Using PROM(I)S to measure health-related quality of life in patients with a bone fracture: An observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of patients with fractures is increasing and so is the impact on health care systems and society. To improve patient care, measurement of disabilities and impaired health experiences after traumatic musculoskeletal injuries are important. Next to objective clinical parameters, PROM(I)S can be used to map health domains important to patients. We aimed to objectify different aspects of (health-related) quality of life in fracture patients, including the ability to participate in social roles and activities using PROMIS among other PROMs. METHODS: An observational cohort study was performed in which health-related quality of life in fracture patients was measured. Patients aged 18 year and older either treated conservatively or surgically between November 2020 and June 2022 were included. Participants were followed for a maximum of one year and completed the following PROMs: PROMIS-CAT physical function, PROMIS-CAT pain interference, PROMIS-CAT ability to participate in social roles and activities and LEFS or QDASH. We applied a univariate linear mixed model to evaluate significance of improvement. RESULTS: Seven hundred-forty six patients with a mean age of 54.4 years were included. Mean PROMIS scores were structurally inferior in the lower extremity (LE) fracture group in comparison with the upper extremity (UE) fracture group. For "PROMIS physical function", UE fracture patients performed better and showed physical progression earlier. For "PROMIS pain interference", UE fracture patients experienced fewer limitations, but it took longer to experience improvement in this group. For "PROMIS ability to participate in social roles", significant improvement was only seen in the UE fracture group at one year follow up. CONCLUSION: Upper -and lower extremity fractures can have a significant impact on physical function and social health. Patients with UE fractures tend to have fewer limitations compared to LE fracture patients. Physical function and pain interference is most impaired shortly after the injury in all fracture patients and show significant changes over time, social health improves less over time. Moment of measurement should be based on type of fracture and can differ between individual patients, but when generic measures and outcomes are desirable, PROMIS questionnaires can potentially be used measurement.

Recovery to normal vital functions and acid-base status after a severe trauma in Level I versus Level II Trauma Centres.

PURPOSE: In the Netherlands, approximately 70% of severely injured patients (ISS ≥ 16) are transported directly to a Level I trauma center. This study compared the time needed to return to normal vital parameters and normal acid-base status in severely injured patients and some in-hospital processes in Level I versus Level II trauma centers. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all adult severely injured patients or adult trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit between 2015 and 2020 in a Dutch trauma region. The primary endpoint was time until normal vital parameters and acid-base status. Secondary endpoints were complication rate, hospital length of stay, emergency department length of stay, and time until a computed tomography (CT) scan. RESULTS: A total of 2345 patients were included. Patients admitted to a Level I trauma center had a significantly higher rate of normalization of vital parameters over time (HR 1.51). There was no significant difference in normalization rate of the acid-base status over time (HR 1.10). In Level I trauma centers, time spent at the emergency department and time until the CT scan was significantly shorter (respectively, ß - 38 min and ß - 77 min), and the complication rate was significantly lower (OR 0.35). CONCLUSION: Severely injured patients admitted to a Level I trauma center require less time to normalize their vital functions. Level I centers are better equipped, resulting in better in-hospital processes with shorter time at the emergency department and shorter time until a CT scan.

