Evaluation of Monteggia Fracture Outcomes: Acute to Chronic.

INTRODUCTION: Our study aims to characterize the results of Monteggia fractures treated in our practice and to determine factors associated with good or poor outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of children aged 17 and under with acute, subacute, or chronic Monteggia fractures who were treated at our institution was performed. The primary outcomes were initial reduction and maintenance of joint reduction, while the secondary outcomes were elbow flexion/extension and forearm supination/pronation. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with Monteggia fractures were identified. Two patients were excluded: 1 was lost to follow-up and 1 had congenital absence of the elbow flexors. Thus, our final cohort was 15 patients (acute n = 3, subacute n = 4, chronic group n = 8). Median final follow-up was 1.9 years (range = 34 days-8 years). CONCLUSION: Preoperative range of motion (ROM) was the most important factor in determining postoperative ROM in this cohort of patients with chronic Monteggia fractures. All patients who presented with excellent preoperative ROM, regardless of their timing category, had an excellent ROM outcome. Time from initial injury also played an important role. All patients in the acute and subacute categories had good or excellent postoperative ROM. Patients who were further from the initial injury were more likely to present with worse preoperative ROM and, in turn, had worse outcomes with postoperative ROM.

Does evidence support "banking/extending sleep" by shift workers to mitigate fatigue, and/or to improve health, safety, or performance? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sleep deprivation is common in shift work occupations, including safety-sensitive occupations. While extending sleep prior to scheduled shifts (i.e., "banking sleep") may be an intuitive strategy for fatigue mitigation, the evidence behind this strategy is unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of literature retrieved in searches of four databases. We examined agreement between two independent screeners, abstracted key findings, reviewed and synthesized findings, and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool was used to evaluate bias of individual studies. We reported findings as prescribed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Of the 3007 records screened, five met inclusion criteria. The inter-rater agreement for inclusion/exclusion was high (κ = 0.87). One study addressed patient safety outcomes. Four studies assessed the impact of banking sleep on performance, five assessed measures of acute fatigue, and three evaluated banking sleep on indicators of health. All five studies presented a very serious risk of bias and the quality of evidence was very low. Given these caveats, the findings, in aggregate, support banking sleep as a strategy to improve indicators of performance and acute fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identifies gaps in research of shift workers on the efficacy of banking sleep as a fatigue risk management strategy. The available evidence supports banking sleep prior to shiftwork as a strategy for improved patient safety, performance, and reducing acute fatigue.