Canadian Radiology Medical Student Interest Groups: What They Are and How We Can Help Them Improve.

BACKGROUND: Radiology interest groups (RIGs) can serve as a means of increasing exposure of the radiology specialty early in the medical curriculum while also increasing educational opportunities. However, the organizational structure and various functions of individual RIGs in Canada are not well-documented. We performed a survey of all active RIGs in Canada for the purpose of better understanding their structure, function, and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: A 21-question survey was sent to current or recent former medical student leaders of all active RIGs in Canada during the 2016-2017 academic year. RESULTS: Radiology interest groups were identified in 88% (15/17) of Canadian medical schools. We received a 100% (15/15) response rate. Events held by RIGs consist mostly of lunch and learns (67%, 10/15), career panels (53%, 8/15), networking events (40%, 6/15), and curriculum-related events (40%, 6/15). General mentorship (93%, 13/14), shadowing opportunities (86%, 12/14), and research mentorship (63%, 8/14) were most often cited in their top 3 choices for opportunities for improvement. Sixty-six percent indicated that if a radiology society were to host a page for their interest group, they would be interested in posting content and/or links. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian RIGs offer increased early awareness and education about radiology in the medical curriculum. Radiology departments can facilitate improvement in Canadian RIGs through targeted institutional mentorship, research opportunities, and shadowing programs for their members.

A comparison of outcome of osteoarticular allograft reconstruction and shoulder arthrodesis following resection of primary tumours of the proximal humerus.

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the oncologic, reconstructive and functional outcomes of patients who underwent osteoarticular allograft reconstruction with those who underwent arthrodesis for a primary malignant bone tumour of the proximal humerus.Patients. Eleven patients were treated with osteoarticular allograft reconstruction of the proximal humerus. Five of these reconstructions failed, necessitating revision to a secondary arthrodesis. Five patients underwent arthrodesis as a primary reconstruction, for a total of ten patients in the arthrodesis group.Methods. End points included local and systemic disease recurrence, complications and functional outcome (measured using the 1987 and 1993 Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Rating Scales (MSTS) and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS)).Results. One patient died of systemic disease 2 years post-operatively and one patient had an axillary node recurrence resected 10 months post-operatively and remains free of disease 53 months later. The other 14 patients were alive with no evidence of disease at the time of the last follow-up. Complications after the osteochondral allografts (n=11) included two infections, four fractures and three subluxations in eight patients. Six of these patients required removal of the allograft; one had a repeat osteochondral allograft and five were converted to an arthrodesis. Complications after arthrodesis in the ten patients (five primary and five secondary arthrodeses) included two non-unions, one infection and one fracture in three patients. Patients who underwent shoulder arthrodesis scored better in all outcome measures and this was statistically significant in the MSTS 1993 (p=0.001, Mann-Whitney U Test).Discussion. In this study, there was a trend towards improved function following arthrodesis compared to osteochondral allograft reconstruction following proximal humerus bone tumour resection.