Shared decision-making for non-operative management versus operative management of hip fractures in selected frail older adults with a limited life expectancy: a protocol for a nationwide implementation study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent research has highlighted non-operative management (NOM) as a viable alternative for frail older adults with hip fractures in the final phase of life. This study aims to guide Dutch physicians and hospitals nationwide in a standardised implementation of shared decision-making regarding surgery or NOM in selected frail older adults with a hip fracture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The patient population for implementation includes frail older adults aged ≥70 years with an acute proximal femoral fracture, nursing home care or a similar level of care elsewhere and at least one additional criterion (ie, malnutrition, severe mobility impairment or ASA≥4). The 2-year implementation study will be conducted in four phases. In phases 1 and 2, barriers and facilitators for implementation will be identified and an implementation protocol, educational materials and patient information will be developed. Phase 3 will involve an implementation pilot in 14 hospitals across the Netherlands. The protocol and educational material will be improved based on healthcare provider and patient experiences gathered through interviews. Phase 4 will focus on upscaling to nationwide implementation and the effect of the implementation on NOM rate will be measured using data from the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was exempted by the local Medical Research Ethics Committee (MEC-2023-0270, 10 May 2023) and Medical Ethics Committee United (W23.083, 26 April 2023). The study's results will be submitted to an open access international peer-reviewed journal. Its protocols, tools and results will be presented at several national and international academic conferences of relevant orthogeriatric (scientific) associations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06079905 .

Missing patient registrations in the Dutch National Trauma Registry of Southwest Netherlands: Prevalence and epidemiology.

INTRODUCTION: Health care patient records have been digitalised the past twenty years, and registries have been automated. Missing registrations are common, and can result in selection bias. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of missed registrations in a Dutch regional trauma registry. METHODS: An automatically generated trauma registry export was done for ten out of eleven hospitals in trauma region Southwest Netherlands, between June 1 and August 31, 2020. Second, lists were checked for being falsely flagged as 'non-trauma'. Finally, a list was generated with trauma tick box flagged as 'trauma' but were not automatically in the export due to administrative errors. Automated and missed registration datasets were compared on patient characteristics and logistic regression models were run with random intercepts and missed registration as outcome variable on the complete dataset. RESULTS: A total of 2,230 automated registrations and 175 (7.3 %) missed registrations were included for the Dutch National Trauma Registry, ranging from 1 to 14 % between participating hospitals. Patients of the missed registration dataset had characteristics of a higher level of care, compared with patients of automated registrations. Level of trauma care (level II OR 0.464 95 % CI 0.328-0.666, p < 0.001; level III OR 0.179 95 % CI 0.092-0.325, p < 0.001), major trauma (OR 2.928 95 % CI 1.792-4.65, p < 0.001), ICU admission (OR 2.337 95 % CI 1.792-4.650, p < 0.001), and surgery (OR 1.871 95 % CI 1.371-2.570, p < 0.001) were potential predictors for missed registrations in multivariate logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Missed registrations occur frequently and the rate of missed registrations differs greatly between hospitals. Automated and missed registration datasets display differences related to patients requiring more intensive care, which held for the major trauma subset. Checking for missed registrations is time consuming, automated registration lists need a human touch for validation and to be complete.

The value of preoperative diagnostic testing and geriatric assessment in frail institutionalized elderly with a hip fracture; a secondary analysis of the FRAIL-HIP study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of (preoperative and geriatric) diagnostic testing, abnormal diagnostic tests and their subsequent interventions, and clinical relevance in frail older adults with a hip fracture. METHODS: Data on clinical consultations, radiological, laboratory, and microbiological diagnostics were extracted from the medical files of all patients included in the FRAIL-HIP study (inclusion criteria: hip fracture, > 70 years, living in a nursing home with malnourishment/cachexia and/or impaired mobility and/or severe co-morbidity). Data were evaluated until hospital discharge in nonoperatively treated patients and until surgery in operatively treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients (88 nonoperative and 84 operative) were included, of whom 156 (91%) underwent laboratory diagnostics, 126 (73%) chest X-rays, and 23 (13%) CT-scans. In 153/156 (98%) patients at least one abnormal result was found in laboratory diagnostics. In 82/153 (50%) patients this did not result in any additional diagnostics or (pharmacological) intervention. Abnormal test results were mentioned as one of the deciding arguments for operative delay (> 24 h) for 10/84 (12%) patients and as a factor in the decision between nonoperative and operative treatment in 7/172 (4%) patients. CONCLUSION: A large number and variety of diagnostics were performed in this patient population. Abnormal test results in laboratory diagnostics were found for almost all patients and, in majority, appear to have no direct clinical consequences. To prevent unnecessary diagnostics, prospective research is required to evaluate the clinical consequences and added value of the separate elements of preoperative diagnostic testing and geriatric assessment in frail hip fracture patients.