Nonoperative treatment of multiple rib fractures, the results to beat: International multicenter prospective cohort study among 845 patients.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment (i.e. nonoperative or operative) for patients with multiple rib fractures remains debated. Studies that compare treatments are rationalized by the alleged poor outcomes of nonoperative treatment. METHODS: The aim of this prospective international multicenter cohort study (between January 2018 and March 2021) with one-year follow-up, was to report contemporary outcomes of nonoperatively treated patients with multiple rib fractures. Including 845 patients with three or more rib fractures. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (HLOS), (pulmonary) complications, and quality of life. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.7 ± 17.0 years, median Injury Severity Score was 17 (13-22) and the median number of rib fractures was 6 (4-8). In-hospital mortality rate was 1.5% (n = 13), 112 (13.3%) patients had pneumonia and four (0.5%) patients developed a symptomatic non-union. The median HLOS was 7 (4-13) days, and median intensive care unit length of stay was 2 (1-5) days. Mean EQ-5D-5L index value was 0.83 ± 0.18 one year after trauma. Polytrauma patients had a median HLOS of 10 (6-18) days, a pneumonia rate of 17.6% (n = 77) and mortality rate of 1.7% (n = 7). Elderly patients (≥65 years) had a median HLOS of 9 (5-15) days, a pneumonia rate of 19.7% (n = 57) and mortality rate of 4.1% (n = 12). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nonoperative treatment of patients with multiple rib fractures shows low mortality and morbidity rate and good quality of life after one year. Future studies evaluating the benefit of operative stabilisation should use contemporary outcomes to establish the therapeutic margin of rib fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic/Care Management.

In patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, does fracture fixation of the clavicle improve clinical outcomes? A multicenter prospective cohort study of 232 patients.

BACKGROUND: Clavicle and rib fractures are often sustained concomitantly. The combination of injuries may result in decreased stability of the chest wall, making these patients prone to (respiratory) complications and prolonged hospitalization. This study aimed to assess whether adding chest wall stability by performing clavicle fixation improves clinical outcomes in patients with concurrent clavicle and rib fractures. METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was performed including all adult patients admitted between January 2018 and March 2021 with concurrent ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures. Patients treated operatively versus nonoperatively for their clavicle fracture were matched using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (HLOS). Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, pain, complications, and quality of life at 6 weeks and 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 232 patients with concomitant ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures were included. Fifty-two patients (22%) underwent operative treatment of which 39 could be adequately matched to 39 nonoperatively treated patients. No association was observed between clavicle plate fixation and HLOS (mean difference, 2.3 days; 95% confidence interval, -2.1 to 6.8; p = 0.301) or any secondary endpoint. Eight of the 180 nonoperatively treated patients (4%) had a symptomatic nonunion, for which 5 underwent secondary clavicle fixation. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that, in patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, plate fixation of the clavicle reduces HLOS, pain, or (pulmonary) complications, nor that it improves quality of life. STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Implementing 3D fluoroscopy in the management of tibial plateau fractures: Shorter hospitalization and decline in revision surgery, but increase in the duration of surgery and radiation exposure.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative 3D fluoroscopy (3DRX) is increasingly used in fracture management instead of conventional fluoroscopy (RX), but its effect on the treatment and outcome of tibial plateau fractures (TFs) is not well known. This study aims to evaluate whether the use of 3DRX in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures reduces the number of revision surgeries. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study includes all patients who underwent surgical treatment for TF in a single center from 2014 to 2018. Patient-, fracture-, and treatment characteristics were compared between the 3DRX and RX subgroups. The primary endpoint was the number of patients requiring revision surgery. Secondary endpoints were surgery duration, hospital length of stay, radiation exposure, postoperative complications, and secondary total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included, of which 36 were treated with 3DRX. Three patients in the RX group required revision surgery, while no revision surgery was performed in the 3DRX group (p = 0.265). The use of 3DRX resulted in significantly more intraoperative adjustments (25% versus 6%; p = 0.024) and an increase in surgery duration (by average of 28 min, p = 0.001), without a significant increase in postoperative wound infections (12% versus 19%; p = 0.374) or fracture-related infections (2% versus 2.8%; p = 0.802). The 3DRX group had an average radiation exposure of 7,985 mGy versus 1,273 mGy in the RX group (p<0.001). The hospital length of stay was 1 day shorter in the 3DRX group (5 days versus 4 days; p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing 3DRX in treating TFs improves the assessment of fracture alignment and implant position perioperatively, resulting in more intraoperative corrections and no revision surgeries within 6 weeks postoperatively. However, using 3DRX significantly increases perioperative radiation exposure and surgery duration without a significant rise in postoperative infections and a shorter hospital length of stay.

