PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Grannell

Publications and source records attributed to M Grannell.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Tibial spine fractures: an analysis of outcome in surgically treated type III injuries.

We analysed the outcome of open reduction and internal fixation of type III tibial spine fractures, assessing treatment and determining a treatment protocol. A total of 10 patients presented over 3 years to our institution with a mean age of 15 years (range 10-21), a male-to-female ratio of 8:2. left to right 6:4 and anterior to posterior spine fracture 9:1. Only one patient had associated meniscal injury noted at arthroscopy (no treatment required). The mode of injury was road traffic accidents four, sports injuries three and falls three. The mean follow-up was 9 months. There were seven excellent results and three good results. Those patients with good results exhibited either minimal quadriceps weakness, extensor lag (< 10 degrees) or antero-posterior laxity. This reflects the experience of other authors in dealing with these injuries in younger patients. There is widespread agreement that types I and II should be treated by plaster cast alone and that is also the policy at our institution. We recommend a routine treatment protocol in type III injuries of (1) examination under anaesthesia, (2) arthroscopy (evaluating the fracture, cruciate integrity and other associated injuries), (3) open reduction and screw fixation and (4) vigorous physiotherapy/rehabilitation of all type III fractures, as we feel this provides the best possible outcome in these injuries.

Adolescent↗

The research abstract: worth getting it right.

BACKGROUND: Scientific merit and clarity are critical in evaluation of quality in research. We hypothesised that avoidable errors of presentation adversely impact on abstract selection for scientific meetings. AIM: To prospectively evaluate compliance with abstract guidelines among abstracts submitted to a national surgical scientific meeting. METHODS: Compliance of all submitted abstracts with 13 instructions to authors was compared using ANOVA and Chi-squared tests. Results are expressed as mean (standard deviation, range). RESULTS: Of 45 abstracts submitted, only 8 (17%) complied with all guidelines. Rejected abstracts were less concise than accepted abstracts (280.5 +/- 73.8 words vs. 244.2 +/- 42.5; p=0.006) and were more likely to be rejected (chi2 = 8.67, 1 df, p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the number of errors in accepted (1.6 [1.43, 0-4]) versus rejected (2.4 [1.87, 0-7], ANOVA; p=0.217) abstracts. All late submissions (30%) were rejected. Nine abstracts (20%) contained statistical errors or omissions. CONCLUSIONS: Succinct presentation may reflect clarity of focus or increased writing experience. Reviewers favour concise abstracts. Concise presentation and timely submission are easily achieved and increase the likelihood of research acceptance for scientific meetings.

Abstracting and Indexing↗