Fractures and other chest wall abnormalities after thoracotomy for esophageal cancer: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain following a thoracotomy for esophageal cancer is frequently reported but poorly understood. This study aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of thoracotomy-related thoracic fractures on postoperative imaging and (2) compare complications, long-term pain, and quality of life in patients with versus without these fractures. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled patients with esophageal cancer who underwent a thoracotomy between 2010 and 2020 with pre- and postoperative CTs (<1 and/or >6 months). Disease-free patients were invited for questionnaires on pain and quality of life. RESULTS: Of a total of 366 patients, thoracotomy-related rib fractures were seen in 144 (39%) and thoracic transverse process fractures in 4 (2%) patients. Patients with thoracic fractures more often developed complications (89% vs. 74%, p = 0.002), especially pneumonia (51% vs. 39%, p = 0.032). Questionnaires were completed by 77 after a median of 41 (P25 -P75 28-91) months. Long-term pain was frequently (63%) reported but was not associated with thoracic fractures (p = 0.637), and neither were quality of life scores. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic fractures are prevalent in patients following a thoracotomy for esophageal cancer. These thoracic fractures were associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications, especially pneumonia, but an association with long-term pain or reduced quality of life was not confirmed.

Validity of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator as a tool to predict postoperative outcomes in subacute orthopedic trauma diagnoses.

Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to validate the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator (SCR) to predict 30-day postoperative outcomes in patients with one of the following subacute orthopedic trauma diagnoses; multiple rib fractures, pelvic ring/acetabular fracture, or unilateral femoral fracture. Methods: Data of patients with these diagnoses treated between January 1, 2015 and September 19, 2020 were extracted from the patients' medical files. Diagnostic performance, discrimination, calibration, and accuracy of the ACS NSQIP SRC to predict specific outcomes developing within 30 days after surgery was determined. Results: The total cohort of the three diagnoses consisted of 435 patients. ACS NSQIP SRC underestimated the risk for serious complications, especially in patients with multiple rib fractures (8.3% predicted vs 17.2% observed) or pelvic ring/acetabular fracture (6.1% vs 19.8%). Underestimation was more pronounced for the composite outcome 'any complication'. Sensitivity ranged from 16.7% to 100% and specificity from 41.1% to 97.1%. Specificity exceeded sensitivity for pelvic ring/acetabular and femoral fractures. Discrimination was good for predicting death (femoral fracture), fair for readmission (femoral fracture), serious complication (multiple rib fractures), and any complication (multiple rib fractures), but poor in all other outcomes and diagnoses. Calibration and accuracy were adequate for all three diagnoses (p-value for Hosmer-Lemeshow test >0.05 and Brier scores <0.25). Conclusion: Performance of the ACS NSQIP SRC in the studied cohort was variable for all three diagnoses. Although it underestimated the risk of most outcomes, calibration and accuracy seemed generally adequate. For most outcomes, adequate diagnostic performance and discrimination could not be confirmed.

Extramedullary versus intramedullary fixation of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures (AO type 31-A2): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to compare extramedullary fixation and intramedullary fixation for AO type 31-A2 trochanteric fractures in the elderly, with regard to functional outcomes, complications, surgical outcomes, and costs. METHODS: Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. Results are presented as weighted risk ratio (RR) or weighted mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (2039 patients) and 13 observational studies (22,123 patients) were included. Statistically superior results in favor of intramedullary fixation were found for Harris Hip Score (MD 4.09, 95% CI 0.91-7.26, p = 0.04), Parker mobility score (MD - 0.67 95% CI - 1.2 to - 0.17, p = 0.009), lower extremity measure (MD - 4.07 95% CI - 7.4 to - 0.8, p = 0.02), time to full weight bearing (MD 1.14 weeks CI 0.92-1.35, p < 0.001), superficial infection (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.18-3.58, p = 0.01), nonunion (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.03-13.10, p = 0.05), fixation failure (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.16-4.44, p = 0.02), leg shortening (MD 2.23 mm, 95% CI 0.81-3.65, p = 0.002), time to radiological bone healing (MD 2.19 months, 95% CI 0.56-3.83, p = 0.009), surgery duration (MD 11.63 min, 95% CI 2.63-20.62, p = 0.01), operative blood loss (MD 134.5 mL, 95% CI 51-218, p = 0.002), and tip-apex distance > 25 mm (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10-2.74, p = 0.02). No comparable cost/costs-effectiveness data were available. CONCLUSION: Current literature shows that several functional outcomes, complications, and surgical outcomes were statistically in favor of intramedullary fixation when compared with extramedullary fixation of AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures. However, as several of the differences found appear not to be clinically relevant and for many outcomes data remains sparse or heterogeneous, complete superiority of IM fixation for AO type 31-A2 fractures remains to be confirmed in a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis.

