Efficacy of Serial Ultrasonographic Examinations in Predicting Return to Play in Agility Dogs with Shoulder Lameness

The aim of this study is to investigate the use of shoulder ultrasound as a method of predicting the likelihood of returning to competition in agility dogs with shoulder teno-muscular injuries after a standardised rehabilitation protocol. Thirty-two agility dogs with a clinical and ultrasonographic diagnosis of shoulder teno-muscular injury were included in a prospective study with physical and ultrasound examinations at the time of diagnosis (T0) and at two (T2), four (T4) and six (T6) months; during this period, the dogs received rehabilitation treatments. The endpoint of the study was to obtain information regarding participation in agility competitions 12 months after diagnosis, based on telephone interviews with the owners. The clinical lameness score (CLS) and the ultrasound lesion score (ULS) were used as outcome measurements. The CLS indicated partial recovery from a shoulder injury at T2 (78%), while the ULS indicated no satisfactory recovery at T2 in any patient. At 4 months, the CLS alone was not a valuable predictor of full recovery from a shoulder injury in agility dogs. Relative Risk indicated that, at T2, ultrasound was 23.8 times more valuable in identifying a shoulder lesion as compared to clinical lameness score (CLS), and it was 2.53 times more valuable at T4.

Gluteal Compartment Syndrome and Rhabdomyolysis after Prolonged Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy and Treatment Strategies Including Rehabilitation: A Case Report

Background: Rhabdomyolysis is a clinical symptom caused by the rapid release of intracellular components such as myoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, and creatine kinase into the blood circulation. It is commonly caused by muscular injury including compartment syndrome, infection, drugs, etc. Although it rarely occurs during surgery, the incidence may increase if risk factors such as long operation time, improper posture, and condition of being overweight exist. Case Presentation: A 46-year-old male patient complained of pain and weakness in the right hip area and several abnormal findings were observed in the blood sample, reflecting muscle injury and decreased renal function after prolonged urological surgery. He was confirmed as having rhabdomyolysis, which was caused by compartment syndrome of the right gluteal muscle. After the diagnosis, conservative cares were performed in the acute phase and rehabilitation treatments were performed in the chronic phase. After conservative treatment and rehabilitation, blood sample values returned to almost normal ranges and both level of pain and muscle strength were significantly improved. In addition, about 25 days after discharge, he almost recovered to pre-operative condition. Conclusion: Careful attention is required to prevent intraoperative compartment syndrome. It also suggests that not only medical treatment but also early patient-specific rehabilitation is important in patients with rhabdomyolysis after prolonged surgery.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Anorectoplasty for Rectovestibular Fistula: A Comparison Study with Anterior Sagittal Anorectoplasty

Background Posterior or anterior sagittal anorectoplasty (ASARP) is the mainstream for correcting rectovestibular fistula (RVF). However, the intermediate RVF has the potential risk of wound complications when applying ASARP due to its high rectal pouch, long fistula tract, and difficulty separating the rectum and vagina. We developed laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) for surgical correction of RVF, which has acceptable preliminary outcomes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LAARP in comparison with ASARP for patients with RVF. Materials and Methods Twenty-five patients with RVF who underwent LAARP between October 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were compared with 43 patients who underwent ASARP between April 2015 and August 2018. The age, weight at operation, sacral ratio, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were evaluated. The results were assessed for complications, perineum appearance, and bowel function. Results The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics. The median operative time of the LAARP group was significantly longer than that of the ASARP group (113 vs. 95 minutes; p = 0.015). The mean length of the resected rectum in the LAARP group was also longer than that in the ASARP group (6.75 ± 5.07 vs. 3.31 ± 3.06 cm; p = 0.001). Compared with the LAARP group, complications in the ASARP group were more frequent (4.0 vs. 27.9%, p = 0.036). No intraoperative or postoperative wound-related complications occurred in the LAARP group. However, in the ASARP group, one patient had an intraoperative vaginal injury and four had postoperative anastomosis-related complications. The incidence of redo operation in the ASARP group was significantly higher than that in the LAARP group (p = 0.000). Cosmetic satisfaction was higher in the LAARP group (96.0 vs. 76.7%; p < 0.05). In terms of voluntary bowel movement, soiling, and constipation, the LAARP group had similar results compare with the ASARP group. Conclusion The LAARP technique has shown several unique strengths in treating intermediate type RVF, including lower risks of complications, and minimal muscular injury, with a comparable bowel function.

