A burn mass casualty incident (BMCI), an incident that involves at least three burn victims with severe injuries,1 presents several unique challenges. In a mass casualty event, between 25 and 30 percent of those injured can sustain moderate-to-severe burn injuries.2 Management of burn patients necessitates a significant amount of health resources and logistical support, along with prompt and high-quality care to optimize the functional and cosmetic outcomes of severely injured patients. While some developed countries have sound disaster management plans, many countries where most BMCIs occur lack such well-established plans.3 The effective management of BMCIs is crucial for positive patient outcomes. Given resource scarcity, especially in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas, comprehensive mitigation and preparedness strategies are essential. These strategies must address worst-case scenarios that may challenge the existing internal protocols, especially at the local level.4 The surge in health care facility capacity during BMCIs can quickly overwhelm local and regional resources, from prehospital care to specialized burn centers. In the Philippines, disaster response levels and adequacy may vary widely among different regions and local government units (LGU). While the Department of Health has issued guidelines for health emergency and disaster response management,5 there are currently no policies or guides on specifically addressing preincident planning for BMCIs. The aim of this article is to recommend policies that will potentially improve the current health care approach to BMCIs.
Mass Casualty Incidents ; Burns

Background: Severe and critical COVID-19 disease is characterized by hyperinflammation involving pro-inflammatory cytokines, particularly IL-6. Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-6 receptors. Objectives: This study evaluated the efficacy of tocilizumab in Filipino patients with severe to critical COVID-19 disease. Methods: This phase 3 randomized double-blind trial, included patients hospitalized for severe or critical COVID-19 in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tocilizumab plus local standard of care or placebo plus standard of care. Patients were eligible for a repeat IV infusion within 24-48 hours if they deteriorated or did not improve. Treatment success or clinical improvement was defined as at least two categories of improvement from baseline in the WHO 7-point Ordinal Scale of patient status, in an intention-to-treat manner. Results: Forty-nine (49) patients were randomized in the tocilizumab arm and 49 in the placebo arm. There was no significant difference in age, comorbidities, COVID-19 severity, need for mechanical ventilation, presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, or biomarker levels between groups. Use of adjunctive therapy was similar between groups, with corticosteroid used in 91.8% in tocilizumab group and 81.6% in the placebo group, while remdesivir was used in 98% of participants in both groups. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of treatment success in both the intention-to-treat analysis (relative risk=1.05, 95% CI: 0.85-1.30) and per-protocol analysis (relative risk=0.98, 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.21). There was no significant difference in time to improvement of at least two categories relative to baseline on the 7-point Ordinal Scale of clinical status. Conclusion The use of tocilizumab on top of standard of care in the management of patients with severe to critical COVID-19 did not result in significant improvement as defined by the WHO 7-point Ordinal Scale of patient status, nor in significant improvement in incidence of mechanical ventilation, incidence of ICU admission, length of ICU stay, and mortality rate.
COVID-19 ; Interleukin-6

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER). Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications. Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was –14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was –11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone. Conclusions Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss.Level of evidence: IV.

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER). Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications. Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was –14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was –11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone. Conclusions Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss.Level of evidence: IV.

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER). Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications. Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was –14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was –11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone. Conclusions Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss.Level of evidence: IV.

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER). Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications. Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was –14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was –11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone. Conclusions Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss.Level of evidence: IV.