Rib fractures and other injuries after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for non-traumatic cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to ascertain the prevalence of rib fractures and other injuries resulting from CPR and to compare manual with mechanically assisted CPR. An additional aim was to summarize the literature on surgical treatment for rib fractures following CPR. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline Ovid, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. REVIEW METHODS: The databases were searched to identify studies reporting on CPR-related injuries in patients who underwent chest compressions for a non-traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest. Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare the prevalence of CPR-related injuries in manual versus mechanically assisted chest compressions. Studies reporting on surgery for CPR-related rib fractures were also reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies reporting CPR-related injuries were included encompassing a total of 16,629 patients. Any CPR-related injury was documented in 60% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 49-71) patients. Rib fractures emerged as the most common injury, with a pooled prevalence of 55% (95% CI 48-62). Mechanically assisted CPR, when compared to manual CPR, was associated with a higher risk ratio for CPR-related injuries of 1.36 (95% CI 1.17-1.59). Eight studies provided information on surgical stabilization of CPR-related rib fractures. The primary indication for surgery was the inability to wean from mechanical ventilation in the presence of multiple rib fractures. CONCLUSION: Rib fractures and other injuries frequently occur in patients who undergo CPR after a non-traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest, especially when mechanical CPR is administered. Surgical stabilization of CPR-related rib fractures remains relatively uncommon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Opportunities and barriers for prehospital emergency medical services research in the Netherlands; results of a mixed-methods consensus study.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) can only be achieved by high-quality research and critical appraisal of current practices. This study examines current opportunities and barriers in EMS research in the Netherlands. METHODS: This mixed-methods consensus study consisted of three phases. The first phase consisted of semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders. Thematic analysis of qualitative data derived from these interviews was used to identify main themes, which were subsequently discussed in several online focus groups in the second phase. Output from these discussions was used to shape statements for an online Delphi consensus study among relevant stakeholders in EMS research. Consensus was met if 80% of respondents agreed or disagreed on a particular statement. RESULTS: Forty-nine stakeholders participated in the study; qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews and focus group discussions identified four main themes: (1) data registration and data sharing, (2) laws and regulations, (3) financial aspects and funding, and (4) organization and culture. Qualitative data from the first two phases of the study were used to construct 33 statements for an online Delphi study. Consensus was reached on 21 (64%) statements. Eleven (52%) of these statements pertained to the storage and use of EMS patient data. CONCLUSION: Barriers for prehospital EMS research in the Netherlands include issues regarding the use of patient data, privacy and legislation, funding and research culture in EMS organizations. Opportunities to increase scientific productivity in EMS research include the development of a national strategy for EMS data and the incorporation of EMS topics in research agendas of national medical professional associations.

An initiative to assess and improve the resources and patient care processes used among Chest Wall Injury Society collaborative centers study (CWIS-CC2).

