Multiplanar spinopelvic fracture reduction and dual triangular osteosynthesis stabilization for complex multiplanar sacropelvic fractures.

BACKGROUND: Sacropelvic fractures with multidirectional instability require complex reduction and stabilisation techniques. Triangular osteosynthesis reconstruction is an established technique but hardware failure rates remain high and screw trajectories unfamiliar to spine surgeons. Our technique allows de-rotation of the pelvis, fracture reduction in both vertical and transverse planes, immediate weight bearing and is more reproducible for complex spine surgeons. OBJECTIVE: To describe our case series of dual triangular osteosynthesis reduction and stabilisation for complex sacropelvic fractures. METHODS: Retrospective case series of patients treated for unstable multiplanar sacropelvic fractures, at a level one trauma centre in the United Kingdom. Chart review was conducted to assess clinical features, radiology (plain radiographs, CT and MRI), surgical techniques and clinical and radiological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of six patients with four male and two females were included. Mean age of the cohort was 37.5 years (range 19-61 years) and average length of follow-up was 34.5 months (range 13-75 months). Three patients had neurological injury and three were intact. Four patients had associated thoraco-abdominal or lower limb injuries requiring intervention. All patients underwent surgery with reduction and stabilisation using dual triangular osteosynthesis constructs. At final follow-up, one patient had persistent bladder dysfunction (present preoperatively), one remained ASIA A from concomitant cord injury in the thoracic spine, and one patient with L5 and S1 weakness completely recovered. There were no metalwork complications and all patients achieved radiological fusion. CONCLUSION: Our technique of reduction and stabilisation of complex multidirectional sacropelvic fractures leads to a biomechanically strong construct with immediate stability, and without risk of hardware failure.

Evaluation of teaching effect of first-aid comprehensive simulation-based education in clinical medical students.

Background: Although students mastered the composition skills, they lack of the ability to effectively integrate these composition skills in real clinical situations. To address the problem, we set up different levels of situational simulation training for medical students in grades 2-4, and evaluate the teaching effect of first-aid situation comprehensive simulation-based education (SBE) on clinical medical students. Methods: The medical students in Grade 2, 3, and 4 received different situational SBE, respectively. The 2nd-year medical students received a single skill module which included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, endotracheal intubation, and electric defibrillation training. The 3rd-year medical students received a single subject module which included cardiovascular and respiratory system training. The 4th-year medical students received the integrated multidisciplinary module which combined first-aid skills, clinical thinking, and teamwork training. The primary outcome was the expert evaluation and peer evaluation. The secondary outcome was students' satisfaction questionnaire response. In our training, we arranged an adequate teaching staff for intensive training and timely feedback (the student-teacher ratio of 5:1), adequate time for repetitive practice (Each SBE was carried out within 4 h), curriculum design, and integration from real cases by clinicians, realistic computer-driven mannequins to ensure simulation fidelity, providing a different difficult level of SBE to different grades of students, and pre- and post-tests for outcome measurement. Results: In all of the single skill module, single subject module or comprehensive disciplines module, the scores in the expert evaluation and peer assessment after the training were significantly higher than before the training, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The integrated subject training, although having the lowest pre-and post-test marks, had the largest increase in score. Conclusion: The first aid comprehensive simulation-based education in grade 2-4 clinical medical students, basing on timely feedback, repetitive practice, curriculum integration, simulation fidelity, and outcome measurement are effective in improving the students' proficiency in managing the real emergencies.

The methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional systemic review.

Systematic reviews of RCTs have been developed to address end-users' needs and are regarded as the highest level of evidence. Flaws in the design, conduct and analyses of a systematic review can lead to erroneous conclusions and increase the research waste. We undertook a cross-sectional survey to identify the critical areas of weakness in systematic reviews for surgical interventions by AMSTAR 2. We searched PubMed, EMbase and Cochrane Library to summarize systematic reviews of surgical RCTs published in 2017. The information regarding general characteristics and methodological characteristics were gathered. We conducted descriptive analyses of study characteristics of included systematic reviews and explored the difference among varied methodological quality. Totally 141 systematic reviews were identified. We found only four reviews (2.8%) were high quality, 3 (2.1%) were moderate quality, 8 (5.7%) were low quality, and the remaining 126 (89.4%) were of critical low quality. The critical weaknesses were lack of pre-registration or published protocols (29.1%), comprehensive literature search (17.7%), lists of excluded studies and reasons for exclusion (19.1%), description of detailed interventions (8.5%), extraction of funding source from included trials (10.6%), and consideration of the risk of bias of included trials when synthesized (16.3%) and interpret (20.6%) the results. Higher methodological quality was only positively associated with Cochrane systematic review. Although two-thirds of included systematic reviews in the field of surgery were published in journals ranking Q1, the methodological quality is suboptimal and needs to be substantially improved. More efforts of multi-disciplinary teams' collaboration, continual education and training, integrally connection between primary studies and systematic review and contributing surgical research to practice should be imperative.

Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: A competing interest is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is frequently employed as a strategy to manage it. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the varying prevalence of competing interests in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interests in SRs assessing surgical interventions or devices and explored the association between the competing interest disclosures and authors' conclusions. METHODS: We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding sources, and competing interest disclosures were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the studies' characteristics and compared them between Cochrane SRs (CSRs) and non-Cochrane SRs using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding sources and 94.2% reported authors' competing interest disclosures. Among 146 SRs that stated competing interest disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a competing interest. More than 40 terms were used to describe competing interests. Cochrane SRs (CSRs) were more likely to provide a detailed description of competing interests compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P = 0.023). No association between positive conclusions and competing interest disclosures was found (P = 0.484, OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no competing interest disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusions than those stating at least one type of competing interest, but the difference is not significantly different (P = 0.406, OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98). CONCLUSION: In surgical SRs, there is a high percentage of competing interest disclosures but without detailed information. The identification and statement of competing interests with a detailed description, particularly the non-financial ones, needs improvement. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential competing interests in systematic reviews remains valuable.