Evidence-Based Management and Factors Associated With Return to Play After Acute Hamstring Injury in Athletes: A Systematic Review

Background: Considering the lengthy recovery and high recurrence risk after a hamstring injury, effective rehabilitation and accurate prognosis are fundamental to timely and safe return to play (RTP) for athletes. Purpose: To analyze methods of rehabilitation for acute proximal and muscular hamstring injuries and summarize prognostic factors associated with RTP. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: In August 2020, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SPORTDiscus were queried for studies examining management and factors affecting RTP after acute hamstring injury. Included were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series appraising treatment effects on RTP, reinjury rate, strength, flexibility, hamstrings-to-quadriceps ratio, or functional assessment, as well as studies associating clinical and magnetic resonance imaging factors with RTP. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials or the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). Results: Of 1289 identified articles, 75 were included. The comparative and noncomparative studies earned MINORS scores of 18.8 ± 1.3 and 11.4 ± 3.4, respectively, and 12 of the 17 randomized controlled trials exhibited low risk of bias. Collectively, studies of muscular injury included younger patients and a greater proportion of male athletes compared with studies of proximal injury. Surgery for proximal hamstring ruptures achieved superior outcomes to nonoperative treatment, whereas physiotherapy incorporating eccentric training, progressive agility, and trunk stabilization restored function and hastened RTP after muscular injuries. Platelet-rich plasma injection for muscular injury yielded inconsistent results. The following initial clinical findings were associated with delayed RTP: greater passive knee extension of the uninjured leg, greater knee extension peak torque angle, biceps femoris injury, greater pain at injury and initial examination, “popping” sound, bruising, and pain on resisted knee flexion. Imaging factors associated with delayed RTP included magnetic resonance imaging-positive injury, longer lesion relative to patient height, greater muscle/tendon involvement, complete central tendon or myotendinous junction rupture, and greater number of muscles injured. Conclusion: Surgery enabled earlier RTP and improved strength and flexibility for proximal hamstring injuries, while muscular injuries were effectively managed nonoperatively. Rehabilitation and athlete expectations may be managed by considering several suitable prognostic factors derived from initial clinical and imaging examination.

Ex vivo porcine model study on the treatment outcomes of scissor-type knife versus needle-type knife in endoscopic submucosal dissection performed by trainees

Background Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms can be technically difficult for trainee endoscopists. Presently, there is no consensus for trainees to select the endo-knife type in ESD. Therefore, we conducted a comparison study of treatment outcomes between scissors-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model. Methods This study was conducted on trainee endoscopists who participated in ESD hands-on seminars held in August 2018 and September 2019. A total of 22 trainees from 13 institutions were divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience. Under expert supervision, each trainee performed two ESDs in porcine models, namely, scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. In subgroup analysis, we also investigated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for trainees using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Eight trainees had an experience of over 1000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the others had an experience of less than 1000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range 10.0–31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range 10.0–38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range 6–16) vs. 17.0 min (range 5.0–31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S. In subgroup analysis, ESD-N was an independent predictive factor of difficult ESD (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.25–22.30; P = 0.024). Conclusions This study revealed that trainees, particularly those who have experienced less than 1000 endoscopies, should opt for the scissor-type knife to perform ESD.

