Methods, challenges and benefits of a health monitoring programme for Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic athletes: the road from London 2012 to Tokyo 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation of a health monitoring programme for Norwegian Paralympic and Olympic candidates over five consecutive Olympic and Paralympic Games cycles (London 2012, Sochi 2014, Rio de Janeiro 2016, PyeongChang 2018 and Tokyo 2020). METHODS: Athletes were monitored for 12-18 months preparing for the games using a weekly online questionnaire (OSTRC-H2) with follow-up by physicians and physiotherapists, who provided clinical care and classified reported problems. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2020, 533 Olympic and 95 Paralympic athletes were included in the monitoring programme, with an overall response of 79% to the weekly questionnaire and a total observation period of 30 826 athlete weeks. During this time, 3770 health problems were reported, with a diagnosis rate of 97%. The average prevalence of health problems at any given time was 32% among Olympic athletes and 37% among Paralympic athletes. Acute traumatic injuries represented the greatest burden for Olympic team sport athletes, and illnesses represented the greatest burden for Olympic endurance and Paralympic athletes. On average, Olympic athletes lost 27 days and Paralympic athletes lost 33 days of training per year due to health problems. CONCLUSION: Conducting long-term health monitoring of Olympic and Paralympic athletes is challenging, particularly because athletes travel frequently and often relate to many medical providers. This programme has been implemented and improved within Team Norway for five Olympic and Paralympic cycles and during this time we believe it has helped protect our athletes' health.

The twin terrorist attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011: the trauma center response.

BACKGROUND: The terrorist attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011, consisted of a bomb explosion in central Oslo, followed by a shooting spree in a youth camp. We describe the trauma center response, identifying possible success factors and suggesting improvements for institutional major incident plans. METHODS: The in-hospital response is analyzed. Data on triage, patient flow, injuries, treatment, resources, and outcome were collected. RESULTS: The explosion caused a total of 98 casualties and 8 died at scene. Ten patients were triaged to the trauma center, with the first patient arriving 18 minutes after the explosion and 7 patients within the next 19 minutes. The shooting caused 68 deaths at the scene and 61 injured. The trauma center received a total of 21 patients from the shooting incident.Surgical leadership was divided between emergency department triage with control of personnel and communication as well as control and supervision of treatment with retriage and optimal use of trauma surgical resources (dual command). Surge capacity was never exceeded in the emergency department, operating rooms, or intensive care units.Of the 31 patients treated at the trauma center, 20 had an Injury Severity Score of more than 15 and 25 required repeated operation, for a total of 125 operations during the first 4 weeks. One patient died, for a critical mortality of 5%. CONCLUSION: A trauma center can handle many patients with severe injury, with low critical mortality when protected from a large number of walking wounded. Limited specific trauma surgical competence was managed by the adoption of a dual surgical command model. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level V.

Complications and survival after surgical treatment of 214 metastatic lesions of the humerus.

BACKGROUND: The humerus is the second most common long-bone site of metastatic bone disease. We report complications, risk factors for failure, and survival of a large series of patients operated on for skeletal metastases of the humerus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was based on 208 patients treated surgically for 214 metastatic lesions of the humerus. Reconstructions were achieved by intramedullary nails in 148, endoprostheses in 35, plate fixation in 21, and by other methods in 10. RESULTS: The median age at surgery was 67 years (range, 29-87 years). Breast cancer was the primary tumor in 31%. The overall failure rate of the surgical reconstructions was 9%. The reoperation rate was 7% in the proximal humerus, 8% in the diaphysis, and 33% in the distal part of the bone. Among 36 operations involving an endoprosthesis, 2 were failures (6%) compared with 18 of 178 osteosynthetic devices (10%). In the osteosynthesis group, intramedullary nails failed in 7% and plate fixation failed in 22%. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that prostate cancer was associated with an increased risk of failure after surgery (hazard ratio, 7; P < 0.033). The cumulative survival after surgery was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34-47) at 1 year, 21% (95% CI, 15-26) at 2 years, and 16% (95% CI, 12-19) at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our method of choice is the cemented hemiprosthesis for pathologic proximal humeral fractures and interlocked intramedullary nail for lesions in the diaphysis. Pathologic fractures in the distal humerus are uncommon and associated with a very high reoperation rate.

Cement is recommended in intralesional surgery of giant cell tumors: a Scandinavian Sarcoma Group study of 294 patients followed for a median time of 5 years.

BACKGROUND: Giant cell tumors of bone rarely metastasize but often recur locally after surgery. There is limited knowledge about the risk of recurrence related to different types of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed factors affecting the local recurrence rate in 294 patients with giant cell tumors of the extremities using prospectively collected material from 13 centers. The median follow-up time was 5 (0.2-18) years. RESULTS: A local recurrence was diagnosed in 57 of 294 patients (19%). The overall 5-year local recurrence rate was 0.22. Univariate analysis identified young age and intralesional surgery to be associated with a higher risk of recurrence. Based on multivariate analysis, the relative risk was 2.4-fold for intralesional surgery compared to more extensive operative methods. There was no correlation between tumor size, tumor extension, sex of the patient, tumor location, or fracture at diagnosis and outcome. In the subgroup of 200 patients treated with intralesional surgery, the method of filling (cement or bone) was known for 194 patients and was statistically highly significant in favor of the use of cement. INTERPRETATION: Intralesional surgery should be the first choice in most giant cell tumors, even in the presence of a pathological fracture. After thorough evacuation, the cavity should be filled with cement.

Comparison of re-operation rates following primary and secondary hemiarthroplasty of the hip.

Primary arthroplasty or internal fixation are the most common ways of treating intracapsular femoral neck fractures, while arthroplasty is the preferred salvage treatment after failed internal fixation. A prospective registration of hip hemiarthroplasties between January 1998 and March 2002 identified 282 procedures for an acute femoral neck fracture and 149 procedures after failed internal fixation with two parallel screws. Chart review was performed after 19-74 months. The groups were comparable in co-morbidities and perioperative conditions. In the primary hemiarthroplasty group 15 of 282 (5%) arthroplasties were re-operated for complications compared to 16 of 149 (11%) in the secondary group (p=0.04). The most common re-operation was soft tissue debridement because of infection. There were more patients with an excision arthroplasty as end result in the secondary hemiarthroplasty group (6 (4%) versus 1 (0.4%); p=0.004). The higher risk of a re-operation after a salvage hemiarthroplasty should be considered when deciding between internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty as treatment for femoral neck fractures.