceral surgeons, French military neurosurgeons are not permanently deployed on the conflict zone. Thus, craniocerebral war casualties are often managed by general surgeons in the mobile field surgical team. The objective of the study was to provide the feedback of French military surgeons who operated on craniocerebral injuries during their deployment in a role 2 surgical hospital without a neurosurgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted by phone in March 2020, involving every military surgeon currently working in the French Military Training Hospitals, with an experience of cranial surgery without the support of a neurosurgeon during deployment. We strived to obtain contextual, clinical, radiological, and surgical data. RESULTS: A total of 33 cranial procedures involving 64 surgeons were reported from 1993 to 2018. A preoperative CT scan was not available in 18 patients (55%). Half of the procedures consisted in debridement of craniocerebral wounds (52%, n = 17), followed by decompressive craniectomies (30%, n = 10), craniotomy with hematoma evacuation (15%, n = 5), and finally one (3%) surgery with exploratory burr holes were performed. The 30-day survival rate was 52% (n = 17) and 50% (n = 10/20) among the patients who sustained severe traumatic brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates the feasibility and the plus-value of a neurosurgical damage control procedure performed on the field by a surgeon nonspecialized in cranial surgery. The stereotyped neurosurgical techniques used by the in-theater surgeon were learned during a specific predeployment training course. However, the use of a live telemedicine neurosurgical support seems indispensable and could benefit the general surgeon in strained resources setting.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic surgery has earned its place as the reference standard treatment for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy refractory to conservative medical treatment. Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder is the most common complication (12%). Standard practice involves routine gleno-humeral exploration before calcification removal. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for adhesive capsulitis. HYPOTHESIS: The development of adhesive capsulitis is associated with gleno-humeral exploration. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, multi-surgeon, retrospective cohort study of 340 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic removal of rotator cuff calcifications between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2018. We collected epidemiological data (age, sex, work-related physical activity), the history of previous treatments (local injections, needling), the type and location of the calcifications as assessed radiologically, the clinical findings (Constant score before and 6 months after surgery, diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis defined as shoulder pain with motion range limitation in all directions), and the surgical details (type of anaesthesia, gleno-humeral exploration). RESULTS: Of the 340 patients, 251 underwent routine gleno-humeral exploration and 89 did not. Adhesive capsulitis developed in 40 (12%) patients. By multivariate analysis, gleno-humeral exploration was an independent risk factor for adhesive capsulitis (p=0.022; odds ratio, 5.60). Of the 251 gleno-humeral explorations, 8% identified concomitant lesions and only 4% led to a curative procedure. CONCLUSION: Given our results and the data in the literature, we believe that routine gleno-humeral exploration during the arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy is inadvisable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; case-control study.