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, the acute management of rib fractures has changed significantly. In 2021, the Chest Wall injury Society (CWIS) began recognizing centers that epitomize their mission as CWIS Collaborative Centers. The primary aim of this study was to determine the resources, surgical expertise, access to care, and institutional support that are present among centers. METHODS: A survey was performed including all CWIS Collaborative Centers evaluating the resources available at their hospital for the treatment of patients with chest wall injury. Data about each chest wall injury center care process, availability of resources, institutional support, research support, and educational offerings were recorded. RESULTS: Data were collected from 20 trauma centers resulting in an 80% response rate. These trauma centers were made up of 5 international and 15 US-based trauma centers. Eighty percent (16 of 20) have dedicated care team members for the evaluation and management of rib fractures. Twenty-five percent (5 of 20) have a dedicated rib fracture service with a separate call schedule. Staffing for chest wall injury clinics consists of a multidisciplinary team: with attending surgeons in all clinics, 80% (8 of 10) with advanced practice providers and 70% (7 of 10) with care coordinators. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have dedicated rib fracture research support, and 35% (7 of 20) have surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF)-related grants. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have marketing support, and 30% (8 of 20) have a web page support to bring awareness to their center. At these trauma centers, a median of 4 (1-9) surgeons perform SSRFs. In the majority of trauma centers, the trauma surgeons perform SSRF. CONCLUSION: Considerable similarities and differences exist within these CWIS collaborative centers. These differences in resources are hypothesis generating in determining the optimal chest wall injury center. These findings may generate several patient care and team process questions to optimize patient care, patient experience, provider satisfaction, research productivity, education, and outreach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

Activities of daily living in lower limb amputees with a bone-anchored prosthesis: a retrospective case series with 24 months' follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little is known about the activities of daily living (ADL) of patients with a bone-anchored prosthesis (BAP). We aimed to objectively measure ADL without and with BAP during standard care of follow-up. Our secondary aim was to measure mobility and walking ability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 18-99 years who underwent surgery for transfemoral or transtibial BAP between September 11, 2017, and February 11, 2021, were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective case series of patients with socket prosthesis. ADL was measured with a continuous recording activity monitor (hours [h]) before surgery, and at 6, 12, and 24 months with BAP. Mobility and walking ability were assessed by the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) (seconds [s]) and 6 Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (meters [m]), respectively. RESULTS: 48 of the 57 eligible patients provided informed consent and were included. Their age was 59 (1st quartile to 3rd quartile 51-63) years. Total daily activity before BAP was 1.6 h (0.82-2.1) and increased to 2.1 h (1.4-2.5) at 6, 2.0 h (1.5-2.7) at 12, and 2.7 h (2.0-3.3) at 24 months with BAP. Daily walking increased from 1.3 h (0.79-1.9) before BAP to 1.8 h (1.6-2.3) at 6, to 1.7 h (1.2-2.4) at 12, and 2.0 h (1.6-2.6) at 24 months. Median TUG decreased from 12 s (9.1-14) before BAP to 8.9 s (7.7-10) at 24 months. Mean 6MWT increased from 272 m (SD 92) before BAP to 348 m (SD 68) at 24 months. CONCLUSION: Objective measurements on ADL positively changed in patients with BAP. This effect was also seen in mobility and walking ability at 24 months.

Incidence of surgical rib fixation at chest wall injury society collaborative centers and a guide for expected number of cases (CWIS-CC1).

PURPOSE: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) improves outcomes in certain patient populations. The Chest Wall Injury Society (CWIS) began a new initiative to recognize centers who epitomize their mission as CWIS Collaborative Centers (CWIS-CC). We sought to describe incidence and epidemiology of SSRF at our institutions. METHODS: A retrospective registry evaluation of all patients (age > 15 years) treated at international trauma centers from 1/1/20 to 7/30/2021 was performed. Variables included: age, gender, mechanism of injury, injury severity score, abbreviated injury severity score (AIS), emergency department disposition, length of stay, presence of rib/sternal fractures, and surgical stabilization of rib/sternal fractures. Classification and regression tree analysis (CART) was used for analysis. RESULTS: Data were collected from 9 centers, 26,084 patient encounters. Rib fractures were present in 24% (n = 6294). Overall, 2% of all patients underwent SSRF and 8% of patients with rib fractures underwent SSRF. CART analysis of SSRF by AIS-Chest demonstrated a difference in management by age group. AIS-Chest 3 had an SSRF rate of 3.7, 7.3, and 12.9% based on the age ranges (16-19; 80-110), (20-49; 70-79), and (50-69), respectively (p = 0.003). AIS-Chest > 3 demonstrated an SSRF rate of 9.6, 23.3, and 39.3% for age ranges (16-39; 90-99), (40-49; 80-89), and (50-79), respectively (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Anticipated rate of SSRF can be calculated based on number of rib fractures, AIS-Chest, and age. The disproportionate rate of SSRF in patients age 50-69 with AIS-Chest 3 and age 50-79 with AIS-Chest > 3 should be further investigated, as lower frequency of SSRF in the other age ranges may lead to care inequalities.