Quality of life and clinical outcomes of operatively treated patients with flail chest injuries: A multicentre prospective cohort study.

Introduction: Most studies about rib fractures focus on mortality and morbidity. Literature is scarce on long term and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Therefore, we report QoL and long-term outcomes after rib fixation in flail chest patients. Methods: A prospective cohort study of clinical flail chest patients admitted to six level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands and Switzerland between January 2018 and March 2021. Outcomes included in-hospital outcomes and long-term outcomes, such as QoL measurements 12 months after hospitalization using the EuroQoL five dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Results: Sixty-one operatively treated flail chest patients were included. Median hospital length of stay was 15 days and intensive care length of stay was 8 days. Sixteen (26%) patients developed pneumonia and two (3%) died. One year after hospitalization the mean EQ5D score was 0.78. Complication rates were low and included hemothorax (6%) pleural effusion (5%) and two revisions of the implant (3%). Implant related irritation was commonly reported by patients (n = 15, 25%). Conclusions: Rib fixation for flail chest injuries can be considered a safe procedure and with low mortality rates. Future studies should focus on quality of life rather than solely short-term outcomes.Trial registration: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017 and the Swiss Ethics Committees Registration Number 2019-00668.

Accuracy of Prehospital Triage of Adult Patients With Traumatic Injuries Following Implementation of a Trauma Triage Intervention.

Importance: Adequate prehospital triage is pivotal to enable optimal care in inclusive trauma systems and reduce avoidable mortality, lifelong disabilities, and costs. A model has been developed to improve the prehospital allocation of patients with traumatic injuries and was incorporated in an application (app) to be implemented in prehospital practice. Objective: To evaluate the association between the implementation of a trauma triage (TT) intervention with an app and prehospital mistriage among adult trauma patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, prospective quality improvement study was conducted in 3 of the 11 Dutch trauma regions (27.3%), with full coverage of the corresponding emergency medical services (EMS) regions participating in this study. Participants included adult patients (age ≥16 years) with traumatic injuries who were transported by ambulance between February 1, 2015, and October 31, 2019, from the scene of injury to any emergency department in the participating trauma regions. Data were analyzed between July 2020 and June 2021. Exposures: Implementation of the TT app and the awareness of need for adequate triage created by its implementation (ie, the TT intervention). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prehospital mistriage, evaluated in terms of undertriage and overtriage. Undertriage was defined as the proportion of patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or greater who were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center (designated to treat patients who are mildly and moderately injured) and overtriage as the proportion of patients with an ISS of less than 16 who were initially transported to a higher-level trauma center (designated to treat patients who are severely injured). Results: A total of 80 738 patients were included (40 427 [50.1%] before and 40 311 [49.9%] after implementation of the intervention), with a median (IQR) age of 63.2 (40.0-79.7) years and 40 132 (49.7%) male patients. Undertriage decreased from 370 of 1163 patients (31.8%) to 267 of 995 patients (26.8%), while overtriage rates did not increase (8202 of 39 264 patients [20.9%] vs 8039 of 39 316 patients [20.4%]). The implementation of the intervention was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk for undertriage (crude risk ratio [RR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99, P = .01; adjusted RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95; P = .004), but the risk for overtriage was unchanged (crude RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .13; adjusted RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.03; P = .49). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, implementation of the TT intervention was associated with improvements in rates of undertriage. Further research is needed to assess whether these findings are generalizable to other trauma systems.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computer Adaptive Testing With Existing Measures After Operative Interventions for Extremity Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) enables the use of computer adaptive testing (CAT). The aim of this prospective cohort study was to compare the most commonly used disease-specific instruments with PROMIS CAT questionnaires in patients with trauma. METHODS: All patients with trauma (ages 18-75) who underwent an operative intervention for an extremity fracture between June 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, were included. The disease-specific instruments were the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand for upper extremity fractures and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) for lower extremity fractures. Pearson's correlation (r) between the disease-specific instruments and the PROMIS CAT questionnaires (PROMIS Physical Function, PROMIS Pain Interference, and PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities) was calculated at week 2, week 6, month 3, and month 6. Construct validity and responsiveness were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients with an upper extremity fracture and 109 patients with a lower extremity fracture were included. At month 3 and month 6, the correlation was strong between the LEFS and PROMIS Physical Function (r = 0.88 and r = 0.90, respectively), and at month 3, the correlation was strong between the LEFS and PROMIS Social Roles and Activities (r = 0.72). At week 6, month 3, and month 6, there was a strong correlation between the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and PROMIS Physical Function (r = 0.74, r = 0.70, and r = 0.76, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS CAT measures are acceptably related to existing non-CAT instruments and may be a useful tool during follow-up after operative interventions for extremity fractures.

