Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following SARS-CoV-2 inoculation: Case series and review of literature

Introduction

Shoulder Injuries Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), describes those cases of shoulder severe post-inoculation complications, including pain and prolonged disability. Most of the reported cases have been secondary to influenza vaccination. This study retrospectively describes a series of 18 patients following SARS-CoV-2 inoculation and compares the findings with those previously reported for other vaccines.

Materials and methods

Inclusion criteria was onset of symptoms within 48 h after injection, symptoms duration of at least seven days, and restricted range of motion in absence of symptoms prior to vaccination. Average age was 59.4 years old (38-76), and 72.2% were women.

Results

In many cases (58%) the initial diagnosis was not clear, which lead to incorrect treatment. The most common pathological finding was subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis (66.6%). All patients who received depot corticosteroids followed by a gentle rehabilitation program showed strong clinical improvement but did not completely resolve the symptoms at 7.2 months average final follow-up. Surgical intervention was necessary in one of the patients due to the persistence of symptoms despite conservative treatment.

Conclusions

Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration is rare, but when present, its torpid evolution makes it difficult to treat. We have found in our case series a similar pattern to that already described for other vaccines. A high index of suspicion helps to pick up the condition promptly and early treatment can bring satisfactory outcome.

Octogenarians Are the New Sexagenarians: Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Not Inferior to Posterior-Stabilized Arthroplasty in Octogenarian Patients

Purpose: The primary goal of this study was to compare survivorship and functional results in individuals aged 80 and over who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with cruciate-retaining (CR) or posterior-stabilized (PS) implants. Methods: We prospectively analyzed the clinical records of two consecutive cohorts for a total of 96 implants in patients aged 80 years or over. The first cohort consisted of 59 consecutive cemented PS cases, while the second cohort comprised 37 consecutive cemented CR cases. The decision to either perform a PS or CR arthroplasty was taken based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative findings. The clinical evaluation entailed evaluating each patient’s visual analogue scale for pain (VAS), range of motion (flexion and extension), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Each patient was clinically evaluated the day before surgery (T0) and at two consecutive follow-ups at least 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) years after surgery. Implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan−Meier method. Results: Both groups showed statistically significant improvements at each follow-up compared with the preoperative values (p < 0.05). The CR group showed a higher flexion degree at T1 than the PS group (116.14 ± 5.57° versus 113.16 ± 7.66°; p = 0.048). No differences were found between the two groups regarding survival rate (chi-squared test p-value = 0.789). Three failures were noted in the CR group, while there were four in the PS group. Conclusions: This prospective clinical study demonstrates that CR and PS TKA had similar clinical outcomes in octogenarians with regard to knee function, postoperative knee pain, and other complications. Prosthesis survivorship for CR and PS TKA were both satisfactory, and in selected octogenarian patients, CR TKA should always be considered because of the reduced surgical time.

Corticosteroid Injection for the Treatment of Trigger Finger: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Control Trials

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to provide an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection for the treatment of stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger digits). We have analysed only randomised control trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections with control injections. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus were searched to identify relevant studies. The keywords for search in the database were ('stenosing tenosynovitis' OR 'trigger finger') AND injections. After screening titles and abstracts of these studies, full-text articles of studies that fulfilled the selection criteria were obtained. For the meta-analysis, we determined the pooled mean failure rate, odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the risk of failure rate between the corticosteroid injection group and the control group through the random-effects model. Results: Six RCTs were found that involved 368 participants. The corticosteroid injection group included 190 patients and 178 patients were included in the control group. The pooled estimate of successful treatment in the corticosteroid injections group was 63.68 ± 5.32% and that in the control group was 27.53 ± 11.52%. The pooled RR of treatment failure between the corticosteroid injection group and the control group was 0.49 (95% CI 0.40-0.60). The pooled OR of treatment failure between the corticosteroid injection group and the control group was 0.18 (95% CI 0.08-0.44). All the included studies reported either mild or no complications with corticosteroids or placebo injections. Conclusions: In the treatment of stenosing tenosynovitis, the corticosteroid injections have better outcomes compared to the control injections and this meta-analysis provides significant evidence of the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection for stenosing tenosynovitis with minimal adverse effects. Level of Evidence: Level II (Therapeutic).

Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK): an international, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications.

METHODS

HIP ATTACK was an international, randomised, controlled trial done at 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were aged 45 years or older were eligible. Research personnel randomly assigned patients (1:1) through a central computerised randomisation system using randomly varying block sizes to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. The coprimary outcomes were mortality and a composite of major complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Patients, health-care providers, and study staff were aware of treatment assignment, but outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02027896).

FINDINGS

Between March 14, 2014, and May 24, 2019, 27 701 patients were screened, of whom 7780 were eligible. 2970 of these were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive accelerated surgery (n=1487) or standard care (n=1483). The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h (IQR 4-9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 h (10-42) in the standard-care group (p<0·0001). 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·91 (95% CI 0·72 to 1·14) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1% (-1 to 3; p=0·40). Major complications occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care, with an HR of 0·97 (0·83 to 1·13) and an ARR of 1% (-2 to 4; p=0·71).

INTERPRETATION

Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared with standard care.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Removing a broken guidewire in the hip joint: treatment options and recommendations for preventing an avoidable surgical catastrophe. A case report

CONTEXT

Hardware breakage during hip surgery can pose challenging and difficult problems for orthopedic surgeons. Apart from technical difficulties relating to retrieval of the broken hardware, complications such as adjacent joint arthritis and damage to neurovascular structures and major viscera can occur. Complications occurring during the perioperative period must be informed to the patient and proper documentation is essential. The treatment options must be discussed with the patient and relatives and the implant company must be informed about this untoward incident.

CASE REPORT

We report a case of complete removal of the implant and then removal of the broken guidewire using a combination of techniques, including a cannulated drill bit, pituitary forceps and Kerrison rongeur.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest some treatment options and recommendations for preventing an avoidable surgical catastrophe.