Surgical management of bifocal femoral fractures: a systematic review and pooled analysis of treatment with a single implant versus double implants.

INTRODUCTION: Fractures of the proximal femur accompanied by a fracture of the femoral shaft are relatively rare, with a reported prevalence between 1 and 12%. Multiple surgical options are available, consisting of treatment with a single implant or with double implants. Controversy exists about the optimal management. A systematic review and pooled analysis were performed to assess the most reliable treatment for bifocal femoral fractures of the femur. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on July 15, 2022. Selected studies were screened on title and abstract by two researchers independently, and full texts were read by both authors. Emphasis was put on adverse events such as postoperative infection, healing complications, malalignment, and functional outcome using either a single implant or double implants. RESULTS: For the proximal femoral fractures, no significant difference could be confirmed for avascular necrosis of the femoral neck (5.1% for single implant and 3.8% for double implants), nonunion (6.4% for single implant and 7.8% for double implants), or varus malalignment (6.6% for single implant and 10.9% for double implants). This study also suggests that the number of implants is irrelevant for complications of the femoral shaft regarding the rates of postoperative infection and healing complications. Pooled rates of bone healing complications were 1.6-2.7-fold higher when patients were treated with a single implant, but statistical significance could not be confirmed. For hardware failure, revision surgery, leg length discrepancy, and functional outcome, no difference between the two groups was found either. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled proportions of all postoperative complications had overlapping confidence intervals; thus, no inference about a statistically significant difference on the number of implants used for treating ipsilateral fractures of the femur can be made. Both treatment groups showed a similar functional outcome at the last moment of follow-up, with more than 75% of the patients reporting a good outcome.

Extramedullary versus intramedullary fixation of stable trochanteric femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared extramedullary fixation and intramedullary fixation for stable two-part trochanteric femoral fractures (AO type 31-A1) with regards to functional outcomes, complications, and surgical outcomes. METHODS: Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. Results were presented as weighted risk ratio (RR) or weighted mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Five RCTs (397 patients) and 14 observational studies (21,396 patients) were included. No significant differences in functional outcomes, complications, or surgical outcomes were found between extramedullary and intramedullary fixation devices, except for a difference in duration of surgery (MD 14.1 min, CI 5.76-22.33, p < 0.001) and intra-operative blood loss (MD 92.30 mL, CI 13.49-171.12, p = 0.02), favoring intramedullary fixation. CONCLUSION: Current literature shows no meaningful differences in complications, surgical, or functional outcomes between extramedullary and intramedullary fixation of stable two-part trochanteric femoral fractures. Both treatment options result in good outcomes. This study implicates that, costs should be taken into account when considering implants or comparing fixation methods in future research.

Diagnosis of fracture-related infection in patients without clinical confirmatory criteria: an international retrospective cohort study.

Background: fracture-related infection (FRI) remains a serious complication in orthopedic trauma. To standardize daily clinical practice, a consensus definition was established, based on confirmatory and suggestive criteria. In the presence of clinical confirmatory criteria, the diagnosis of an FRI is evident, and treatment can be started. However, if these criteria are absent, the decision to surgically collect deep tissue cultures can only be based on suggestive criteria. The primary study aim was to characterize the subpopulation of FRI patients presenting without clinical confirmatory criteria (fistula, sinus, wound breakdown, purulent wound drainage or presence of pus during surgery). The secondary aims were to describe the prevalence of the diagnostic criteria for FRI and present the microbiological characteristics, both for the entire FRI population. Methods: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed, reporting the demographic, clinical and microbiological characteristics of 609 patients (with 613 fractures) who were treated for FRI based on the recommendations of a multidisciplinary team. Patients were divided in three groups, including the total population and two subgroups of patients presenting with or without clinical confirmatory criteria. Results: clinical and microbiological confirmatory criteria were present in 77 % and 87 % of the included fractures, respectively. Of patients, 23 % presented without clinical confirmatory criteria, and they mostly displayed one (31 %) or two (23 %) suggestive clinical criteria (redness, swelling, warmth, pain, fever, new-onset joint effusion, persisting/increasing/new-onset wound drainage). The prevalence of any suggestive clinical, radiological or laboratory criteria in this subgroup was 85 %, 55 % and 97 %, respectively. Most infections were monomicrobial (64 %) and caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Conclusion: clinical confirmatory criteria were absent in 23 % of the FRIs. In these cases, the decision to operatively collect deep tissue cultures was based on clinical, radiological and laboratory suggestive criteria. The combined use of these criteria should guide physicians in the management pathway of FRI. Further research is needed to provide guidelines on the decision to proceed with surgery when only these suggestive criteria are present.

