Background: The mechanism of injury (MoI) for a patellar dislocation has not been fully established. The aim of this study was to use systematic video analysis to determine the MoI of a patella dislocation. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of three video sharing websites and three popular search engines to identify videos demonstrating a patellar dislocation. Videos were reviewed by three surgeons trained in systematic video analysis, who commented on the position of the lower limb and the situation in which the injury occurred.The results were reviewed to build a consensus of the MoI for each video. Statistical analysis was conducted for interobserver agreement (p < 0.05). Results: Initial search yielded 603 videos with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. The injuries were sustained performing a sporting activity (n = 9) or whilst dancing (n = 4). The injury was predominantly sustained during a non-contact situation (n = 10). The most common mechanism was an unbalanced individual with a flexed hip sustaining a valgus force to their flexed knee with the tibia externally rotated. Conclusions This study provides some insight into the MoI for a patellar dislocation and the findings may assist in developing injury prevention programmes and rehabilitation protocols as well as guiding future research.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of radiation dose reduction in the chest CT using a weight-based adjustment of the automatic exposure control (AEC) technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Review Board Approval, 60 patients (mean age, 59.1 years; M:F = 35:25) and 57 weight-matched patients (mean age, 52.3 years, M:F = 25:32) were scanned using a weight-adjusted AEC and non-weight-adjusted AEC, respectively on a 64-slice multidetector CT with a 0.984:1 pitch, 0.5 second rotation time, 40 mm table feed/rotation, and 2.5 mm section thickness. Patients were categorized into 3 weight categories; < 60 kg (n = 17), 60-90 kg (n = 52), and > 90 kg (n = 48). Patient weights, scanning parameters, CT dose index volumes (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) were recorded, while effective dose (ED) was estimated. Image noise was measured in the descending thoracic aorta. Data were analyzed using a standard statistical package (SAS/STAT) (Version 9.1, SAS institute Inc, Cary, NC). RESULTS: Compared to the non-weight-adjusted AEC, the weight-adjusted AEC technique resulted in an average decrease of 29% in CTDIvol and a 27% effective dose reduction (p < 0.0001). With weight-adjusted AEC, the CTDIvol decreased to 15.8, 15.9, and 27.3 mGy for the < 60, 60-90 and > 91 kg weight groups, respectively, compared to 20.3, 27.9 and 32.8 mGy, with non-weight-adjusted AEC. No significant difference was observed for objective image noise between the chest CT acquired with the non-weight-adjusted (15.0 +/- 3.1) and weight-adjusted (16.1 +/- 5.6) AEC techniques (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that AEC should be tailored according to patient weight. Without weight-based adjustment of AEC, patients are exposed to a 17 - 43% higher radiation-dose from a chest CT.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; *Body Weight ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; *Radiation Dosage ; *Radiography, Thoracic ; *Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Young Adult

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative utility and benefits of free-hand 2-dimensional intraoperative ultrasound (FUS) and navigated 3-dimensional intraoperative ultrasound (NUS) as ultrasound-guided biopsy (USGB) techniques for supratentorial lesions. METHODS: All patients who underwent USGB for suspected supratentorial tumours from January 2008 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The charts and electronic medical records of these patients were studied. Demographic, surgical, and pathological variables were collected and analyzed. The study group consisted of patients who underwent either FUS or NUS for biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients (112 adults and 13 children) underwent USGB during the study period (89 FUS and 36 NUS). NUS was used more often for deep-seated lesions (58% vs. 18% for FUS, P<0.001). The mean operating time for NUS was longer than for FUS (156 minutes vs. 124 minutes, P=0.001). Representative yield was found in 97.7% of biopsies using FUS and in 100% of biopsies using NUS (diagnostic yield, 93.6% and 91.3%, respectively). The majority of lesions (89%) were high-grade gliomas or lymphomas. Postoperative complications were more common in the NUS group (8.3% vs. 1.2%), but were related to the tumour location (deep). CONCLUSION: Despite the longer operating time and higher rate of postoperative complications, NUS has the benefit of being suitable for biopsies of deep-seated supratentorial lesions, while FUS remains valuable for superficial lesions.
Adult ; Biopsy ; Electronic Health Records ; Glioma ; Humans ; Lymphoma ; Neuronavigation ; Postoperative Complications ; Retrospective Studies ; Ultrasonography

Background: Reactive arthritis (ReA) is an often neglected disease that received some attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is some evidence that infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can lead to “reactive” arthritis. However, this does not follow the classical definition of ReA that limits the organisms leading to this condition. Also, there is no recommendation by any international society on the management of ReA during the current pandemic. Thus, a survey was conducted to gather information about how modern clinicians across the world approach ReA. Methods: An e-survey was carried out based on convenient sampling via social media platforms. Twenty questions were validated on the pathogenesis, clinical presentation, and management of ReA. These also included information on post-COVID-19 arthritis. Duplicate entries were prevented and standard guidelines were followed for reporting internet-based surveys. Results: There were 193 respondents from 24 countries. Around one-fifth knew the classical definition of ReA. Nearly half considered the triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis and asymmetric oligoarthritis a “must” for diagnosis of ReA. Other common manifestations reported include enthesitis, dermatitis, dactylitis, uveitis, and oral or genital ulcers. Threefourths opined that no test was specific for ReA. Drugs for ReA were non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, intra-articular injections, and conventional disease-modifying agents with less than 10% supporting biological use. Conclusion The survey brought out the gap in existing concepts of ReA. The current definition needs to be updated. There is an unmet need for consensus recommendations for the management of ReA, including the use of biologicals.