Point-of-care ultrasound-guided versus standard reduction of displaced distal radius fractures in the emergency department: a randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: During closed reduction of displaced distal radius fractures, physical examination is used to determine the need for further manipulation before radiographic confirmation and cast application. Manipulation performed under ultrasound guidance has the potential to decrease the number of reduction attempts. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial was undertaken between December 2018 and July 2020 in the ED of four hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients aged ≥16 years presenting to the ED with a distal radius fracture requiring closed reduction were randomised to either point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS)-guided or standard reduction. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring more than one reduction attempt. The secondary outcomes were time to complete reduction and treatment plan at ED discharge (conservative or operative repair). RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were screened, of which 211 patients were included for primary endpoint analysis (87% female, median age 68 years, 94% dorsal angulation, 59% intra-articular and 73% multifragmentary). In total, 105 patients were randomised to standard treatment and 106 patients to PoCUS-guided fracture reduction. In the standard treatment group, 13 patients (12%) required more than one reduction attempt, compared with 6 patients (6%) in the PoCUS group (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.86 to 6.45). The median reduction time was 5 min in the PoCUS group (IQR 3-6) vs 3 min (IQR 2-4) in the standard reduction group (p<0.001). At ED discharge, operative repair was indicated for 17 (16%) patients in the standard group and 21 (20%) patients in the PoCUS group (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58). CONCLUSION: This study could not demonstrate that PoCUS-guided reduction of distal radius fractures was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the number of reduction attempts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR7934).

Efficacy of scheduled return visits for emergency department patients with non-specific abdominal pain.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients presenting with abdominal pain to emergency departments (EDs) are discharged without a definitive diagnosis. For these patients, often designated as having non-specific abdominal pain, re-evaluation is often advocated. We aimed to investigate how often re-evaluation changes the diagnosis and clinical management and discern factors that could help identify patients likely to benefit from re-evaluation. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted in the Netherlands between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015 of patients asked to return to the ED after an initial presentation with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain. The primary outcome was a clinically relevant change in treatment (surgery, endoscopy during admission and/or hospitalisation) and diagnosis at ED re-evaluation within 30 hours. RESULTS: During the 2-year study period, 358 ED patients with non-specific abdominal pain were scheduled for re-evaluation. Of these, 14% (11%-18%)) did not present for re-evaluation. Re-evaluation resulted in a clinically relevant change in diagnosis and treatment in, respectively, 21.3% (17%-29%)) and 22.3% (18%-27%)) of the subjects. Of the clinical, biochemical and radiological factors available at the index visit, C reactive protein (CRP) at the index visit predicted a change in treatment (CRP >27 mg/L likelihood ratio (LR)+ 1.69 (1.21-2.36)), while an increase in CRP of >25 mg/L between index and re-evaluation visit (LR+ 2.85 (1.88-4.32)) and the conduct of radiological studies at the re-evaluation visit were associated with changes in treatment (LR+ 3.05 (2.41-3.86)). CONCLUSION: Re-evaluation within 30 hours for ED patients discharged with non-specific abdominal pain resulted in a clinically relevant change in diagnosis and therapy in almost one-quarter of patients. Elevated CRP at the index visit might assist in correctly identifying patients with a greater likelihood of needing treatment in follow-up, and a low threshold for radiological studies should be considered during re-evaluation.