Non-operative vs. operative treatment for multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. RESULTS: In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8-9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI - 0.2-0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. CONCLUSIONS: We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017.

Developing mHealth to the Context and Valuation of Injured Patients and Professionals in Hospital Trauma Care: Qualitative and Quantitative Formative Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Trauma care faces challenges to innovating their services, such as with mobile health (mHealth) app, to improve the quality of care and patients' health experience. Systematic needs inquiries and collaborations with professional and patient end users are highly recommended to develop and prepare future implementations of such innovations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a trauma mHealth app for patient information and support in accordance with the Center for eHealth Research and Disease Management road map and describe experiences of unmet information and support needs among injured patients with trauma, barriers to and facilitators of the provision of information and support among trauma care professionals, and drivers of value of an mHealth app in patients with trauma and trauma care professionals. METHODS: Formative evaluations were conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Ten semistructured interviews with patients with trauma and a focus group with 4 trauma care professionals were conducted for contextual inquiry and value specification. User requirements and value drivers were applied in prototyping. Furthermore, a complementary quantitative discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 109 Dutch trauma surgeons, which enabled triangulation on value specification results. In the DCE, preferences were stated for hypothetical mHealth products with various attributes. Panel data from the DCE were analyzed using conditional and mixed logit models. RESULTS: Patients disclosed a need for more psychosocial support and easy access to more extensive information on their injury, its consequences, and future prospects. Health care professionals designated workload as an essential issue; a digital solution should not require additional time. The conditional logit model of DCE results suggested that access to patient app data through electronic medical record integration (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% CI 2.55-4.34; P<.001) or a web viewer (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.64-3.31; P<.001) was considered the most important for an mHealth solution by surgeons, followed by the inclusion of periodic self-measurements (OR 2, 95% CI 1.64-2.46; P<.001), the local adjustment of patient information (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.42-2.33; P<.001), local hospital identification (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.31-2.10; P<.001), complication detection (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.21-1.84; P<.001), and the personalization of rehabilitation through artificial intelligence (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.13-1.62; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of trauma care, end users have many requirements for an mHealth solution that addresses psychosocial functioning; dependable information; and, possibly, a prediction of how a patient's recovery trajectory is evolving. A structured development approach provided insights into value drivers and facilitated mHealth prototype enhancement. The findings imply that iterative development should move on from simple and easily implementable mHealth solutions to those that are suitable for broader innovations of care pathways that most-but plausibly not yet all-end users in trauma care will value. This study could inspire the trauma care community.

