Purpose: When managing femoral neck fractures, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (2023) recommend total hip arthroplasty (THA) for patients who are expected to independently perform activities of daily living (ADLs) beyond two years. These attempt to clarify the indication for THA versus hemiarthroplasty (HA). Frailty assessment tools, such as the Rockwood Frailty Scale (RFS), may provide surgeons a more objective means to assess patient function. The aim of this study is to ascertain whether frailty assessments are predictive of mortality associated with THA thus helping determine arthroplasty suitability. Materials and Methods: Single-center data was collected retrospectively between 2014 and 2020. Three hundred thirty-three cases were eligible for review. For the RFS, Johns Hopkins Frailty Assessment (JHFA) and Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), frailty scores were generated and 2-year mortality was calculated for ‘frail’ and ‘non-frail’ patient cohorts. Results: Overall 2-year mortality was 8.4%. Mortality within two postoperative years was 0.8% for RFS <4 compared to 12.7% for scores ≥4. This highlights an approximate 17-times greater mortality risk between these groups (odds ratio [OR] 17.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32-128.82, P=0.005). For the JHFA, the 2-year mortality rate for ‘frail’ patients was over 6-times greater than those ‘not frail’ (OR 6.91, 95% CI 3.04-15.72, P<0.0001). Positive findings were noted by the NHFS (P=0.054). Conclusion This study demonstrates that following THA for femoral neck fractures, preoperative frailty scores are predictive of 2-year postoperative mortality. Frailty assessments could objectively guide surgical decision making with respect to offering THA versus HA.

Objective: Recognizing discrimination as a significant public health risk during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which coincided with increased drug use and heightened awareness of structural disparities in the United States, we investigated its association with the odds of drug use in a large and diverse cohort from the All of Us Research Program. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, data from 68,976 participants completed the COVID-19 participant experiences (COPE) survey. We applied logistic regression models with propensity score-based overlap weighting to examine associations between everyday discrimination and drug use. Self-reported everyday discrimination score and drug use were the primary exposure and outcome measures, respectively. Results: Of the 67,662 COPE respondents (mean [standard deviation] age, 57.5 [15.9] years; female sex at birth, 43,658 [64.5%]), we identified 15,493 participants with no reported discrimination and 15,493 participants with reported discrimination, after overlap weighting. The odds of drug use in those who reported discrimination was 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.32–1.43), with a dose-dependent association based on discrimination score. Participants who experienced discrimination had significantly higher odds of using drugs and this association was particularly pronounced in those under 40 years of age, those assigned female sex at birth, current smokers, individuals undergoing chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and those experiencing unemployment or COVID-19/flu-like symptoms. Conclusion This relationship was observed across various types of drugs and different reasons for discrimination, and it was particularly pronounced in specific subgroups. These findings provide critical evidence for developing targeted preventive interventions; however, further longitudinal studies for causality are warranted.

Objective: Suicide is a leading cause of death among adolescents, and despite the need to distinguish between suicidal consideration and suicide attempts, research focused on suicide attempts remains insufficient. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of self-perceived weight on suicide attempts. Methods: This study utilized data from the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-based Survey for its analysis from 2005 to 2023, including a total of 1,156,728 participants. This study utilized various analytical methods to examine the influence of self-perceived weight on suicide attempts. We estimated weighted prevalence and used linear regression to assess temporal trend β coefficients and their differences (βdiff) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and survey-weighted logistic regression to estimate weighted odds ratios (wORs) and 95% CIs for the association between self-perceived weight and suicide attempts. Results: A comparison of suicide attempts based on self-perceived weight suggested that individuals who perceived themselves as overweight (weighted prevalence, 3.97% [95% CI, 3.89 to 4.04]) had the highest rate of suicide attempts, followed by those who perceived themselves as underweight (3.36% [95% CI, 3.28 to 3.44]), while those who perceived themselves as having a normal weight (3.20% [95% CI, 3.14 to 3.27]) had the lowest rate. Additionally, females (underweight: 4.47% [95% CI, 4.32 to 4.62]; normal weight: 3.91% [95% CI, 3.81 to 4.01]; overweight: 5.23% [5.11 to 5.35]) experienced more suicide attempts than males (underweight: 2.73% [95% CI, 2.65 to 2.82]; normal weight: 2.43% [95% CI, 2.35 to 2.51]; overweight: 2.60% [95% CI, 2.52 to 2.69]). Conclusion Findings from the present study suggest that self-perceived weight was associated with suicide attempts and interaction analyses indicated a potential sex-based difference in the impact of body image distortion. Therefore, this study suggests the introduction of programs and campaigns aimed at correcting distorted self-perceived weight.

