Public Awareness of Triage Systems and Waiting Times During Emergency Department Visits in the Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia.

INTRODUCTION: The effective functioning of emergency departments (EDs) is essential for providing timely and appropriate medical care to patients with acute health issues. Triage, a critical aspect of ED operations, involves prioritizing patients based on the severity of their conditions. However, patients' understanding of the triage system plays a significant role in ensuring its efficient utilization. This study aims to examine the community's understanding of the triage system and the influencing factors. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study included 775 participants from the Eastern region of Saudi Arabia, all of whom had prior visits to the ED during their lifetime. The data was randomly collected between June and July 2023 through a self-administered online questionnaire. RESULTS: The results showed that a substantial number of participants (73.8%) were aware of why some patients are prioritized over others in terms of room allocation, while 26.2% lacked this awareness. Among those aware, the majority (80.5%) believed that the priority system is fair, while 19.5% disagreed. Roughly two-thirds (64.8%) of the participants understood the concept of triage, while 35.2% lacked knowledge in this regard. The history of ED visits, age, and highest level of education were significantly associated with knowledge (p < 0.001). Participants who had a history of ED visits, were aged 20-29 years, and had a bachelor's degree had the highest percentage of adequate knowledge. The study also found that the most common reasons for non-urgent visits to the ED were the unavailability of appointments elsewhere (35%) and the perception that the ED provides faster care (30.4%). CONCLUSION: The study's assessment of triage knowledge reveals a moderate understanding among participants, with a majority demonstrating awareness of the prioritization system. The associations identified between demographic factors and triage knowledge highlight the importance of tailoring educational initiatives to specific groups. Individuals who visited the ED frequently and those who sought prior care exhibited better triage knowledge, suggesting potential opportunities for targeted interventions.

Excellent Survival Rate of Cemented Modular Stems in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infections With Massive Femoral Bone Loss: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis of 150 Cases.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing incidence of total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is also an expected concurrent increase in revision THA (rTHA), which is known to have a high complication and re-revision rate. In the setting of infection, radical debridement is essential and options for femoral bone loss are limited. One viable solution is cemented modular stems, but limited evidence exists on their use in septic revision. This study aimed to analyze survival and complication related to the use of cemented modular stems in one-stage septic rTHA with severe femoral bone loss. METHODS: The institutional database of patients who underwent rTHA for septic one-stage revision with cemented modular stems was reviewed. Exclusion criteria were patients aged less than 18 years and nonseptic or 2 stage revisions. Outcomes measured were complication, re-infection, re-operation, and survivorship of the implant. A total of 150 patients were included. The mean age was 68 years (range, 30 to 91), and the mean follow-up was 105 months (range, 1 to 150). RESULTS: Treatment was considered successful in 81.3% of cases. Patients who underwent multiple prior surgeries demonstrated a lower rate of treatment success (P < .001). The main cause of failure was re-infection (11 of 28). Among cases failed for aseptic reasons (17 of 28), loosening of the cemented modular stem was the cause of re-revision in 2 patients (1.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of modular cemented stems is a viable option in case of septic one-stage rTHA associated with severe femoral bone loss. However, surgeons and patients should be aware that this treatment is still characterized by a high rate of complications, which may lead to further surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

A Novel Radiological Classification System of the Proximal Humerus.

Different anatomical variants have been reported for the proximal and distal femur. Given this context, the goal of our study was to answer the following question: Can we also identify different anatomical variants of the proximal humerus?Two hundred anteroposterior (AP) radiographs of the proximal humerus with an equal gender distribution and equal laterality per gender were reviewed. The metaphyseal diameter of the proximal humerus at the level of the anatomical neck (X) and the intramedullary diameter at 10 cm from the apex of the greater tuberosity (Y) were measured. A new ratio was established, based on both measurements (Y/X). Radiographs showed different anatomical variants: type A: Y/X < 0.3, type B: Y/X = 0.3-0.4, type C: Y/X > 0.4. Two observers reviewed the AP radiographs independently and blindly in 2 different sessions.Three different anatomical groups (A, B and C) were identified based on the 25th and 75th percentiles. A higher percentage of type C was observed among females and a higher percentage of type A among males. A high inter-observer reliability was noted, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.97 (ICC 0.96-0.98). The intra-observer reliability for observer 1 had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.98.A novel radiological classification of the proximal humerus has been established based on 3 different anatomical types (A, B and C). Further studies are needed to establish whether the novel classification system can be used as an indicator for aseptic loosening of cemented or cementless total shoulder arthroplasty.