Experiences of recovery and posthospital care needs of working-age adults after physical trauma: a qualitative focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore experiences of recovery after physical trauma and identify long-term needs for posthospital care. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of seven online focus groups among working-age adults who sustained their injury between 9 months and 5 years ago. Trauma patients discharged from a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands were divided into three groups based on the type of their physical trauma (monotrauma, polytrauma and traumatic brain injury). Group interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Despite differences in type and severity of their injuries, participants all struggled with the impact that trauma had on various aspects of their lives. They experienced recovery as an unpredictable and inconstant process aimed at resuming a meaningful life. Work was often perceived as an important part of recovery, though the value attributed to work could change over time. Participants struggled to bring the difficulties they encountered in their daily lives and at work to the attention of healthcare professionals (HCPs). While posthospital care needs varied between and across groups, all people stressed the need for flexible access to person-centred, multidisciplinary care and support after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that people with a broad variety of injury experience recovery as a process towards resuming a meaningful life and report the need to expand trauma care to include comprehensive support to live well long term. Person-centred care might be helpful to enable HCPs to take people's individual long-term needs and life situations into account. Furthermore, providing timely access to coordinated, multidisciplinary care after discharge is advocated. Integrated care models that span a network of multidisciplinary support around the person may help align existing services and may facilitate easy and timely access to the most suitable support for injured people and their loved ones.

There are more things in physical function and pain: a systematic review on physical, mental and social health within the orthopedic fracture population using PROMIS.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS®) is more and more extensively being used in medical literature in patients with an orthopedic fracture. Yet, many articles studied heterogeneous groups with chronic orthopedic disorders in which fracture patients were included as well. At this moment, there is no systematic overview of the exact use of PROMIS measures in the orthopedic fracture population. Therefore this review aimed to provide an overview of the PROMIS health domains physical health, mental health and social health in patients suffering an orthopedic fracture. METHODS: This systematic review was documented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials, CINAHL and Google Scholar in December 2020 using a combination of MeSH terms and specific index terms related to orthopedic fractures and PROMIS questionnaires. Inclusion criteria were available full text articles that were describing the use of any PROMIS questionnaires in both the adult and pediatric extremity fracture population. RESULTS: We included 51 relevant articles of which most were observational studies (n = 47, 92.2%). A single fracture population was included in 47 studies of which 9 involved ankle fractures (9/51; 17.6%), followed by humeral fractures (8/51; 15.7%), tibia fractures (6/51; 11.8%) and radial -or ulnar fractures (5/51; 9.8%). PROMIS Physical Function (n = 32, 32/51 = 62.7%) and PROMIS Pain Interference (n = 21, 21/51 = 41.2%) were most frequently used questionnaires. PROMIS measures concerning social (n = 5/51 = 9.8%) and mental health (10/51 = 19.6%) were much less often used as outcome measures in the fracture population. A gradually increasing use of PROMIS questionnaires in the orthopedic fracture population was seen since 2017. CONCLUSION: Many different PROMIS measures on multiple domains are available and used in previous articles with orthopedic fracture patients. With physical function and pain interference as most popular PROMIS measures, it is important to emphasize that other health-domains such as mental and social health can also be essential to fracture patients.

Relationship between health status and functional outcome during two years after a severe trauma.

BACKGROUND: With the improved survival rates after trauma, the population of patients with disabilities increased. The knowledge about functional outcome and the relationship between health status and functional outcome is limited. The aim of the present prospective cohort study was to describe the functional outcome and health status over time, and the relationship between both. METHODS: Adult severely injured patients (ISS≥16) were included if hospitalised in Noord-Brabant within 48 h after injury between August 2015 and December 2016. The functional outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended - GOSE) and health status (EQ-5D) were measured at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after injury. Logistic and linear mixed models were used to examine functional outcome and health status over time. Measurements were divided into short- (1-3 months), mid- (6-12 months) and long-term (24 months). RESULTS: In total 239 severely injured patients were included. Functional outcome and health status improved over time. Prognostic factors during two years were a longer hospital length of stay, female gender and Glasgow Coma Scale. Besides age was a prognostic factor for health status and education level for functional outcome. A higher ASA classification was a long-term prognostic factor for a lower functional outcome and a lower health status. The patients with a good functional recovery showed a significant higher EQ-5D utility score and patients with a poor functional recovery reported significant more problems in the EQ-5 domains. CONCLUSION: There is a good relationship between the functional outcome and the health status during two years after a severe injury. It appears reliable to use functional outcome in terms of physical impairments in daily clinic to determine patients at risk for both a lower functional outcome and a lower health status over time.

