Assessment of cervical spine CT scans by emergency physicians: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study in a non-clinical setting.

OBJECTIVES: To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of assessing injuries on cervical spine computed tomography (CT) scans by trained emergency physicians and radiologists, both in a non-clinical setting. METHODS: In this comparative diagnostic accuracy study, 411 cervical spine CT scans, of which 120 contained injuries (fractures and/or dislocations), were divided into 8 subsets. Eight emergency physicians received focused training and assessed 1 subset each before and after training. Four radiologists assessed 2 subsets each. Diagnostic accuracy between both groups was compared. The reference standard used was a multiverified data set, assessed by radiologists, neurosurgeons, and emergency physicians. The neurosurgeons also classified whether an "injury in need of stabilizing therapy" (IST) was present. RESULTS: Posttraining, the emergency physicians demonstrated increased sensitivity and specificity for identifying cervical spine injuries compared to pretraining: sensitivity 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80% to 93%) versus 80% (95% CI 72% to 87%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85% to 93%) versus 86% (95% CI 81% to 89%). When comparing the trained emergency physicians to the group of radiologists, no difference in sensitivity was found, 88% (95% CI 80% to 83%); however, the radiologists showed a significantly higher specificity (P < 0.01): 99% (95% CI 96% to 100%). In the 12% (15 scans) with missed injuries, emergency physicians missed more ISTs than radiologists, 6 versus 4 scans; however, this difference was not significant (P = 0.45). CONCLUSION: After focused training and in a non-clinical setting, no significant difference was found between emergency physicians and radiologists in ruling out cervical spine injuries; however, the radiologists achieved a significantly higher specificity.

Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. DISCUSSION: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284.

The Amsterdam Wrist Rules: how much money can they save?

PURPOSE: To allow physicians to be more selective in their request for a radiograph of the wrist and to potentially reduce costs, the Amsterdam Wrist Rules (AWR) have been developed, externally validated, and recently also implemented. The aim of this study was to conduct an incremental cost analysis and budget impact analysis of the implementation of the AWR at the emergency department (ED) in the Netherlands. METHODS: A cost-minimisation analysis to determine the expected cost savings for implementation of the Amsterdam Wrist Rules. The incremental difference in costs before and after implementation of the AWR was based on the reduction in costs for radiographs, the cost savings due to reduction of ED consultation times and the costs of a re-evaluation appointment by a physician. RESULTS: In the Netherlands, implementation of the AWR could potentially result in 6% cost savings per patient with a wrist injury. In addition, implementation of the AWR resulted in €203,510 cost savings annually nationwide. In the sensitivity analysis, an increase in physician compliance to 100% substantially increased the potential total amount of annual cost savings to €610,248, which is 6% of total costs before implementation. Variation in time spent at the ED, a decrease and increase in costs and patients presenting annually at the ED did not change the cost savings substantially. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the AWR has been shown to reduce direct and indirect costs and can, therefore, result in considerable savings of healthcare consumption and expenditure.