Ex vivo porcine model study on the treatment outcomes of scissor-type knife versus needle-type knife in endoscopic submucosal dissection performed by trainees

BackgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms can be technically difficult for trainee endoscopists. Presently, there is no consensus for trainees to select the endo-knife type in ESD. Therefore, we conducted a comparison study of treatment outcomes between scissors-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model.MethodsThis study was conducted on trainee endoscopists who participated in ESD hands-on seminars held in August 2018 and September 2019. A total of 22 trainees from 13 institutions were divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience. Under expert supervision, each trainee performed two ESDs in porcine models, namely, scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. In subgroup analysis, we also investigated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for trainees using multivariate logistic regression analysis.ResultsEight trainees had an experience of over 1,000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the others had an experience of less than 1,000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range: 10.0–31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range: 10.0–38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range: 6-16) vs. 17.0 min (range: 5.0–31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S. In subgroup analysis, ESD-N was an independent predictive factor of difficult ESD (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.25–22.30; p = 0.024).ConclusionsThis study revealed that trainees, particularly those who have experienced less than 1,000 endoscopies, should opt for the scissor-type knife to perform ESD.

Ex vivo porcine model study on the treatment outcomes of scissor-type knife versus needle-type knife in endoscopic submucosal dissection performed by trainees

Back ground Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms can be technically difficult for trainee endoscopists. Presently, there is no consensus for trainees to select the endo-knife type in ESD. Therefore, we conducted a comparison study of treatment outcomes between scissors-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model. Methods This study was conducted on trainee endoscopists who participated in ESD hands-on seminars held in August 2018 and September 2019 . A total of 22 trainees from 13 institutions were divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience. Under expert supervision, each trainee performed two ESDs in porcine models, namely, scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. In subgroup analysis, we also investigated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for trainees using multivariate logistic regression analysis . Results Eight trainees had an experience of over 1,000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the others had an experience of less than 1,000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range: 10.0–31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range: 10.0–38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range: 6-16) vs. 17.0 min (range: 5.0–31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S. In subgroup analysis, ESD-N was an independent predictive factor of difficult ESD (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.25 –22.30; p = 0.024). Conclusions This study revealed that trainees, particularly those who have experienced less than 1,000 endoscopies, should opt for the scissor-type knife to perform ESD.

Ex vivo porcine model study on the treatment outcomes of scissor-type knife versus needle-type knife in endoscopic submucosal dissection performed by trainees

BackgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms can be technically difficult for trainee endoscopists. Presently, there is no consensus for trainees to select the endo-knife type in ESD. Therefore, we conducted a comparison study of treatment outcomes between scissors-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model. MethodsThis study was conducted on trainee endoscopists who participated in ESD hands-on seminars held in August 2018 and September 2019. A total of 22 trainees from 13 institutions were divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience. Under expert supervision, each trainee performed two ESDs in porcine models, namely, scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. In subgroup analysis, we also investigated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for trainees using multivariate logistic regression analysis.ResultsEight trainees had an experience of over 1,000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the others had an experience of less than 1,000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range: 10.0–31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range: 10.0–38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range: 6-16) vs. 17.0 min (range: 5.0–31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S. In subgroup analysis, ESD-N was an independent predictive factor of difficult ESD (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.25–22.30; p = 0.024).ConclusionsThis study revealed that trainees, particularly those who have experienced less than 1,000 endoscopies, should opt for the scissor-type knife to perform ESD.

Ex Vivo Porcine Model Study on the Treatment Outcomes of Scissor-type Knife Versus Needle-type Knife in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Performed by Trainees

BackgroundTrainee endoscopists find endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms difficult to perform independently; furthermore, there is no consensus on which endo-knife type is the most suitable for them. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study comparing the treatment outcomes of scissor-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model.MethodsAround 22 trainees from 13 institutions, divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience, performed ESD in a porcine model. Each trainee performed two ESDs under expert supervision: one with a scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and the other with a needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. ResultsEight trainees had an experience of over 1,000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the remaining had an experience of less than 1,000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range: 10.0–31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range: 10.0–38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range: 6-16) vs. 17.0 min (range: 5.0–31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S.ConclusionsS-Trainees could perform ESD safely in an ex vivo porcine model under expert supervision, regardless of the endo-knife type used. However, the scissor-type knife is desirable if J-Trainees were to perform the ESD procedure.