Health status and psychological outcomes after trauma: A prospective multicenter cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Survival after trauma has considerably improved. This warrants research on non-fatal outcome. We aimed to identify characteristics associated with both short and long-term health status (HS) after trauma and to describe the recovery patterns of HS and psychological outcomes during 24 months of follow-up. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with all types of injuries were included. Data were collected at 1 week 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-trauma. HS was assessed with the EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L) and the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3 (HUI2/3). For the screening of symptoms of post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression, the Impact of Event Scale (IES) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) subscale anxiety (HADSA) and subscale depression (HADSD) were used. Recovery patterns of HS and psychological outcomes were examined with linear mixed model analyses. RESULTS: A total of 4,883 patients participated (median age 68 (Interquartile range 53-80); 50% response rate). The mean (Standard Deviation (SD)) pre-injury EQ-5D-3L score was 0.85 (0.23). One week post-trauma, mean (SD) EQ-5D-3L, HUI2 and HUI3 scores were 0.49 (0.32), 0.61 (0.22) and 0.38 (0.31), respectively. These scores significantly improved to 0.77 (0.26), 0.77 (0.21) and 0.62 (0.35), respectively, at 24 months. Most recovery occurred up until 3 months. At long-term follow-up, patients of higher age, with comorbidities, longer hospital stay, lower extremity fracture and spine injury showed lower HS. The mean (SD) scores of the IES, HADSA and HADSD were respectively 14.80 (15.80), 4.92 (3.98) and 5.00 (4.28), respectively, at 1 week post-trauma and slightly improved over 24 months post-trauma to 10.35 (14.72), 4.31 (3.76) and 3.62 (3.87), respectively. DISCUSSION: HS and psychological symptoms improved over time and most improvements occurred within 3 months post-trauma. The effects of severity and type of injury faded out over time. Patients frequently reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02508675.

What is the value of 3D virtual reality in understanding acetabular fractures?

BACKGROUND: Acetabular fractures are difficult to classify owing to the complex three-dimensional (3D) anatomy of the pelvis. 3D printing helps to understand and reliably classify acetabular fracture types. 3D-virtual reality (VR) may have comparable benefits. Our hypothesis is that 3D-VR is equivalent to 3D printing in understanding acetabular fracture patterns. METHODS: A total of 27 observers of various experience levels from several hospitals were requested to classify twenty 3D printed and VR models according to the Judet-Letournel classification. Additionally, surgeons were asked to state their preferred surgical approach and patient positioning. Time to classify each fracture type was recorded. The cases were randomized to rule out a learning curve. Inter-observer agreement was analyzed using Fleiss' kappa statistics (κ). RESULTS: Inter-observer agreements varied by observer group and type of model used to classify the fracture: medical students: 3D print (κ = 0.61), VR (κ = 0.41); junior surgical residents: 3D print (0.51) VR (0.54); senior surgical residents: 3D print (0.66) VR (0.52); junior surgeons: 3D print (0.56), VR (0.43); senior surgeons: 3D print (κ = 0.59), VR (κ = 0.42). Using 3D printed models, there was more agreement on the surgical approach (junior surgeons κ = 0.23, senior surgeons κ = 0.31) when compared with VR (junior surgeons κ = 0.17, senior surgeons 0.25). No difference was found in time used to classify these fractures between 3D printing and VR for all groups (P = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: The Judet-Letournel acetabular classification stays difficult to interpret; only moderate kappa agreements were found. We found 3D-VR inferior to 3D printing in classifying acetabular fractures. Furthermore, the current 3D-VR technology is still not practical for intra-operative use.

The role of emergency medical service providers in the decision-making process of prehospital trauma triage.

