Mid-term results and factors affecting outcome of a metal-backed unicompartmental knee design: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Controversies exist regarding the indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to report the mid-term results and examine predictors of failure in a metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design. METHODS: At a mean follow-up of 60 months, 80 medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (68 patients) were evaluated. Implant survivorship was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. The Knee Society objective and functional scores and radiographic characteristics were compared before surgery and at final follow-up. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to examine the association of patient's age, gender, obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m2), diagnosis, Knee Society scores and patella arthrosis with failure. RESULTS: There were 9 failures during the follow up. The mean Knee Society objective and functional scores were respectively 49 and 48 points preoperatively and 95 and 92 points postoperatively. The survival rate was 92% at 5 years and 84% at 10 years. The mean age was younger in the failure group than the non-failure group (p < 0.01). However, none of the factors assessed was independently associated with failure based on the results from the Cox proportional hazard model. CONCLUSION: Gender, pre-operative diagnosis, preoperative objective and functional scores and patellar osteophytes were not independent predictors of failure of unicompartmental knee implants, although high body mass index trended toward significance. The findings suggest that the standard criteria for UKA may be expanded without compromising the outcomes, although caution may be warranted in patients with very high body mass index pending additional data to confirm our results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A framework for revising preservice curriculum for nonphysician clinicians: The mozambique experience.

Mozambique, with approximately 0.4 physicians and 4.1 nurses per 10,000 people, has one of the lowest ratios of health care providers to population in the world. To rapidly scale up health care coverage, the Mozambique Ministry of Health has pushed for greater investment in training nonphysician clinicians, Tιcnicos de Medicina (TM). Based on identified gaps in TM clinical performance, the Ministry of Health requested technical assistance from the International Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH) to revise the two-and-a-half-year preservice curriculum. A six-step process was used to revise the curriculum: (i) Conducting a task analysis, (ii) defining a new curriculum approach and selecting an integrated model of subject and competency-based education, (iii) revising and restructuring the 30-month course schedule to emphasize clinical skills, (iv) developing a detailed syllabus for each course, (v) developing content for each lesson, and (vi) evaluating implementation and integrating feedback for ongoing improvement. In May 2010, the Mozambique Minister of Health approved the revised curriculum, which is currently being implemented in 10 training institutions around the country. Key lessons learned: (i) Detailed assessment of training institutions' strengths and weaknesses should inform curriculum revision. (ii) Establishing a Technical Working Group with respected and motivated clinicians is key to promoting local buy-in and ownership. (iii) Providing ready-to-use didactic material helps to address some challenges commonly found in resource-limited settings. (iv) Comprehensive curriculum revision is an important first step toward improving the quality of training provided to health care providers in developing countries. Other aspects of implementation at training institutions and health care facilities must also be addressed to ensure that providers are adequately trained and equipped to provide quality health care services. This approach to curriculum revision and implementation teaches several key lessons, which may be applicable to preservice training programs in other less developed countries.