Current approaches to regulating osteoarthritis primarily focus on symptom management; however, these methods often have significant side effects and may not be suitable for long-term care. As an alternative to conventional treatments, injecting stem cells into knee joint cartilage is a promising option for repairing damaged cartilage. In this review, we outline the general procedure for stem cell treatment of knee joint cartilage regeneration, emphasizing the potential of intra-articular stem cell injections as a therapeutic option for osteoarthritis. We examined and summarized patient evaluation and preparation for knee joint stem cell therapy, stem cell harvesting, stem cell preparation, injection procedures for stem cell therapy, post-injection care and monitoring, potential outcomes of stem cell therapy, and considerations and risks associated with stem cell therapy. Overall, stem cell injections for knee joint cartilage damage represent a promising frontier in orthopedic care. They offer potential benefits such as pain and inflammation reduction, promotion of cartilage repair and regeneration, and the possibility of avoiding more invasive treatments such as knee surgery. Ongoing collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and regulatory organizations is crucial for advancing this field and translating scientific discoveries into effective clinical applications.

Current approaches to regulating osteoarthritis primarily focus on symptom management; however, these methods often have significant side effects and may not be suitable for long-term care. As an alternative to conventional treatments, injecting stem cells into knee joint cartilage is a promising option for repairing damaged cartilage. In this review, we outline the general procedure for stem cell treatment of knee joint cartilage regeneration, emphasizing the potential of intra-articular stem cell injections as a therapeutic option for osteoarthritis. We examined and summarized patient evaluation and preparation for knee joint stem cell therapy, stem cell harvesting, stem cell preparation, injection procedures for stem cell therapy, post-injection care and monitoring, potential outcomes of stem cell therapy, and considerations and risks associated with stem cell therapy. Overall, stem cell injections for knee joint cartilage damage represent a promising frontier in orthopedic care. They offer potential benefits such as pain and inflammation reduction, promotion of cartilage repair and regeneration, and the possibility of avoiding more invasive treatments such as knee surgery. Ongoing collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and regulatory organizations is crucial for advancing this field and translating scientific discoveries into effective clinical applications.

Current approaches to regulating osteoarthritis primarily focus on symptom management; however, these methods often have significant side effects and may not be suitable for long-term care. As an alternative to conventional treatments, injecting stem cells into knee joint cartilage is a promising option for repairing damaged cartilage. In this review, we outline the general procedure for stem cell treatment of knee joint cartilage regeneration, emphasizing the potential of intra-articular stem cell injections as a therapeutic option for osteoarthritis. We examined and summarized patient evaluation and preparation for knee joint stem cell therapy, stem cell harvesting, stem cell preparation, injection procedures for stem cell therapy, post-injection care and monitoring, potential outcomes of stem cell therapy, and considerations and risks associated with stem cell therapy. Overall, stem cell injections for knee joint cartilage damage represent a promising frontier in orthopedic care. They offer potential benefits such as pain and inflammation reduction, promotion of cartilage repair and regeneration, and the possibility of avoiding more invasive treatments such as knee surgery. Ongoing collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and regulatory organizations is crucial for advancing this field and translating scientific discoveries into effective clinical applications.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the global decrease in influenza infections during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, seasonal influenza remains a significant health issue. South Korea, known for its robust pandemic response and high influenza vaccination rates, offers a unique context for examining changes in vaccination trends during the pandemic. Using nationally representative data, we aimed to understand the impact of the pandemic on influenza vaccination behavior over a 12-year period and to identify vulnerable groups. METHODS: We analyzed influenza vaccination rates in South Korea between 2011-2022, focusing on pandemic-related impacts. The data of 2,426,139 adults (≥ 19 years) from the Korea Community Health Survey were used to assess demographic and sociological factors influencing vaccination behaviors. RESULTS: We observed an increase in influenza vaccination rates during the pre-COVID-19 period from 2011-2013 (weighted prevalence: 46.68% [95% confidence interval ( CI): 46.55-46.82]) to 2017-2019 (weighted prevalence: 52.50% [95% CI: 52.38-52.63]). However, a significant decline was observed in 2022, the late-COVID-19 pandemic period (weighted prevalence: 55.78% [95% CI: 55.56-56.01]), compared with the mid-pandemic period in 2021 (weighted prevalence: 59.12% [95% CI: 58.91-59.32]), particularly among populations traditionally prioritized for influenza vaccination, including older adults (≥ 65 years) and patients with chronic diseases and low educational and income levels. CONCLUSION The influenza vaccination rate in South Korea was significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, showing a notable decrease among vulnerable demographic groups. This suggests the need for targeted public health strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination rates, particularly among high-risk populations.
Humans ; Republic of Korea/epidemiology* ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; Adult ; Middle Aged ; Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage* ; Male ; Female ; Influenza, Human/epidemiology* ; Aged ; Vaccination/statistics & numerical data* ; Young Adult ; Pandemics ; SARS-CoV-2

