Iatrogenic Right-Sided Diaphragmatic Hernia After Colonoscopy.

Congenital diaphragmatic hernias (CDH) occur as a result of genetic and environmental factors that occur during the early stages of fetal development. Overall, CDH are considered to be quite rare and are often discovered when patients are neonates. The patient in this case underwent a routine colonoscopy for high-risk polyps but then developed the sudden onset of cramping abdominal pain and PO (per os) intolerance. She was found to have a right-sided diaphragmatic hernia which ultimately required operative intervention. Retrospectively, a close review of prior imaging revealed a potential diaphragm defect. Post-colonoscopy diaphragmatic hernias are very rare and right-sided ones are rarer, making this case report an important addition to the literature.

I saw Medusa's head sign and turned to stone.

Developmental venous anomalies (DVAs) are characterized by many radially oriented medullary veins surrounding a central draining vessel. When the imaging plane is perpendicular to the central vessel, these medullary veins resemble Medusa's head of snakes. Medusa's head sign, or caput medusae, can be appreciated on contrast enhanced CT scans and MRIs of the brain and is highly indicative of a DVA.

External Ventricular Drains versus Intraparenchymal Pressure Monitors in the Management of Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Experience at Two Academic Centers over a Decade.

OBJECTIVE: The choice between external ventricular drain (EVD) and intraparenchymal monitor (IPM) for managing intracranial pressure in moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI) patients remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with receiving EVD versus IPM and to compare outcomes and clinical management between EVD and IPM patients. METHODS: Adult msTBI patients at 2 similar academic institutions were identified. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with receiving EVD versus IPM (model 1) and to compare EVD versus IPM in relation to patient outcomes after controlling for potential confounders (model 2), through odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of 521 patients, 167 (32.1%) had EVD and 354 (67.9%) had IPM. Mean age, sex, and Injury Severity Score were comparable between groups. Epidural hemorrhage (EDH) (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.85), greater midline shift (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.98), and the hospital with higher volume (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09-0.22) were independently associated with lower odds of receiving an EVD whereas patients needing a craniectomy were more likely to receive an EVD (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.12-3.73). EVD patients received more intense medical treatment requiring hyperosmolar therapy compared to IPM patients (64.1% vs. 40.1%). No statistically significant differences were found in patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While EDH, greater midline shift, and hospital with larger patient volume were associated with receiving an IPM, the need for a craniectomy was associated with receiving an EVD. EVD patients received different clinical management than IPM patients with no significant differences in patient outcomes.

Retracted Covid-19 articles: significantly more cited than other articles within their journal of origin.

With the expansion of research volume, coinciding with the age of the internet, the retraction of published papers from scientific journals has become crucial to preserving scientific integrity. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, both public and professional interest in scientific literature has grown as people attempt to educate themselves on the virus. The Retraction Watch Database COVID-19 blog was accessed in June and November of 2022 and analyzed to ensure articles met inclusion criteria. Articles were then accessed on Google Scholar and the Scopus database to find number of citations and SJR/CiteScore. The average SJR and CiteScore for a journal that published one of the articles was 1.531 and 7.3 respectively. The retracted articles were cited an average of 44.8 times, which was significantly higher than the average CiteScore (p = 0.01). Between June and November, retracted COVID-19 articles gained a total of 728 new citations, presence of "withdrawn" or "retracted" before article title did not affect citation rates. COPE guidelines for retraction statements were not met for 32% of articles. We believe retracted COVID-19 publications may have been more likely to include bold claims that garnered a disproportionately high amount of attention within the scientific community. Additionally, we found many journals were not forthright with explanations for why articles had been retracted. Retractions could be a tool used to add to the scientific discourse, but currently we are only getting half the data, the what and not the why.