This article has been accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination, and proofreading processes, which may lead to differences between this version and the version of record.

Background The type of footwear is one of several factors that affect foot pressure. Despite its usefulness in identifying pathology and preventing and treating foot-related diseases, the type of shoes has been investigated and compared in only a few studies. This study aimed to investigate differences in plantar pressure, induced by flat, running, and high-heeled shoes in healthy, young women. Methods A total of 27 healthy women (27 feet) with a mean age of 21.5 ± 2.03 years were included in this study. Based on demographic data, radiologic measurements, clinical scores, temporal gait parameters, and kinematic parameters of gait, we confirmed the participants had normal feet. Then, pedobarographic data were measured by dividing each foot into seven regions to compare the three types of shoes. Peak plantar pressure and pressure-time integral were calculated using the Pedar-X system. The one-way analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis test with Mann Whitney U -test were used for statistical analyses. Results Regarding the 7 regions of the foot, flat shoes resulted in a significantly higher pressure than running shoes in the hallux and lesser toes and the highest pressure in the metatarsal head (MTH) 3–5 and the hindfoot. In contrast, in the MTH 1 and MTH 2 regions, the high-heeled shoes had the highest measured pressure, followed by the flat shoes. Lastly, there was no high pressure in running shoes in any region except for the midfoot compared to the other shoes. Conclusions It can be inferred from our findings that flat and high-heeled shoes can generate a considerable burden on specific parts of the foot, which will aid in choosing appropriate shoes. Also, wearing running shoes places less burden on the overall foot.

Background: Establishing intravenous (IV) access is an essential procedure in surgical patients. External jugular vein (EJV) cannulation can be a good alternative for patients for whom it is difficult to establish peripheral IV access. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of EJV cannulation in surgical patients.Methods: We performed a retrospective review of EJV cannulation in patients who underwent anesthesia for surgery at a tertiary hospital between 2010 and 2021. We collected clinical characteristics, including EJV cannulation-related variables, from the anesthetic records. We also investigated the EJV cannulation-related complications, which included any EJV cannulation-related complications (insertion site swelling, infection, thrombophlebitis, pneumothorax, and arterial cannulation) within 7 days after surgery, from the electronic medical records during the hospitalization period for surgery.Results: We analyzed 9,482 cases of 9,062 patients for whom EJV cannulation was performed during anesthesia. The most commonly performed surgery was general surgery (49.6%), followed by urologic surgery (17.5%) and obstetric and gynecologic surgery (15.7%). Unplanned EJV cannulation was performed emergently during surgery for 878 (9.3%) cases. The only EJV cannulation-related complication was swelling at the EJV-cannula insertion site (65 cases, 0.7%). There was only one case of unplanned ICU admission due to swelling related to EJV cannulation.Conclusions: Our study showed the feasibility and safety of EJV cannulation for surgical patients with difficult IV access or those who need additional large-bore IV access during surgery. EJV cannulation can provide safe and reliable IV access with a low risk of major complications in a surgical patient.

No abstract