Assessment of micromotion at the bone-bone interface after coracoid and scapular-spine bone-block augmentation for the reconstruction of critical anterior glenoid bone loss-a biomechanical cadaver study.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid bone loss is among the most important risk factors for recurrent anterior shoulder instability, and a bony reconstruction is recommended in cases of critical bone loss (> 15%). The commonly used surgical techniques, including coracoid transfer, are associated with considerable complications. The aim of this study was to assess the motion at the glenoid-bone-block interface after coracoid and spina-scapula bone-block reconstruction of the anterior glenoid. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric shoulders were tested. A 20% bone defect of the anterior glenoid was created, and the specimens were randomly assigned for glenoid augmentation using a coracoid bone block (n = 6) or a scapular spine bone block (n = 6). The glenoid-bone interface was cyclically loaded for 5000 cycles with a force of 170 N. The micromotion was tracked using an optical measurement system (GOM ARMIS) and was evaluated with the GOM Correlate Pro software. RESULTS: The most dominant motion component was medial irreversible displacement for the spina-scapula (1.87 mm; SD: 1.11 mm) and coracoid bone blocks (0.91 mm; SD: 0.29 mm) (n.s.). The most medial irreversible displacement took place during the first nine cycles. The inferior reversible displacement was significantly greater for spina-scapula bone blocks (0.28 mm, SD: 0.16 mm) compared to coracoid bone blocks (0.06 mm, SD: 0.10 mm) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The medial irreversible displacement is the dominant motion component in a bone-block reconstruction after a critical bone loss of the anterior glenoid. The spina-scapula and coracoid bone blocks are comparable in terms of primary stability and extent of motion. Thus, spina-scapula bone blocks may serve as alternatives in bony glenoid reconstruction from a biomechanical point of view.

Assessment of Complication Risk in the Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis of 4019 Patients.

(1) Background: The treatment of proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) is debated controversially. Current clinical knowledge is mainly based on small single-center cohorts. The goal of this study was to evaluate the predictability of risk factors for complications after the treatment of a PHF in a large clinical cohort in a multicentric setting. (2) Methods: Clinical data of 4019 patients with PHFs were retrospectively collected from 9 participating hospitals. Risk factors for local complications of the affected shoulder were assessed using bi- and multivariate analyses. (3) Results: Fracture complexity with n = 3 or more fragments, cigarette smoking, age over 65 years, and female sex were identified as predictable individual risk factors for local complications after surgical therapy as well as the combination of female sex and smoking and the combination of age 65 years or older and ASA class 2 or higher. (4) Conclusion: Humeral head preserving reconstructive surgical therapy should critically be evaluated for patients with the risk factors abovementioned.

Health Care for Inpatients with a Proximal Humeral Fracture - an Analysis of Health Insurance Data. / Versorgungsrealität stationär behandelter Patienten mit proximaler Humerusfraktur ­ Eine Analyse auf Basis von GKV-Daten.

The proximal humeral fracture is one of the most common fractures in the elderly. While epidemiological factors have been well studied, the influence of a proximal humeral fracture on morbidity, mortality and associated costs has not yet been adequately analysed.On a basis of 4.1 million insurance holders of the German public health insurance (GKV), patients with (study population, SP) and without (comparison group, VG) a proximal humeral fracture (pHF) were compared with regard to comorbidity, rehospitalisation, mortality, drug and aid needs as well as number of physician contacts. Study period was between 2012 and 2016.6068 patients of the SP met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (age 69.4 ± 14.3 years; male : female = 28.2% : 71.8%). 4781 patients (78.8%) received surgical, 1287 patients (21.2%) conservative treatment of the pHF. Rehospitalisations and visits to the general practitioner occurred more frequently in the SP vs. VG (p < 0.01). Contacts with specialists after pHF varied according to specialty, as did newly occurring diseases. Typical specialities for preventive examinations were significantly less common (gynaecology p < 0.01, pathology p < 0.01, dermatology p < 0.01). According to pHF, the costs of SP for drugs (2490.76 ± 1395.51 € vs. 2167.86 ± 1314.43 €; p = 0.04), medical therapies (867.01 ± 238.67 € vs. 393.26 ± 217.55 €; p < 0.01) and aids (821.02 ± 415.73 € vs. 513.52 ± 368.76 €; p < 0.01) were significantly above the VG. The two-year survival after pHF is lower in the SP than in the VG (p < 0.01).The results show increased morbidity and mortality as well as medical costs after a proximal humeral fracture. Preventive examinations and treatments are rarer. In the future, care concepts for patients with proximal humeral fractures should not only be optimised with regard to functional scores and reduced complication rates, but also with regard to quality of life and preservation of general health.

Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers in Germany: Description, Economic Evaluation, and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers (CCCCs) have been established at several hospitals across Germany with the intention to assist local health care professionals in efficiently referring patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to regional hospitals and therefore to prevent the collapse of local health system structures. In addition, these centers coordinate interhospital transfers of patients with COVID-19 and provide or arrange specialized telemedical consultations. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the establishment and management of a CCCC at a German university hospital. METHODS: We performed economic analyses (cost, cost-effectiveness, use, and utility) according to the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) criteria. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review to identify publications on similar institutions worldwide. The 2 months with the highest local incidence of COVID-19 cases (December 2020 and January 2021) were considered. RESULTS: During this time, 17.3 requests per day were made to the CCCC regarding admission or transfer of patients with COVID-19. The majority of requests were made by emergency medical services (601/1068, 56.3%), patients with an average age of 71.8 (SD 17.2) years were involved, and for 737 of 1068 cases (69%), SARS-CoV-2 had already been detected by a positive polymerase chain reaction test. In 59.8% (639/1068) of the concerned patients, further treatment by a general practitioner or outpatient presentation in a hospital could be initiated after appropriate advice, 27.2% (291/1068) of patients were admitted to normal wards, and 12.9% (138/1068) were directly transmitted to an intensive care unit. The operating costs of the CCCC amounted to more than €52,000 (US $60,031) per month. Of the 334 patients with detected SARS-CoV-2 who were referred via EMS or outpatient physicians, 302 (90.4%) were triaged and announced in advance by the CCCC. No other published economic analysis of COVID-19 coordination or management institutions at hospitals could be found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high cost of the CCCC, we were able to show that it is a beneficial concept to both the providing hospital and the public health system. However, the most important benefits of the CCCC are that it prevents hospitals from being overrun by patients and that it avoids situations in which physicians must weigh one patient's life against another's.