Low-to-moderate quality meta-analytic evidence shows that motor control stabilisation exercise (MCE) is an effective treatment of non-specific low back pain. A possible approach to overcome the weaknesses of traditional meta-analyses would be that of a prospective meta-analyses. The aim of the present analysis was to generate high-quality evidence to support the view that motor control stabilisation exercises (MCE) lead to a reduction in pain intensity and disability in non-specific low back pain patients when compared to a control group. In this prospective meta-analysis and sensitivity multilevel meta-regression within the MiSpEx-Network, 18 randomized controlled study arms were included. Participants with non-specific low back pain were allocated to an intervention (individualized MCE, 12 weeks) or a control group (no additive exercise intervention). From each study site/arm, outcomes at baseline, 3 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months were pooled. The outcomes were current pain (NRS or VAS, 11 points scale), characteristic pain intensity, and subjective disability. A random effects meta-analysis model for continuous outcomes to display standardized mean differences between intervention and control was performed, followed by sensitivity multilevel meta-regressions. Overall, 2391 patients were randomized; 1976 (3 weeks, short-term), 1740 (12 weeks, intermediate), and 1560 (6 months, sustainability) participants were included in the meta-analyses. In the short-term, intermediate and sustainability, moderate-to-high quality evidence indicated that MCE has a larger effect on current pain (SMD = −0.15, −0.15, −0.19), pain intensity (SMD = −0.19, −0.26, −0.26) and disability (SMD = −0.15, −0.27, −0.25) compared with no exercise intervention. Low-quality evidence suggested that those patients with comparably intermediate current pain and older patients may profit the most from MCE. Motor control stabilisation exercise is an effective treatment for non-specific low back pain. Sub-clinical intermediate pain and middle-aged patients may profit the most from this intervention.

Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and microbiologists mainly recommend functional separation (i.e. aseptic procedures first) without calling for separate operating floors and rooms. However, patients with severe musculoskeletal infections (e.g. joint empyema, spondylodiscitis, deep implant-associated infections) may benefit from the permanent availability of septic operating capacities without delay caused by an ongoing aseptic surgical program. A systematic literature review on the influence of a structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality has not yet been conducted. Systematic literature search in PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, screening of referenced citations, and assessment of grey literature. A total of 572 articles were found through the systematic literature search. No head-to-head studies (neither randomised, quasi-randomised nor observational) were identified which examined the impact of structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality. This review did not identify evidence in favour nor against architectural separation of septic or aseptic operating theatre. Specifically, there is no evidence of a harmful effect of architectural separation. Unless prospective studies, ideally randomised trials, will be available, it is unjustified to call for abolishing established hospital structures. Future investigations must address patient-centered endpoints, surgical site infections, process quality and hospital economy. PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42018086568.

Background: Studies have shown that Omicron breakthrough infections can occur at higher SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels compared to previous variants. Estimating the magnitude of immunological protection induced from COVID-19 vaccination and previous infection remains important due to varying local pandemic dynamics and types of vaccination programmes, particularly among at-risk populations such as health care workers (HCWs). We analysed a follow-up SARS-CoV-2 serological survey of HCWs at a tertiary COVID-19 referral hospital in Germany following the onset of the Omicron variant. Methods: The serological survey was conducted in January 2022, one year after previous surveys in 2020 and the availability of COVID-19 boosters including BNT162b2, ChAdOx1-S, and mRNA-1273. HCWs voluntarily provided blood for serology and completed a comprehensive questionnaire. SARS-CoV-2 serological analyses were performed using an Immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Antibody levels were reported according to HCW demographic and occupational characteristics, COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and multivariate linear regression was used to evaluate these associations. Results: In January 2022 (following the fourth COVID-19 wave in Germany including the onset of the Omicron variant), 1482/1517 (97.7%) HCWs tested SARS-CoV-2 seropositive, compared to 4.6% in December 2020 (second COVID-19 wave). Approximately 80% had received three COVID-19 vaccine doses and 15% reported a previous laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. SARS-CoV-2 IgG geometric mean titres ranged from 335 (95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 258–434) among those vaccinated twice and without previous infection to 2204 (95% CI: 1919–2531) among those vaccinated three times and with previous infection. Heterologous COVID-19 vaccination combinations including a mRNA-1273 booster were significantly associated with the highest IgG antibody levels compared to other schemes. There was an 8-to 10-fold increase in IgG antibody levels among 31 HCWs who reported a SARS-CoV-2 infection in May 2020 to January 2022 after COVID-19 booster vaccination. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the importance of ongoing COVID-19 booster vaccination strategies in the context of variants such as Omicron and despite hybrid immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly for at-risk populations such as HCWs. Where feasible, effective types of booster vaccination, such as mRNA vaccines, and the appropriate timing of administration should be carefully considered.