PURPOSE: Severely injured patients should be treated at higher-level trauma centres, to improve chances of survival and avert life-long disabilities. Emergency medical service (EMS) providers must try to determine injury severity on-scene, using a prehospital trauma triage protocol, and decide the most appropriate type of trauma centre. The objective of this study is to investigate the role of EMS provider judgment in the prehospital triage process of trauma patients, by analysing the compliance rate to the protocol and administering a questionnaire among EMS providers. METHODS: All trauma patients transported to a trauma centre in two different regions of the Netherlands were analysed. Compliance rate was based on the number of patients meeting the triage criteria and transported to the corresponding level trauma centre. The questionnaire was administered among EMS providers. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: For adult patients, the compliance rate to the level I criteria of the triage protocol was 72% in Central Netherlands and 42% in Brabant. For paediatric patients, this was 63% and 38% in Central Netherlands and Brabant, respectively. The judgment on injury severity was mostly based on the injury-type criteria. Additionally, the distance to a level I trauma centre influenced the decision for destination facility in the Brabant region. CONCLUSION: The compliance rate varied between regions. Improvement of prehospital trauma triage depends on the accuracy of the protocol and compliance rate. A new protocol, including EMS provider judgment, might be the key to improvement in the prehospital trauma triage quality.

Trauma care before and after optimisation in a level I trauma Centre: Life-saving changes.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of trauma systems has led to a significant reduction in mortality and length of hospital stay. In our level I trauma centre, 24/7 in-hospital coverage was implemented, and a renovation of the trauma room took place to improve the trauma care. The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of the optimised in-hospital infrastructure in terms of mortality, processes and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. All adult trauma patients admitted to our trauma centre directly during two time periods (2010-2012 and 2014-2016) were included. Any patients below the age of 18 years and patients who underwent primary trauma screening in another hospital were excluded. Logistic and linear regression were used and adjusted for demographics and characteristics of trauma. The primary endpoint was mortality. The secondary endpoints were subgroups of earlier mortality rates and severely injured patients, processes and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In period I, 1290 patients were included, and in period II, 2421. The adjusted mortality in the trauma room (odds ratio (OR): 0.18; CI: 0.05-0.63) and the total in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.63 CI: 0.42-0.95) showed a significant reduction in period II. The trauma room (TR) time decreased by 30 min (p < 0.001), and the time until CT decreased by 22 min (p < 0.001). The number of delayed diagnoses and complications were significantly lower in the second period, with an OR of 0.2 (CI: 0.1-0.2) and 0.4 (CI: 0.3-0.6), respectively. The hospital length of stay and ICU length of stay decreased significantly, -1.5 day (p = 0.010) and -1.8 days (p = 0.022) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation of the in-hospital infrastructure related to trauma care resulted in improved survival rates in both severely injured patients as well as in the whole trauma population. Moreover, the processes and clinical outcomes improved, showing a shorter hospital length of stay, shorter TR time, fewer complications and fewer delayed diagnoses.

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients.

