Search

Background: The posterior approach to the humeral shaft is commonly used for surgical procedures on the humeral shaft. We present our experiences using the modification of the surgical exposure described by Gerwin M. which we have found useful at the time of revision surgery. Methods: Between 2014 and 2019, six patients who underwent a revision surgical procedure for a nonunion of the humeral shaft where a prior surgical procedure was performed through a posterior incision were included. The approach used a modification of the posterior approach described by Gerwin M. where the lower lateral cutaneous nerve branch of the radial nerve is used to identify trace, mobilize, retract, and protect the radial nerve to achieve adequate exposure of the humeral shaft. Results and Discussion: None of the patients had a postoperative nerve deficit.Adequate exposure to aid hardware removal, osteosynthesis, and bone grafting was achieved in all patients. Conclusion: The modification of the posterior approach described by Gerwin M. is useful at the time of revision or redo surgery on the humeral shaft where other bony and soft tissue landmarks are altered to prevent an iatrogenic injury to the radial nerve while providing adequate exposure to treat a nonunion.

Objective: To determine the incidence of pressure injuries (PIs) and their impact on clinical outcomes in patients treated with prone positioning for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)., Method: All patients with COVID-19 ARDS who were treated with prone positioning were categorised as cases and those who were not treated with prone positioning were categorised as controls. Demographics, clinical data and confounding variables affecting outcomes were recorded. Outcome variables of mortality and length of stay in intensive care units (ICUs) for both groups were recorded. Both groups' incidence of PIs were recorded and compared using statistical tests. Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables., Results: The sample included 212 patients, treated with prone position (n=104) and without prone treatment (n=108). The incidence of PIs was n=75 (35.4%). PIs were significantly higher in patients in the prone position (n=51, 49%) compared with patients who were not (n=24, 22%); p=0.001. Patients in the prone position were found to have lower APACHE-2 scores, longer stays on the ventilator, ICU and in the hospital., Conclusion: PIs are more prevalent in patients in the prone position and it adversely impacts clinical outcomes; it prolongs the length of stay on the ventilator, in the ICU and in the hospital.