Citations

Abstract A bony Bankart fracture is a common injury pattern in anterior shoulder instability. The fracture fragment size varies and the larger the fragment the more likely recurrent instability will occur. When a large bony Bankart fracture is present, surgical fixation is preferred. Both open and arthroscopic approaches exist with multiple fixation techniques including anterior‐to‐posterior screw fixation, suture anchor bridge fixation, and suture button fixation. Arthroscopic screw fixation is difficult, as the angle necessary to be parallel to the glenoid surface requires a far medial start point and places the nerve at risk. The use of a variable‐pitch, headless compression screw placed from posterior to anterior avoids these risks. We describe an arthroscopic technique for glenoid fixation using a posterior‐to‐anterior, cannulated, variable‐pitch headless compression screw for the treatment of an anterior BBF. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused tremendous disruption to the U.S. healthcare system and nearly crippled some hospitals during large patient surges. Limited ICU beds across the country further exacerbated these challenges. Telemedicine, specifically tele-critical care (TCC), can expand a hospital’s clinical capabilities through remote expertise and increase capacity by offloading some monitoring to remote teams. Unfortunately, the rapid deployment of telemedicine, especially TCC, is constrained by multiple barriers. In the summer of 2020, to support the National Emergency Tele-Critical Care Network (NETCCN) deployment, more than 50 national leaders in applying telemedicine technologies to critical care assembled to provide their opinions about barriers to NETCCN implementation and strategies to overcome them. Through consensus, these experts developed white papers that formed the basis of this article. Herein, the authors share their experience and propose multiple solutions to barriers presented by laws, local policies and cultures, and individual perspectives according to a minimum, better, best paradigm for TCC delivery in the setting of a national disaster. Cross-state licensure and local privileging of virtual experts were identified as the most significant barriers to rapid deployment of services, whereas refining the model of TCC to achieve the best outcomes and defining the best financial model is the most significant for long-term success. Ultimately, we conclude that a rapidly deployable national telemedicine response system is achievable.

Objective: To establish globally applicable benchmark outcomes for pelvic exenteration (PE) in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), using outcomes achieved at highly specialised centres. Background: PE is established as the standard of care for selected patients with LARC and LRRC. There are currently no available benchmarks against which surgical performance in PE can be compared for audit and quality improvement. Methods: This international multicentre retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing PE for LARC or LRRC at 16 highly experienced centres between 2018 and 2023. Ten outcome benchmarks were established in a lower-risk subgroup. Benchmarks were defined by the 75th percentile of the results achieved at the individual centres. Results: Seven hundred sixty-three patients underwent PE, of which 464 patients (61%) had LARCs and 299 (39%) had LRRCs. Five hundred forty-four patients (71%) who met predefined lower-risk criteria formed the benchmark cohort. For patients with LARC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤44%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤30.2; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤4.3%; R0 resection rate: ≥79%. For patients with LRRC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤53%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤34.1; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤6%; R0 resection rate: ≥77%. Conclusions: The reported benchmarks for PE in patients with LARC and LRRC represent the best available care for this patient group globally and can be used for rigorous assessment of surgical quality and to facilitate quality improvement initiatives at international exenteration centres.

AbstractBackgroundDespite the overall safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccinations, rare cases of systemic autoimmune diseases (SAIDs) have been reported post‐vaccination. This study used a global survey to analyze SAIDs in susceptible individuals' post‐vaccination.MethodsA cross‐sectional study was conducted among participants with self‐reported new‐onset SAIDs using the COVID‐19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) 2 study dataset—a validated, patient‐reported e‐survey—to analyze the long‐term safety of COVID‐19 vaccines. Baseline characteristics of patients with new‐onset SAIDs and vaccinated healthy controls (HCs) were compared after propensity score matching based on age and sex in a 1:4 ratio.ResultsOf 16 750 individuals, 74 (median age 52 years, 79.9% females, and 76.7% Caucasians) had new‐onset SAID post‐vaccination, mainly idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) (n = 23, 31.51%), arthritis (n = 15; 20.53%), and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) (n = 12, 16.40%). Higher odds of new‐onset SAIDs were noted among Caucasians (OR = 5.3; 95% CI = 2.9–9.7; p < .001) and Moderna vaccine recipients (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.3–5.3; p = .004). New‐onset SAIDs were associated with AID multimorbidity (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1–1.7; p < .001), mental health disorders (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3–1.9; p < .001), and mixed race (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.2–4.2; p = .010), where those aged >60 years (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4–0.8; p = .007) and from high/medium human development index (HDI) countries (compared to very high HDI) reported fewer events than HCs.ConclusionThis study reports a low occurrence of new‐onset SAIDs following COVID‐19 vaccination, primarily IIMs, PMR, and inflammatory arthritis. Identified risk factors included pre‐existing AID multimorbidity, mental health diseases, and mixed race. Revaccination was well tolerated by most patients; therefore, we recommend continuing COVID‐19 vaccination in the general population. However, long‐term studies are needed to understand the autoimmune phenomena arising post‐vaccination.