Importance: Prehospital trauma triage protocols are used worldwide to get the right patient to the right hospital and thereby improve the chance of survival and avert lifelong disabilities. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma set target levels for undertriage rates of less than 5%. None of the existing triage protocols has been able to achieve this target in isolation. Objective: To develop and validate a new prehospital trauma triage protocol to improve current triage rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, all patients with trauma who were 16 years and older and transported to a trauma center in 2 different regions of the Netherlands were included in the analysis. Data were collected from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, in the Central Netherlands region for the design data cohort and from January 1 through December 31, 2015, in the Brabant region for the validation cohort. Data were analyzed from May 3, 2017, through July 19, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: A new prediction model was developed in the Central Netherlands region based on prehospital predictors associated with severe injury. Severe injury was defined as an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. A full-model strategy with penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to construct a model with 8 predictors that were chosen based on clinical reasoning. Accuracy of the developed prediction model was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. The model was externally validated in the Brabant region. Results: Using data from 4950 patients with trauma from the Central Netherlands region for the design data set (58.3% male; mean [SD] age, 47 [21] years) and 6859 patients for the validation Brabant region (52.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51 [22] years), the following 8 significant predictors were selected for the prediction model: age; systolic blood pressure; Glasgow Coma Scale score; mechanism criteria; penetrating injury to the head, thorax, or abdomen; signs and/or symptoms of head or neck injury; expected injury in the Abbreviated Injury Scale thorax region; and expected injury in 2 or more Abbreviated Injury Scale regions. The prediction model showed a C statistic of 0.823 (95% CI, 0.813-0.832) and good calibration. The cutoff point with a minimum specificity of 50.0% (95% CI, 49.3%-50.7%) led to a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-90.0%). External validation showed a C statistic of 0.831 (95% CI, 0.814-0.848) and adequate calibration. Conclusions and Relevance: The new prehospital trauma triage prediction model may lower undertriage rates to approximately 10% with an overtriage rate of 50%. The next step should be to implement this prediction model with the use of a mobile app for emergency medical services professionals.

Validation study of 3D-printed anatomical models using 2 PLA printers for preoperative planning in trauma surgery, a human cadaver study.

INTRODUCTION: 3D printing contributes to a better understanding of the surgical approach, reduction and fixation of complex fractures. It is unclear how a 3D-printed model relates to a human bone. The accuracy of 3D-printed models is important to pre-bend plates and fit of surgical guides. We conduct a validation study in which we compare human cadavers with 3D-printed models to test the accuracy of 3D printing. METHODS: Nine specimens were scanned, volume rendered into 3D reconstructions and saved as STL data. All models were in a ratio of 1:1 printed on the Ultimaker 3 and Makerbot Replicator Z18. Two independent observers measured all distances between the K-wires on the human cadavers, 2DCT, 3D reconstruction, Meshlab and both printers. A paired Samples T test was used to compare the measurements between the different modalities. RESULTS: The least decrease in average distance in millimetres was seen in "the 3D printed pelvis 1", - 0.3 and - 0.8% on respectively the Ultimaker and Makerbot when compared with cadaver Pelvis (1) The 3D model of "Hand 2" showed the most decrease, - 2.5 and - 3.2% on the Ultimaker and Makerbot when compared with cadaver hand (2) Most significant differences in measurements were found in the conversion from 3D file into a 3D print and between the cadaver and 3D-printed model from the Makerbot. CONCLUSION: Our 3D printing process results in accurate models suitable for preoperative workup. The Ultimaker 3 is slightly more accurate than the Makerbot Replicator Z18. We advise that medical professionals should perform a study that tests the accuracy of their 3D printing process before using the 3D-printed models in medical practice.

Performance of the modified TRISS for evaluating trauma care in subpopulations: A cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research showed that there is no agreement on a practically applicable model to use in the evaluation of trauma care. A modification of the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (modified TRISS) is used to evaluate trauma care in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic ability of the modified TRISS and to determine where this model needs improvement for better survival predictions. METHODS: Patients were included if they were registered in the Brabant Trauma Registry from 2010 through 2015. Missing values were imputed according to multiple imputation. Subsets were created based on age, length of stay, type of injury and injury severity. Probability of survival was calculated with the modified TRISS. Discrimination was assessed with the Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC). Calibration was studied graphically. RESULTS: The AUROC was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.85) for the total cohort (N = 69 747) but only 0.53 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.56) for elderly patients with hip fracture. Overall, calibration of the modified TRISS was adequate for the total cohort, with an overestimation for elderly patients and an underestimation for patients without brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome comparison conducted with TRISS-based predictions should be interpreted with care. If possible, future research should develop a simple prediction model that has accurate survival prediction in the aging overall trauma population (preferable with patients with hip fracture), with readily available predictors.