What is the concordance rate of preoperative synovial fluid aspiration and intraoperative biopsy in detecting periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder?

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of preoperative synovial fluid culture for microbe detection in shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is poorly described. To evaluate the utility of preoperative culture data for early pathogen identification for shoulder PJI, we determined the concordance between preoperative synovial fluid culture results and intraoperative tissue culture results. METHODS: Fifty patients who met the 2014 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for shoulder PJI between January 2016 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for clinical and demographic data. This cohort of patients was divided into 2 groups based on the concordance between preoperative and intraoperative culture results. The pathogens identified on preoperative and intraoperative cultures were classified as high-virulence or low-virulence. Student's t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used as appropriate for continuous variables, and χ2 and Fisher's exact tests were used as appropriate for categorical variables. RESULTS: Concordance between preoperative aspiration and intraoperative tissue culture was identified in 28 of 50 patients (56%). Preoperative cultures positive for Gram-positive species were more likely to be concordant than discordant (P = .015). Preoperative cultures positive for Cutibacterium acnes were more likely to be concordant with intraoperative cultures (P = .022). There were more patients with polymicrobial infection in the discordant group compared with the concordant group (P < .001). No statistically significant correlation between the preoperative serum C-reactive protein level and the intraoperative category of bacteria was reported. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococci were associated with high specificity and negative predictive value. Preoperative cultures positive for C. acnes demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value lower than 0.8. Gram-negative pathogens demonstrated the highest sensitivity (1) and specificity (1), whereas polymicrobial infections exhibited the lowest sensitivity and positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: Preoperative synovial fluid aspiration for shoulder PJI poorly predicts intraoperative culture results, with a discordance of 44%. More favorable concordance was observed for monomicrobial preoperative cultures, particularly for Gram-negative organisms and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus. The overall high rate of discordance between preoperative and intraoperative culture may prompt surgeons to base medical and surgical management on patient history and other factors and avoid relying solely on preoperative synovial fluid culture data.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures and Quality-Adjusted Life Years Following One- and Two-Stage Septic Knee Exchange.

(1) Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be managed with one- or two-stage revision surgery protocol. Despite several studies analyzing the eradication rates between both procedures, there are no comparative studies that analyze patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in both treatment strategies. (2) Methods: All patients who underwent a two-stage knee revision between January 2017 to December 2018, due to a periprosthetic joint infection were included in the study. From the time interval, we selected a comparative group with the one-stage septic procedure. All patients received the following questionnaires: Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D-5L, SSQ-8, and the SF-36. Additionally, demographic patient data were collected. The quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were calculated using the EQ-5D-5L. (3) Results: A total of 35 patients with a mean age of 67.7 years (SD = 8.9) were included in the final evaluation. The mean follow-up period was 54.5 months (SD = 5.5). There was no statistically significant difference regarding the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), postoperative complications, or all evaluated questionnaires. There was no statistically significant difference in QALYs between the one- and two-stage revision. (4) Conclusion: Our study results show that the one-stage revision for PJI achieves similar PROMs compared to two-stage revision.

Is the risk of periprosthetic joint infection in patients undergoing total hip and knee joint arthroplasty in the multi-unit operating room higher than in the classical single-unit operating room?

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to answer the question: Is the risk of PJI in patients undergoing primary TKA and THA in multi-unit OR higher than in a classical single-unit OR? We hypothesized that the risk of PJI following TKA and THA is not associated with the OR type. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of all cases of THA and TKA in our centre, between January 2015 and September 2018, in our single- and multi-unit OR. A total of 8674 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1, surgery in the multi-unit OR (n = 8282); group 2, surgery in the single-unit OR (n = 450). The infection rate between both groups was compared using chi-square test. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the septic revision rate at three (p = 0.1 and 0.58 respectively) and six months post-operatively (p = 0.22 and 0.7 respectively). In group 1, five patients after TKA and 4 patients after THA were revised within three months. At six months, 11 patients after TKA and six patients after THA required revision surgery. In group 2, one patient after TKA and one patient after THA were revised within three months. At six months, one patient after TKA and one patient after THA underwent revision surgery. CONCLUSION: The incidence of SSI does not differ significantly based on OR design in patients undergoing TKA and THA. The number of patients per surgical table in multi-unit OR is higher than in the single-unit OR. This shows that more number of surgeries can be achieved in multi-unit OR and as safe as single-unit OR.