Background: In the past ten years, the number of publications on injuries associated with electric scooters (e-scooters) has been increasing continuously. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize the original study results on injury types, injury severity, clinical care, accident mechanisms, risk factors, and patient characteristics associated with e-scooter accidents. Methods: The literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Medline. We included quantitative clinical studies published between 07/2019 and 07/2024 that report e-scooter-associated injuries in patients who presented to an emergency department. Variables that were reported as proportions (e.g., frequency of extremity fractures) were summarized using a proportional meta-analysis. Parameters on a continuous scale were combined using a meta-analysis of the arithmetic means. Results: Among 524 unique records, 149 articles met the inclusion criteria, and 68 were eligible for quantitative analyses. Most e-scooter patients sustained injuries to the head and face with a pooled frequency of 42.1% (95% CI 38.7–45.4). Injuries of the upper extremities were estimated at 40.1% of patients (95% CI 35.8–44.4). Fractures of the extremities occurred with a pooled frequency of 25.7% (95% CI 22.5–28.9). An estimated proportion of 2.3% (95% CI 1.6–3.0) sustained severe traumatic brain injuries. Determined by the Injury Severity Score (ISS), 2.8% (95% CI 1.5–4.1) of the e-scooter patients were severely injured (ISS ≥ 16). Conclusions: Injuries to the head and face as well as the upper extremities are the most common causes for emergency department visits following e-scooter accidents. One in four patients presented with extremity fractures. Severe injuries, however, affect less than three percent of e-scooter patients.

Background and Objectives: Severe burn injuries are still associated with high mortality. The length of intensive care stay is strongly influenced by the severity of organ failure, with multi-organ failure being the main cause of death in up to 40% of cases. Liver dysfunction is the second most common organ failure. Conventional diagnosis relies on static laboratory parameters that reflect damage already caused. Measuring the hepatic clearance of indocyanine green (LiMON^®) offers a dynamic, bedside method for detecting liver dysfunction early, enabling timely therapy adjustments. Materials and Methods: In this prospective single-centre observational study, all patients admitted to the Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin Burns Centre from October 2022 to September 2024 with ≥30% TBSA burns were included. Liver function was assessed via LiMON^® within 24 h post-injury and every 48 h until day 14 or ICU discharge. Static liver parameters were measured in parallel. Results: We included a total of 23 patients. An initial measurement was only successful in 18 cases. On admission, six patients (33%) had normal liver function with a plasma duration rate (PDR) > 18% (PDR 30.9 ± 7.3%), while 12 (67%) showed reduced clearance (PDR 14.5 ± 2.6%). In 75% of cases (n = 9), function recovered within 48 h. Based on PDR progression, four liver function patterns were defined: “stable”, “recovery”, “late insufficiency”, and “failure”; a fifth pattern included all patients who were deceased during this study (“death”). These groups differed in fluid therapy, plasma transfusion, and catecholamines administered. PDR correlated well with aminotransferase levels. Conclusions: Dynamic liver function monitoring enables earlier detection of impairment than static markers. Early identification of at-risk patients could guide fluid management and improve outcomes. LiMON^® is a valuable tool in burn care, though alternative methods may be needed in patients with severe systemic hypoperfusion.