Background: Recent literature suggests that three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (3D MRI) can replace 3D computed tomography (3D CT) when evaluating glenoid bone loss in patients with shoulder instability. We aimed to examine if 2D MRI in conjunction with a validated predictive formula for assessment of glenoid height is equivalent to the gold standard 3D CT scans for patients with recurrent glenohumeral instability. Methods: Patients with recurrent shoulder instability and available imaging were retrospectively reviewed. Glenoid height on 3D CT and 2D MRI was measured by two blinded raters. Difference and equivalence testing were performed using a paired t-test and two one-sided tests, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to test for interrater reliability, and percent agreement between the measurements of one reviewer was used to assess intrarater reliability. Results: Using an equivalence margin of 1 mm, 3D CT and 2D MRI were found to be different (p = 0.123). The mean glenoid height was significantly different when measured on 2D MRI (39.09 ± 2.93 mm) compared to 3D CT (38.71 ± 2.89 mm) (p = 0.032). The mean glenoid width was significantly different between 3D CT (30.13 ± 2.43 mm) and 2D MRI (27.45 ± 1.72 mm) (p < 0.001). The 3D CT measurements had better interrater agreement (ICC, 0.91) than 2D MRI measurements (ICC, 0.8). intrarater agreement was also higher on CT. Conclusions Measurements of glenoid height using 3D CT and 2D MRI with subsequent calculation of the glenoid width using a validated methodology were not equivalent, and 3D CT was superior. Based on the validated methods for the measurement of glenoid bone loss on advanced imaging studies, 3D CT study must be preferred over 2D MRI in order to estimate the amount of glenoid bone loss in candidates for shoulder stabilization surgery and to assist in surgical decision-making.

Background: Recent literature suggests that three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (3D MRI) can replace 3D computed tomography (3D CT) when evaluating glenoid bone loss in patients with shoulder instability. We aimed to examine if 2D MRI in conjunction with a validated predictive formula for assessment of glenoid height is equivalent to the gold standard 3D CT scans for patients with recurrent glenohumeral instability. Methods: Patients with recurrent shoulder instability and available imaging were retrospectively reviewed. Glenoid height on 3D CT and 2D MRI was measured by two blinded raters. Difference and equivalence testing were performed using a paired t-test and two one-sided tests, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to test for interrater reliability, and percent agreement between the measurements of one reviewer was used to assess intrarater reliability. Results: Using an equivalence margin of 1 mm, 3D CT and 2D MRI were found to be different (p = 0.123). The mean glenoid height was significantly different when measured on 2D MRI (39.09 ± 2.93 mm) compared to 3D CT (38.71 ± 2.89 mm) (p = 0.032). The mean glenoid width was significantly different between 3D CT (30.13 ± 2.43 mm) and 2D MRI (27.45 ± 1.72 mm) (p < 0.001). The 3D CT measurements had better interrater agreement (ICC, 0.91) than 2D MRI measurements (ICC, 0.8). intrarater agreement was also higher on CT. Conclusions Measurements of glenoid height using 3D CT and 2D MRI with subsequent calculation of the glenoid width using a validated methodology were not equivalent, and 3D CT was superior. Based on the validated methods for the measurement of glenoid bone loss on advanced imaging studies, 3D CT study must be preferred over 2D MRI in order to estimate the amount of glenoid bone loss in candidates for shoulder stabilization surgery and to assist in surgical decision-making.

PURPOSE: Traditionally, three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) is used for neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was later developed for more conformal dose distribution, with the potential for reduced toxicity across many disease sites. We sought to use the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to examine trends and predictors for IMRT use in rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the NCDB from 2004 to 2015 for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation to standard doses followed by surgical resection. Odds ratios were used to determine predictors of IMRT use. Univariable and multivariable Cox regressions were used to determine potential predictors of overall survival (OS). Propensity matching was used to account for any indication bias. RESULTS: Among 21,490 eligible patients, 3,131 were treated with IMRT. IMRT use increased from 1% in 2004 to 22% in 2014. Predictors for IMRT use included increased N stage, higher comorbidity score, more recent year, treatment at an academic facility, increased income, and higher educational level. On propensity-adjusted, multivariable analysis, male gender, increased distance to facility, higher comorbidity score, IMRT technique, government insurance, African-American race, and non-metro location were predictive of worse OS. Of note, the complete response rate at time of surgery was 28% with non-IMRT and 21% with IMRT. CONCLUSION: IMRT use has steadily increased in the treatment of rectal cancer, but still remains only a fraction of overall treatment technique, more often reserved for higher disease burden.
Adenocarcinoma ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Comorbidity ; Continental Population Groups ; Humans ; Insurance ; Male ; Odds Ratio ; Radiotherapy ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ; Rectal Neoplasms

INTRODUCTIONThere is a need for a simple-to-use and easy-to-carry CPR feedback device for laypersons. We aimed to determine if a novel CPRcard™ feedback device improved the quality of chest compressions.

METHODSWe compared participants' chest compression rate and depth with and without feedback. Compression data was captured through the CPRcard™ or Resusci Anne's SimPad® SkillReporter™. Compression quality was defined based on 2010 international guidelines for rate, depth and flow fraction.

RESULTSOverall, the CPRcard group achieved a better median compression rate (CPRcard 117 vs. control 122, p = 0.001) and proportion of compressions within the adequate rate range (CPRcard 83% vs. control 47%, p < 0.001). Compared to the no-card and blinded-card groups, the CPRcard group had a higher proportion of adequate compression rate (CPRcard 88% vs. no-card 46.8%, p = 0.037; CPRcard 73% vs. blinded-card 43%, p = 0.003). Proportion of compressions with adequate depth was similar in all groups (CPRcard 52% vs. control 48%, p = 0.957). The CPRcard group more often met targets for compression rate of 100-120/min and depth of at least 5 cm (CPRcard 36% vs. control 4%, p = 0.022). Chest compression flow fraction rate was similar but not statistically significant in all groups (92%, p = 1.0). Respondents using the CPRcard expressed higher confidence (mean 2.7 ± 2.4; 1 = very confident, 10 = not confident).

CONCLUSIONUse of the CPRcard by non-healthcare workers in simulated resuscitation improved the quality of chest compressions, thus boosting user confidence in performing compressions.

INTRODUCTIONVictims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests require timely cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation. Callers to emergency medical services are asked to provide dispatcher-guided responses until an ambulance arrives. Knowing what to expect in such circumstances should reduce both delay and confusion.

METHODSThis study was conducted among schoolchildren aged 11-17 years using ten-item pre- and post-training surveys. We aimed to observe any knowledge and attitude shifts regarding CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) use subsequent to the training.

RESULTSA total of 1,196 students across five schools completed the pre- and post-training surveys. Survey questions tested basic CPR knowledge and attitudes towards CPR and AED use. The overall response rate was 80.8% and 81.5% in the pre- and post-training surveys, respectively. There was a statistically significant improvement in the students' CPR knowledge. The number of students who selected all the correct answers for the knowledge-based questions in the post-training survey increased by 64.7% (95% confidence interval 61.9%-67.5%; p < 0.001). There was also an improvement in their willingness to administer CPR (likely/very likely to administer CPR pre-training vs. post-training: 13.0% vs. 71.0%; p < 0.001) and use AED (likely/very likely to administer AED pre-training vs. post-training: 11.7% vs. 78.0%; p < 0.001) after training.

CONCLUSIONThe training programme imparted new information and skills, and improved attitudes towards providing CPR and using AED. However, some concerns persisted about hurting the victim while performing CPR.