Functional and Clinical Outcomes After Plate Osteosynthesis Versus Intramedullary Nailing of a Humeral Shaft Fracture: The Results of the HUMMER Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Plate osteosynthesis (referred to throughout as plating) and intramedullary nailing (referred to throughout as nailing) are the most common operative strategies for humeral shaft fractures. However, it is undecided which treatment is more effective. This study aimed to compare functional and clinical outcomes of these treatment strategies. We hypothesized that plating would result in an earlier recovery of shoulder function and fewer complications. METHODS: From October 23, 2012, to October 3, 2018, adults with a humeral shaft fracture, OTA/AO type 12A or 12B, were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Patients were treated with plating or nailing. Outcome measures included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Constant-Murley score, ranges of motion of the shoulder and elbow, radiographic healing, and complications until 1 year. Repeated-measure analysis was done with correction for age, sex, and fracture type. RESULTS: Of the 245 included patients, 76 were treated with plating and 169 were treated with nailing. Patients in the plating group were younger, with a median age of 43 years compared with 57 years for the nailing group (p < 0.001). The mean DASH score after plating improved faster over time, but did not differ significantly from the score after nailing at 12 months (11.7 points [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.6 to 15.7 points]) for plating and 11.2 points [95% CI, 8.3 to 14.0 points] for nailing). The Constant-Murley score and shoulder abduction, flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation displayed a significant treatment effect (p treatment ≤ 0.001), in favor of plating. The plating group had 2 implant-related complications, whereas the nailing group had 24, including 13 nail protrusions and 8 screw protrusions. Plating resulted in more postoperative temporary radial nerve palsy (8 patients [10.5%] compared with 1 patient [0.6%]; p < 0.001) and a trend toward fewer nonunions (3 patients [5.7%] compared with 16 patients [11.9%]; p = 0.285) than nailing. CONCLUSIONS: Plating of a humeral shaft fracture in adults results in faster recovery, especially of shoulder function. Plating was associated with more temporary nerve palsies, but fewer implant-related complications and surgical reinterventions, than nailing. Despite heterogeneity in implants and surgical approach, plating seems to be the preferred treatment option for these fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Humeral shaft fracture: systematic review of non-operative and operative treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Humeral shaft fractures can be treated non-operatively or operatively. The optimal management is subject to debate. The aim was to compare non-operative and operative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture in terms of fracture healing, complications, and functional outcome. METHODS: Databases of Embase, Medline ALL, Web-of-Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were systematically searched for publications reporting clinical and functional outcomes of humeral shaft fractures after non-operative treatment with a functional brace or operative treatment by intramedullary nailing (IMN; antegrade or retrograde) or plate osteosynthesis (open plating or minimally invasive). A pooled analysis of the results was performed using MedCalc. RESULTS: A total of 173 studies, describing 11,868 patients, were included. The fracture healing rate for the non-operative group was 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84-92%), 94% (95% CI 92-95%) for the IMN group and 96% (95% CI 95-97%) for the plating group. The rate of secondary radial nerve palsies was 1% in patients treated non-operatively, 3% in the IMN, and 6% in the plating group. Intraoperative complications and implant failures occurred more frequently in the IMN group than in the plating group. The DASH score was the lowest (7/100; 95% CI 1-13) in the minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis group. The Constant-Murley and UCLA shoulder score were the highest [93/100 (95% CI 92-95) and 33/35 (95% CI 32-33), respectively] in the plating group. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that even though all treatment modalities result in satisfactory outcomes, operative treatment is associated with the most favorable results. Disregarding secondary radial nerve palsy, specifically plate osteosynthesis seems to result in the highest fracture healing rates, least complications, and best functional outcomes compared with the other treatment modalities.

