RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the outcome of conservative treatment for chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) as it relates to the reduction in surgical fasciotomy and return to active duty in a military population. METHODS: Historic cohort. From 2015 to 2018, 75 surgically eligible patients with pressure-positive anterior CECS (Group 1), or with positive pressures and associated medial tibial stress syndrome (Group 2), underwent a conservative treatment programme emphasising gait retraining of running and marching. Treatment success was defined as return to duty, without surgery. Fifty patients from 2015 to 2017 were surveyed to assess mid-term outcomes. RESULTS: The average duration of conservative treatment was 144.9 (±59.6) days. Initially, 65% (49/75) were able to return to duty; 28% (21/75) were referred for surgery and 7% (5/75) left the armed forces. There was no difference in outcomes between Group 1 and Group 2. Survey response rate, on average after 742 days (SD 267, range 381-1256), was 84% (42/50); 57% (24/42) had continued duty, without surgery; of them, 43% were at the same military specialty, 57% in a physically less demanding job. CONCLUSION: A conservative treatment programme for anterior CECS was able to return 65 % of patients to active duty, without surgery. At 2 years, the success rate decreased slightly, but remained positive at 57%. In this high-risk group, initiating a conservative treatment protocol with an emphasis on gait retraining can significantly reduce the need for surgical fasciotomy. For those that fail conservative treatment, surgical release may still be indicated.
RESUMEN
The importance of vigilance within organizations working with high-risk biological material receives increasing attention. However, an in-depth and comprehensive tool, dedicated to increase awareness of potential risks and to assess an organization's current biosecurity vulnerabilities, has not been available yet. We developed the "Biosecurity Vulnerability Scan," a web tool that identifies biosecurity gaps in an organization based on eight biosecurity pillars of good practice. Although the tool aims primarily to assist biosafety and biosecurity officers, it can also be useful to researchers working with dangerous pathogens, their principal investigators, management, or those responsible for security issues in the life sciences. Results are only stored locally and are provided in an "overview report," which includes information on relevant risks and control measures. This can support well-substantiated decision-making on strengthening biosecurity measures within a specific organization. With this article, we aim to support institutes to increase their overall security resilience and to improve institutional biosecurity in particular by providing practical recommendations. The Biosecurity Vulnerability Scan is available at www.biosecurityvulnerabilityscan.nl.