RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is the most prevalent cancer by organ type and referral accuracy is vital for diagnosis and management. The British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) and literature highlight the importance of accurate skin lesion examination, diagnosis and educationally-relevant studies. METHODS: We undertook a review of the relevant literature, a national audit of skin lesion description standards and a study of speciality training influences on these descriptions. Questionnaires (n=200), with pictures of a circular and an oval lesion, were distributed to UK dermatology/plastic surgery consultants and speciality trainees (ST), general practitioners (GP), and medical students (MS). The following variables were analysed against a pre-defined 95% inclusion accuracy standard: site, shape, size, skin/colour, and presence of associated scars. RESULTS: There were 250 lesion descriptions provided by 125 consultants, STs, GPs, and MSs. Inclusion accuracy was greatest for consultants over STs (80% vs. 68%; P<0.001), GPs (57%) and MSs (46%) (P<0.0001), for STs over GPs (P<0.010) and MSs (P<0.0001) and for GPs over MSs (P<0.010), all falling below audit standard. Size description accuracy sub-analysis according to circular/oval dimensions was as follows: consultants (94%), GPs (80%), STs (73%), MSs (37%), with the most common error implying a quadrilateral shape (66%). Addressing BAD guidelines and published requirements for more empirical performance data to improve teaching methods, we performed a national audit and studied skin lesion descriptions. To improve diagnostic and referral accuracy for patients, healthcare professionals must strive towards accuracy (a circle is not a square). CONCLUSIONS: We provide supportive evidence that increased speciality training improves this process and propose that greater focus is placed on such training early on during medical training, and maintained throughout clinical practice.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A discrepancy in leg length and femoral offset restoration is the leading cause of patient dissatisfaction in hip replacement surgery and has profound implications on patient quality of life. The aim of this study is to compare biomechanical hip reconstruction in hip resurfacing, large-diameter femoral head hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip replacement. METHOD: Sixty patient's post-operative radiographs were reviewed; 20 patients had a hip resurfacing (HR), 20 patients had a Large Head Metal-on-metal (LHM) hip replacement and 20 patients had a conventional small head Total Hip Replacement (THR). The leg length and femoral offset of the operated and unoperated hips were measured and compared. RESULTS: Hip resurfacing accurately restored hip biomechanics with no statistical difference in leg length (P = 0.07) or femoral offset (P = 0.95) between the operated and non-operative hips. Overall HR was superior for reducing femoral offset discrepancies where it had the smallest bilateral difference (-0.2%, P = 0.9). The traditional total hip replacement was least effective at restoring the hip anatomy. CONCLUSION: The use of a larger-diameter femoral head in hip resurfacing does not fully account for the superior biomechanical restoration, as LHM did not restore femoral offset as accurately. We conclude that restoration of normal hip biomechanics is best achieved with hip resurfacing.
