T1 Pelvic and Lumbar Pelvic Angles Normative Values: A Prospective Cohort Study of 472 Asymptomatic Volunteers.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a prospectively enrolled cohort. OBJECTIVE: Determine the normative values of the T1 Pelvic Angle (TPA) and Lumbar Pelvic Angle (LPA) in an asymptomatic cohort of volunteers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The TPA and LPA have been introduced as sagittal spino-pelvic parameters to guide correction of adult spinal deformity. Suggested values for these parameters were derived from linear regressions based on Oswestry Disability Index scores from adult spinal deformity patients. While a few studies have evaluated the normative value of TPA, none have evaluated the LPA in asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: TPA and LPA were measured on radiographs of 472 asymptomatic volunteers between 20 and 40 years old. TPA and LPA were calculated as originally described from the centroid of T1 and L1 respectively, to the center of the femoral head to the midpoint of the sacral endplate. TPA and LPA were also evaluated using the midpoint of the superior endpoint as a surrogate to the centroid of the vertebra to compare these two measurement techniques. RESULTS: TPA and LPA normative values were respectively 7.3 [6.8-7.8] and 6.3o [5.9-6.7]. There was no statistically significant difference between using the centroid of T1 or L1 versus using the midpoint of the superior endplate with respective results of 7.5o [7.0-8.0] (P=0.55) and 6.1o [5.6-6.5] (P=0.43). TPA was significantly different between Roussouly types 1-2-3 versus type 4 with respective results of of 6.7o, 7.2o, 6.5o and 9.2o (P<0.001). The same difference was observed for the LPA with normative results of 3.8o, 5.1o, 5.8o and 9.3o (P<0.001), respectively, for Roussouly types 1,2,3 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: TPA and LPA normative values are 7o and 6o, respectively, and vary between Roussouly morphotypes 1,2 and 3 versus type 4. Using the midpoint of the superior endplate of T1 and L1 versus the centroid yielded similar results and therefore could be easier to use intraoperatively.

Longstanding Nonunion of Metatarsal Fractures in an Adult Patient with Autosomal Dominant Osteopetrosis: A Case Report.

CASE: Osteopetrosis is a genetic condition that impairs bone turnover as the result of defects in osteoclast function and abnormal ossification of bone. Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis is often mild; however, the impaired fracture healing, increased density, and hardness of osteopetrotic bone present technical challenges for surgeons leading to complications with both nonoperative and operative treatment modalities. In this case report, we describe a patient treated empirically with ultrasonic bone stimulation for nonunion of fractures of multiple metatarsals after a failure of conventional therapy. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonic bone stimulation may have a role in optimizing nonoperative management of osteopetrosis-related fractures in adults.

The times they are a-changin': The evolution of prostate cancer screening practices and beliefs among primary care physicians in Victoria, British Columbia.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer screening practices remain controversial among primary care practitioners (PCPs). Inconsistent guidelines and publication of large prostate cancer screening trials have failed to provide definitive guidance. This study investigates the evolution of prostate cancer screening practices and beliefs over 12 years, in Victoria, British Columbia. METHODS: Questionnaires were delivered to 119 randomly selected PCPs in 2019. Descriptive analysis together with exploratory graphs and Pearson Chi-squared test for independence was calculated. The 2008 data was compared by determining if their value fell within the 2019 data's 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Response rate was 69.8% (83/119); 30.1% of PCPs reported regularly screening asymptomatic men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and 37.3% reported regularly performing digital rectal exam (DRE). The combination of PSA and DRE was the most used (48.2 %) screening modality. Most (73.5%) reported that guidelines influence their screening practices, with the most popular choice being those published by The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTF) (32.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a movement away from prostate cancer screening among PCPs when compared to 2008. PCPs believe that DRE and PSA are less valuable as screening tools and that there is insufficient evidence to support their use. The most used initial screening modality was the combination of PSA/DRE, however, we found a decrease in their use between the two study periods. Clinical guidelines continue to influence PCPs screening practices, but the shift of more PCPs following the CTF guidelines since 2008 has likely led to the reciprocal decrease in prostate cancer screening.