Four weeks versus six weeks of immobilization in a cast following closed reduction for displaced distal radial fractures in adult patients: a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

Aims: There is no level I evidence dealing with the optimal period of immobilization for patients with a displaced distal radial fracture following closed reduction. A shorter period might lead to a better functional outcome due to less stiffness and pain. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this period could be safely reduced from six to four weeks. Methods: This multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) included adult patients with a displaced distal radial fracture, who were randomized to be treated with immobilization in a cast for four or six weeks following closed reduction. The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score after follow-up at one year. Secondary outcomes were the abbreviated version of the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score after one year, the functional outcome at six weeks, 12 weeks, and six months, range of motion (ROM), the level of pain after removal of the cast, and complications. Results: A total of 100 patients (15 male, 85 female) were randomized, with 49 being treated with four weeks of immobilization in a cast. A total of 93 completed follow-up. The mean PRWE score after one year was 6.9 (SD 8.3) in the four-week group compared with 11.6 (SD 14.3) in the six-week group. However, this difference of -4.7 (95% confidence interval -9.29 to 0.14) was not clinically relevant as the minimal clinically important difference of 11.5 was not reached. There was no significant difference in the ROM, radiological outcome, level of pain, or complications. Conclusion: In adult patients with a displaced and adequately reduced distal radial fracture, immobilization in a cast for four weeks is safe, and the results are similar to those after a period of immobilization of six weeks.

Prevention of secondary displacement and reoperation of distal metaphyseal forearm fractures in children.

BACKGROUND: Metaphyseal distal forearm fractures are common in paediatric patients and treating these fractures by reduction and cast immobilization alone is under debate, since secondary displacement is a frequent complication that often warrants re-intervention. This study was conducted to invest the incidence of secondary displacement and re-intervention for non-displaced and displaced fractures, with or without fixation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted analysing all consecutive paediatric patients under the age of 16 with distal metaphyseal forearm fractures throughout a 2-year period. Data were recorded on radiographic characteristics, OTC/AO-classification, type of treatment, reduction technique, surgical interventions and removal of hardware and complications. RESULTS: 200 Patients with displaced metaphyseal forearm fractures were included of which 139 were primarily treated in the emergency room, the other 61 patients were primarily treated in the operating room. 83% Of the patients had a satisfactory reduction in the emergency room and 94% of these patients were treated successfully with casting alone. A total of 84 patients were treated in the operating room of whom 30% underwent reduction and K-wire fixation, and 70% underwent reduction and casting only. 47% Of the patients treated with closed reduction without K-wire fixation in the operating room suffered from secondary displacement, of which 80% needed re-intervention. CONCLUSION: Metaphyseal forearm fractures can be treated with a very high success rate by closed reduction and casting alone in the emergency room. Reduction and casting of displaced metaphyseal forearm fractures in children that needed treatment in the operating room however, resulted in unacceptable high rate of secondary displacement and commonly required re-intervention. Those patients should therefore be treated by reduction and K-wire fixation.

[Fever and persisting calf abscess ten years after aorta-bifemoral bypass]. / Koorts en een kuitabces door geïnfecteerde aortaprothese.

A 52-year-old woman presented with fever and a persisting calf abscess ten years after she had received an aorta-bifemoral bypass. Her infection parameters were increased and she had anaemia. CT of the abdomen revealed air surrounding the proximal anastomosis of the bypass suggesting bypass graft infection. The diagnosis of an aorta-duodenal fistula was confirmed by gastroduodenoscopy showing migration of the bypass through the wall of the duodenum into the intestinal lumen. The bypass was resected and reconstructed using the superficial femoral vein. The patient recovered uneventful.

The dangers of pets and horses, animal related injuries in the Emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Every year patients present to the emergency department due to bites, scratches and falls caused by animals. Although bite and scratch injuries have been described in literature, the exact number of patients that visit the emergency department due to all animal related injuries has never been described before. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all emergency department visits throughout a 1-year period was performed from April 2015 until March 2016. RESULTS: 516 Patients were treated at the emergency department because of animal related injuries. Most were female and the median age was 38 years. The animals causing most injuries were horses, followed by dogs and cats. Animal related injuries more often caused fractures (n = 165) or contusions (n = 171) compared to wounds (n = 135). No lethal injuries were recorded. However, three animals did not survive the event. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of animal related injuries is 2.8% and this is probably an underestimation. The injuries have noteworthy origins and have potentially severe physical injury as result. Awareness in the general population on the potential dangers of pets and horses could reduce the number and severity of animal related injuries.

Dislocated distal radial fractures in adult patients: 4 weeks versus 6 weeks of cast immobilisation following reduction, a multicentre randomised controlled trial, study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 30% of patients with a dislocated distal radial fracture (DRF) treated with closed reduction and cast immobilisation suffer from long-term functional restrictions. It remains unclear, whether duration of cast immobilisation influences functional outcome. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the functional outcome of dislocated DRFs could be improved by shortening the period of immobilisation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single blinded multicentre randomised controlled trial is initiated. Four weeks of plaster cast immobilisation is compared with six week plaster cast immobilisation in adult patients with adequate reduced DRFs. Primary outcome parameters are functional outcome measured with the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation after 1 year of follow-up (FU). Secondary outcomes are: Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score after 1 year, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey after 1 year, functional outcome earlier in FU (6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months), range of motion, pain level and complications: number of re-interventions, secondary dislocation, delayed and non-union. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical ethical committee VUmc approved the study protocol (2018.004, NL62861.029.17). The expectation of this study is that a shorter duration of plaster cast immobilisation is beneficial. This risk of specific complications is low and generally similar in both treatment options. FU is standardised according to current trauma guidelines. Present literature indicates that both treatment options that are used within this study are accepted protocols for treatment of dislocated DRFs. This trial will provide Level-I evidence for the comparison of functional outcome between the two treatment options for dislocated DRFs. Results of this study are expected to be published as a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial article in 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR 6600, ABR: NL62861.029.17. Medical Ethical Committee VUmc registration number: 2018.004.