ABSTRACT
We present a case of bilateral anterior superior iliac spine avulsion fractures in an adult patient who was involved in a road traffic collision. Her injuries were managed conservatively and she has had an uncomplicated recovery with a good outcome. This is, to our knowledge, the only reported case of bilateral simultaneous anterior superior iliac spine apophyseal avulsion fractures in an adult.
Subject(s)
Accidents, Traffic , Conservative Treatment , Fractures, Avulsion/diagnosis , Spinal Fractures/diagnosis , Female , Fractures, Avulsion/etiology , Fractures, Avulsion/therapy , Humans , Ilium/diagnostic imaging , Ilium/injuries , Ilium/surgery , Middle Aged , Spinal Fractures/etiology , Spinal Fractures/therapy , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIMS: To describe changes in risk profiles and yield in a screening programme and to investigate relationships between retinopathy prevalence, screening interval and risk factors. METHODS: We analysed a population of predominantly Type 2 diabetic patients, managed in general practice, and screened between 1990 and 2006, with up to 17 years' follow-up and up to 14 screening episodes each. We investigated associations between referable or sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR), screening interval and frequency of repeated screening, whilst adjusting for age, duration and treatment of diabetes, hypertension treatment and period. RESULTS: Of 63 622 screening episodes among 20 788 people, 16 094 (25%) identified any retinopathy, 3136 (4.9%) identified referable retinopathy and 384 (0.60%) identified STDR. The prevalence of screening-detected STDR decreased by 91%, from 1.7% in 1991-1993 to 0.16% in 2006. The prevalence of referable retinopathy increased from 2.0% in 1991-1993 to 6.7% in 1998-2001, then decreased to 4.7% in 2006. Compared with screening intervals of 12-18 months, screening intervals of 19-24 months were not associated with increased risk of referable retinopathy [adjusted odds ratio 0.93, 94% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.05], but screening intervals of more than 24 months were associated with increased risk (odds ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.41-1.75). Screening intervals of < 12 months were associated with high risks of referable retinopathy and STDR. CONCLUSIONS: Over time the risk of late diagnosis of STDR decreased, possibly attributable to earlier diagnosis of less severe retinopathy, decreasing risk factors and systematic screening. Screening intervals of up to 24 months should be considered for lower risk patients.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/standards , Diabetic Retinopathy/diagnosis , Macular Degeneration/diagnosis , Mass Screening/trends , Age Factors , Diabetic Retinopathy/drug therapy , Diabetic Retinopathy/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Family Practice , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Prevalence , Referral and Consultation , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Time FactorsABSTRACT
The Diabetes National Service framework (NSF), and the quality payments in the new contract for UK General Practitioners, promote regular screening for diabetes complications. The new contract also includes immediate incentives to meet screening and quality targets, but it will be difficult to meet these targets in primary care. We have developed a mobile 'annual review' programme for patients with Type 2 diabetes managed solely in primary care, that screens for cardiovascular disease, hypertension, retinopathy and neuropathy at the patient's general practice, and gives written foot care, dietary advice and level 1 smoking cessation advice to all patients.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Primary Health Care , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/methods , Middle AgedABSTRACT
AIM: To compare two reference standards when evaluating a method of screening for referable diabetic retinopathy. METHOD: Clinics at Oxford and Norwich Hospitals were used in a two centre prospective study of 239 people with diabetes receiving an ophthalmologist's examination using slit lamp biomicroscopy, seven field 35 mm stereophotography and two field mydriatic digital photography. Patients were selected from those attending clinics when the ophthalmologist and ophthalmic photographer were able to attend. The main outcome measures were the detection of referable diabetic retinopathy as defined by the Gloucestershire adaptation of the European Working Party guidelines. RESULTS: In comparison with seven field stereophotography, the ophthalmologist's examination gave a sensitivity of 87.4% (confidence interval 83.5 to 91.5), a specificity of 94.9% (91.5 to 98.3), and a kappa statistic of 0.80. Two field mydriatic digital photography gave a sensitivity of 80.2% (75.2 to 85.2), specificity of 96.2% (93.2 to 99.2), and a kappa statistic of 0.73. In comparison with the ophthalmologist's examination, two field mydriatic digital photography gave a sensitivity of 82.8% (78.0 to 87.6), specificity of 92.9% (89.6 to 96.2), and a kappa statistic of 0.76. Seven field stereo gave a sensitivity of 96.4% (94.0 to 98.8), a specificity of 82.9% (77.4 to 88.4), and a kappa statistic of 0.80. 15.3% of seven field sets, 1.5% of the two field digital photographs, and none of the ophthalmologist's examinations were ungradeable. CONCLUSION: An ophthalmologist's examination compares favourably with seven field stereophotography, and two field digital photography performs well against both reference standards.