Rib Fixation for Multiple Rib Fractures: Healthcare Professionals Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Clinical Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is associated with improved respiratory symptoms and shorter intensive care admission in patients with flail chest. For multiple rib fractures, the benefit of SSRF remains a topic of debate. This study investigated barriers and facilitators of healthcare professionals to SSRF as treatment for multiple traumatic rib fractures. METHODS: Dutch healthcare professionals were asked to complete an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators of SSRF. If ≥ 20% of participants responded negatively, the item was considered a barrier, and if ≥ 80% responded positively, the item was considered a facilitator. RESULTS: Sixty-one healthcare professionals participated; 32 surgeons, 19 non-surgical physicians, and 10 residents. The median experience was 10 years (P25-P75 4-12). Sixteen barriers and two facilitators for SSRF in multiple rib fractures were identified. Barriers included lack of knowledge, experience, evidence on (cost-)effectiveness, and the implication of more operations and higher medical costs. Facilitators were the assumption that SSRF alleviates respiratory problems and the feeling that surgeons are supported by colleagues for SSRF. Non-surgeons and residents reported more and several different barriers than surgeons (surgeons: 14; non-surgical physicians: 20; residents: 21; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For adequate implementation of SSRF in patients with multiple rib fractures, implementation strategies should address the identified barriers. Especially, improved clinical experience and scientific knowledge of healthcare professionals, and high-level evidence on the (cost-) effectiveness of SSRF potentially increase its use and acceptance.

Burn injury characteristics, referral pattern, treatment (costs), and outcome in burn patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized Burn Centre (BURN-Pro).

PURPOSE: Data on the epidemiology, treatment, and outcome of burn patients treated at non-burn centre hospitals are not available. The primary aim was to compare the burn characteristics of patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized burn centre. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, cohort study enrolled patients with burns admitted to a hospital without a burn centre and patients with < 10% total body surface area (TBSA) burned admitted to the burn centre. Primary outcome measure was the burn-related injury characteristics. Secondary outcome measures were adherence to the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria, treatment (costs), quality of life, and scar quality. RESULTS: During the 2-year study period, 48 patients were admitted to a non-burn centre and 148 patients to the burn centre. In the non-burn centre group, age [44 (P25-P75 26-61) versus 30 (P25-P75 8-52) years; P = 0.007] and Injury Severity Score [2 (P25-P75 1-4) versus 1 (P25-P75 1-1); P < 0.001] were higher. In the burn centre group, the TBSA burned was significantly higher [4% (P25-P75 2-6) versus 2% (P25-P75 1-4); P = 0.001], and more surgical procedures were performed (in 54 versus 7 patients; P = 0.004). At 12 months, > 85% of the non-burn centre group and > 75% of the burn centre group reported no problems in quality of life. Scar quality score was < 1.5 in both groups, with significantly poorer scores in the burn centre group (P ≤ 0.007). CONCLUSION: Both groups differed in patient, burn, and treatment characteristics. At 12 months, quality of life and scar quality were good in both groups. Significantly poorer scar quality scores were found in the burn centre group. This might be related to their larger burns and more frequent surgery. The organization of burn care in the Netherlands seems to work adequately. Patients are treated locally when possible and are transferred when necessary.

Evaluating associations between level of trauma care and outcomes of patients with specific severe injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trauma networks have multiple designated levels of trauma care. This classification parallels concentration of major trauma care, creating innovations and improving outcome measures. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess associations of level of trauma care with patient outcomes for populations with specific severe injuries. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to April 19, 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42022327576). Studies comparing fatal, nonfatal clinical, or functional outcomes across different levels of trauma care for trauma populations with specific severe injuries or injured body region (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) were included. Two independent reviewers included studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Unadjusted and adjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis comparing Level I and Level II trauma centers. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (1,100,888 patients) were included, of which 25 studies (n = 443,095) used for meta-analysis, suggesting a survival benefit for the severely injured admitted to a Level I trauma center compared with a Level II trauma center (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.25). Adjusted subgroup analysis on in-hospital mortality was done for patients with traumatic brain injuries (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50) and hemodynamically unstable patients (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98-1.22). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay resulted in an unadjusted mean difference of -1.63 (95% CI, -2.89 to -0.36) and -0.21 (95% CI, -1.04 to 0.61), respectively, discharged home resulted in an unadjusted OR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09). CONCLUSION: Severely injured patients admitted to a Level I trauma center have a survival benefit. Nonfatal outcomes were indicative for a longer stay, more intensive care, and more frequently posthospital recovery trajectories after being admitted to top levels of trauma care. Trauma networks with designated levels of trauma care are beneficial to the multidisciplinary character of trauma care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level III.