Retrospective cohort study of the association between socioeconomic deprivation and incidence of gestational diabetes and perinatal outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Socioeconomic disparities have been shown to correlate with perinatal mortality and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Few studies have explored the relationship between deprivation and the incidence of gestational diabetes (GDM). We aimed to identify the relationship between deprivation and incidence of GDM, after adjusting for age, BMI, and ethnicity. We also examined for relationships between deprivation and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 23,490 pregnancies from a major National Health Service Trust in Northwest London was conducted. The 2019 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation was used to identify the deprivation rank and decile for each postcode. Birthweight centile was calculated from absolute birthweight after adjusting for ethnicity, maternal height, maternal weight, parity, sex and outcome (live birth/stillbirth). Logistic regression and Kendall's Tau were used to identify relationships between variables. RESULTS: After controlling for age, BMI & ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation postcode decile was not associated with an increased risk of developing gestational diabetes. Each increase in decile of deprivation was associated with an increase in birthweight centile by 0.471 (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, age was associated with a 7.1% increased GDM risk (OR: 1.076, p < 0.001); BMI increased risk by 5.81% (OR: 1.059, p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between Index of Multiple Deprivation rank and perinatal outcomes. DISCUSSION: Our analysis demonstrates that socioeconomic deprivation was not associated with incidence of GDM or adverse perinatal outcomes. Factors such as genetic predisposition and lifestyle habits may likely play a larger role in the development of GDM compared to socioeconomic deprivation alone.

Can Weightbearing Cone-beam CT Reliably Differentiate Between Stable and Unstable Syndesmotic Ankle Injuries? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ankle injuries are common presentations to the emergency department and may lead to syndesmotic instability. These have a high socioeconomic burden due to prolonged rehabilitation, chronic pain, and posttraumatic arthritis. Early diagnosis is essential to minimize these complications, and the assessment of instability in the clinical setting is often limited by pain and clinician experience. Cross-sectional imaging of the distal syndesmosis accurately evaluates the syndesmosis through abnormal bony relationships, which in the presence of instability, worsens during physiological loading. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) has gained popularity in the diagnosis of these injuries because it enables syndesmotic assessment under weightbearing conditions, it mitigates the high radiation dose, and it is time-efficient. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this systematic review were: (1) to establish normal values for weightbearing CBCT of the syndesmosis in uninjured ankles and ascertain interobserver reliability and (2) to identify the impact of weightbearing on the syndesmosis in patients with occult ankle injuries and assess the effect of patient demographics on these metrics. METHODS: This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42021248623). MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Emcare databases were searched for studies assessing for syndesmotic instability, of which 307 studies were screened and 11 studies with 559 ankles in 408 uninjured patients and 151 patients with syndesmotic instability were included. All patients 18 years of age or older presenting with unilateral ankle injuries who underwent weightbearing CBCT for the diagnosis of an occult fracture or syndesmotic instability compared with the uninjured contralateral side were included. A control group of uninjured ankles was identified during weightbearing CBCT performed for other indications such as forefoot or midfoot injuries. Methodological assessment of the studies was performed using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies (ROBINS-1) tool and most included studies had a low risk of bias. Thus, a random-effects restricted maximum likelihood ratio model was used. RESULTS: In the uninjured ankle, the mean area of the tibiofibular syndesmosis was 112.5 ± 7.1 mm 2 , which increased to 157.5 ± 9.6 mm 2 after injury when compared with uninjured ankles with a standardized mean difference of 29.5 (95% confidence interval 19.5 to 39.5; p < 0.01), and an excellent interobserver agreement (κ = 1.0 [95% CI 0.9 to 1.0]). However, syndesmosis volume decreased with age (ß = -0.76; p = 0.04), and therefore, has a negative association with increasing age. CONCLUSION: Our study has shown that the syndesmotic area is the most reliable parameter in the assessment of syndesmotic injuries because it increases in the presence of instability during weightbearing status. It is a composite measurement that could potentially allow clinicians to use weightbearing CBCT as an adjunct when there is a clinical suspicion of syndesmotic instability. Thus, weightbearing CBCT has the potential of being diagnostic of syndesmotic instability and should be evaluated against current radiological modalities to evaluate its accuracy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic study.