INTRODUCTION: As the population ages, patient complexity is increasing, intensifying the demand for well-resourced, coordinated care. A deeper understanding of the factors contributing to this complexity is essential for optimising resource allocation. This study evaluates the prevalence of complex care needs in Singapore's primary care settings and identifies the factors associated with these needs. METHOD: Using a qualitative study design, we developed a patient complexity questionnaire to assess how Singapore family physicians recognise patient complexity. Sixty-nine experienced primary care physicians applied this tool to assess patient encounters, categorising each as "routine care" (RC), "medically challenging" (MC), or "complex care" (CC). We compared the care needs across these categories and used mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression to determine the independent predictors of complexity. RESULTS: Of the 4327 encounters evaluated, 15.0% were classified as CC, 18.5% as MC, and 66.4% as RC. In both CC and MC encounters, the most common medical challenges were polypharmacy (66.2% in CC, 44.9% in MC); poorly controlled chronic conditions (41.3% in CC, 24.5% in MC); and treatment interactions (34.4% in CC, 26.0% in MC). Non-medical issues frequently identified included low health literacy (32.6% in CC, 20.8% in MC); limited motivation for healthy lifestyle behaviours (27.2% in CC, 16.6% in MC); and the need for coordinated care with hospital specialists (24.7% in CC, 17.1% in MC). The top 3 independent predictors of complexity included mobility limitations requiring assistance (odds ratio [OR] for requiring wheelchair/trolley: 7.14 for CC vs RC, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.74-10.74); longer consultation times with physicians (OR for taking >20 minutes for doctor's consultation: 3.96 for CC vs RC, 95% CI 2.86-5.48); and low socioeconomic status (OR for living in 1- or 2-room HDB flats: 2.98 for CC vs RC, 95% CI 1.74-5.13). CONCLUSION High care needs, encompassing both CC and MC encounters, were prevalent in primary care interactions. These findings highlight that relying solely on chronic disease count is insufficient to capture the full spectrum of patient complexity.
Singapore/epidemiology* ; Humans ; Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data* ; Male ; Female ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Adult ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Prevalence ; Polypharmacy ; Qualitative Research ; Chronic Disease/therapy* ; Logistic Models

BACKGROUND: The choice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) vs . total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the clinical results of UKA and TKA for treating unicompartmental KOA. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles published up to January 2, 2023. The literature was rigorously screened to include only RCTs comparing UKA and TKA for unicompartmental KOA. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to calculate the mean difference (MD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the Cochrane standards. RESULTS: Thirteen publications involving 683 UKAs and 683 TKAs were analyzed. Except for one study with a follow-up period of 15 years, all outcome measures reported were within 5 years of follow-up. Meta-analysis showed better knee recovery (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.01-1.45; P  <0.001), greater knee function (MD: 1.78; 95% CI: 0.34-3.22; P  = 0.020), less pain (MD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.43-1.06; P  <0.001), and better health status (MD: 3.75; 95% CI: 0.81-6.69; P  = 0.010) after UKA than TKA. However, considering the minimal clinically important difference values for these variables, the findings were not clinically relevant. Moreover, UKA patients had fewer complications (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.78; P  <0.001) and shorter hospital stays (MD: -0.89; 95% CI: -1.57 to -0.22; P  = 0.009) than did TKA patients. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative range of movement, revision, failure, operation time, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS In terms of clinical efficacy, there was no obvious advantage of UKA over TKA in the surgical treatment of knee OA when considering the minimal clinically important difference. The main advantage of UKA over TKA is that it leads to fewer complications and a shorter length of hospital stay. It is ideal to perform prospective studies with longer follow-up periods to fully evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the two procedures in the future.
Humans ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/methods* ; Osteoarthritis, Knee/surgery* ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Treatment Outcome