Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), first introduced as a management option for cuff tear arthropathy, is now an accepted treatment for complex proximal humeral fractures. Few studies have identified whether the outcomes of RSA for shoulder trauma are comparable to those of RSA for shoulder arthritis. Methods: This is a retrospective, single-institution cohort study of all patients who underwent RSA at our institution between January 2013 and December 2019. In total, 49 patients met the inclusion criteria. As outcomes, we evaluated the 1-year American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Constant shoulder scores, postoperative shoulder range of motion, intra- and postoperative complications, and cumulative revision rate. The patients were grouped based on preoperative diagnosis to compare postoperative outcomes across two broad groups. Results: The median follow-up period was 32.8 months (interquartile range, 12.6–66.6 months). The 1-year visual analog scale, range of motion, and Constant and ASES functional scores were comparable between RSAs performed to treat shoulder trauma and that performed for arthritis. The overall complication rate was 20.4%, with patients with a preoperative diagnosis of arthritis having significantly more complications than those with a preoperative diagnosis of trauma (34.8% vs. 7.7%). Conclusions Patients who underwent RSA due to a proximal humeral fracture or dislocation did not fare worse than those who underwent RSA for arthritis at 1 year, in terms of both functional and radiological outcomes.

COVID-19 ; Heart Diseases ; Humans ; Incidence ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Singapore/epidemiology*

Background::Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy.Methods::Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively.Results::After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27). Conclusions::Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.

Background::Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy.Methods::Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively.Results::After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27). Conclusions::Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.