Background: The Internet has developed into a fast and easy to access source of information. The second most popular social media network is YouTube. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy and quality of videos uploaded to YouTube about Bankart lesion without diagnostic or treatment-related criteria. Methods: Various keywords were searched for on YouTube. Videos were evaluated with the DISCERN and JAMA Benchmark scoring systems by two independent reviewers. Results: A total of 48 videos were taken into evaluation as a result of the search. The mean view count was 28909.68 ± 30264.3. Mean length of the videos was 313,06 ± 344.65. The average DISCERN score of both reviewers was 2.35 ± 0.91. The average JAMA Benchmark score of both reviewers was 2.11 ± 0.77. Conclusion: We concluded that the accuracy and reliability of the videos obtained from YouTube by searching for the words Bankart and labrum lesion/injury/treatment are low.

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of femur intertrochanteric fracture associated with femur trochanter major fractures in patients over 65 years of age with magnetic resonance examination for better diagnosis and treatment. Methods: Thirty-one patients who had incomplete femur intertrochanteric fracture diagnosed were included in the study. Patients were classified according to the length of the fracture line crossing the intertrochanteric border. Fracture patterns were described on magnetic resonance imaging coronal views. Group A, pattern 1, greater trochanteric fracture extends to intertrochanteric region with both cortices; Group B, pattern 2, fracture has characteristics of pattern 1 fracture including diametaphysis fracture line; Group C, pattern 3, greater trochanteric fracture only has extending superolateral cortex fracture line of intertrochanteric region; and Group D, pattern 4, fracture has characteristics of pattern 1 fracture and including superior extension to the baso-cervical line. Surgical treatment with dynamic hip screw was applied to all patients with intertrochanteric extension after magnetic resonance examination. Results: This study included 16 women (80.3 ± 6.7 years) and 15 men (76.9 ± 10.94 years). Group A had 11 patients, group B had 8 patients, group C had 6 patients, and group D had 6 patients. Ambulation was initially prescribed for these patients 1 day after the surgery. The average surgery durations of the A, B, C, and D patterns were 44.54 ± 7.56, 49.37 ± 12.65, 49.16 ± 3.76, and 44.16 ± 5.84 min, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed among the four patterns (P = 0.404). Conclusion: Surgical treatment of the greater trochanteric fracture which is considered an indicator of occult intertrochanteric fracture is a good choice for the treatment because of the procedure safety and early mobilization after the surgery

No abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess appropriateness of the sizes of available cervical disc prostheses based on tomographic measurement of human cervical vertebrae.MethodsThe anatomic dimensions of the C3–C7 segments were measured on 50 patients (age range 26–47 years) with computerized tomography scan and compared with the sizes of the popular cervical total disc prostheses (CTDP) at the market [Bryan (Medtronic), Prodisc-C (Synthes), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy)]. The mediolateral and anteriorposterior diameters of the upper and lower endplates were measured with a digital measuring system.ResultsOverall, 43.7% of the largest implant footprints were smaller in the anterior-posterior diameter and 42.6% in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate measurements. Discrepancy of the level C5/C6 and C6/C7 was calculated as 56.2% at the anteroposterior diameter and 43.8% at the center of mediolateral diameter.ConclusionLarge disparity has been found between the sizes of devices and cervical anatomic data.Companies that produce CTDP should take care of the anatomical dimensions and generate different sizes of CTDP. Spine surgeon should be familiar with the size mismatch in CTDP that may affect the clinical and radiological outcome of the surgery.