Volar Plate Fixation in Adults with a Displaced Extra-Articular Distal Radial Fracture Is Cost-Effective.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, a health economic evaluation of volar plate fixation compared with plaster immobilization in patients with a displaced extra-articular distal radial fracture has not been previously conducted. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed. Ninety patients were randomly assigned to volar plate fixation or plaster immobilization. The use of resources per patient was documented prospectively for up to 12 months after randomization and included direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect non-medical costs due to the distal radial fracture and the received treatment. RESULTS: The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 12 months were higher in patients treated with volar plate fixation (mean QALY difference, 0.16 [bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.07 to 0.27]). (The 95% CIs throughout are bias-corrected and accelerated.) In addition, the mean total costs per patient were lower in patients treated with volar plate fixation (mean difference, -$299 [95% CI, -$1,880 to $1,024]). The difference in costs per QALY was -$1,838 (95% CI, -$12,604 to $9,787), in favor of volar plate fixation. In a subgroup analysis of patients who had paid employment, the difference in costs per QALY favored volar plate fixation by -$7,459 (95% CI, -$23,919 to $3,233). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with a displaced extra-articular distal radial fracture, volar plate fixation is a cost-effective intervention, especially in patients who had paid employment. Besides its better functional results, volar plate fixation is less expensive and provides a better quality of life than plaster immobilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Early mobilization versus plaster immobilization of simple elbow dislocations: a cost analysis of the FuncSiE multicenter randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim was to assess and compare the total costs (direct health care costs and indirect costs due to loss of production) after early mobilization versus plaster immobilization in patients with a simple elbow dislocation. It was hypothesized that early mobilization would not lead to higher direct and indirect costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used data of a multicenter randomized clinical trial (FuncSiE trial). From August 25, 2009 until September 18, 2012, 100 adult patients with a simple elbow dislocation were recruited and randomized to early mobilization (immediate motion exercises; n = 48) or 3 weeks plaster immobilization (n = 52). Patients completed questionnaires on health-related quality of life [EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form-36 (SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS)], health care use, and work absence. Follow-up was 1 year. Primary outcome were the total costs at 1 year. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in EQ-5D, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS between the two groups. Mean total costs per patient were €3624 in the early mobilization group versus €7072 in the plaster group (p = 0.094). Shorter work absenteeism in the early mobilization group (10 versus 18 days; p = 0.027) did not lead to significantly lower costs for loss of productivity (€1719 in the early mobilization group versus €4589; p = 0.120). CONCLUSION: From a clinical and a socio-economic point of view, early mobilization should be the treatment of choice for a simple elbow dislocation. Plaster immobilization has inferior results at almost double the cost.

Normative data for the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation questionnaire.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. INTRODUCTION: The Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaire is used to evaluate functional outcomes after treatment of wrist and hand injuries and nontraumatic conditions. Since patients commonly present with an injury, it is impossible to assess preinjury physical functioning. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the population-based normative data. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study was to determine the normative data for the PRWE questionnaire. Secondary, we aimed to determine if there were factors influencing these normative data. METHODS: Visitors and employees of 4 hospitals were requested to participate. Excluded were all participants who were scheduled for surgery or were in treatment or after treatment for an injury of the wrist or hand within 1 year after trauma. All participants were asked to complete the PRWE questionnaire and were asked for their age, sex, history of wrist or hand fracture or surgery, daily activities, and the type of employment. The socioeconomic status was determined based on the zip code. RESULTS: The median PRWE score was 0 (interquartile range: 0-8.5) and the mean score 7.7 (standard deviation: 15.0). Women had significantly higher scores compared to men, and younger individuals had significantly lower scores. Participants with a history of wrist or hand fracture or surgery, and participants who were unfit for work had significantly higher scores. Socioeconomic status was not correlated with the PRWE score. DISCUSSION: The purpose was to provide an representative overview of the normative data for the normal population. We did not want to present the data of an unnatural healthy population, which is not representative of the normal population. Deleting patients with chronic wrist or hand complaints, would have resulted in normative values which are not representable for the normal, average population. CONCLUSION: Low scores are observed for the PRWE in the general population. These scores are age and sex dependent and are higher in individuals with a history of wrist or hand fracture or surgery or who are unfit for work.

Injury profiles related to mortality in patients with a low Injury Severity Score: a case-mix issue?

BACKGROUND: Outcome prediction models are widely used to evaluate trauma care. External benchmarking provides individual institutions with a tool to compare survival with a reference dataset. However, these models do have limitations. In this study, the hypothesis was tested whether specific injuries are associated with increased mortality and whether differences in case-mix of these injuries influence outcome comparison. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in a Dutch trauma region. Injury profiles, based on injuries most frequently endured by unexpected death, were determined. The association between these injury profiles and mortality was studied in patients with a low Injury Severity Score by logistic regression. The standardized survival of our population (Ws statistic) was compared with North-American and British reference databases, with and without patients suffering from previously defined injury profiles. RESULTS: In total, 14,811 patients were included. Hip fractures, minor pelvic fractures, femur fractures, and minor thoracic injuries were significantly associated with mortality corrected for age, sex, and physiologic derangement in patients with a low injury severity. Odds ratios ranged from 2.42 to 2.92. The Ws statistic for comparison with North-American databases significantly improved after exclusion of patients with these injuries. The Ws statistic for comparison with a British reference database remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Hip fractures, minor pelvic fractures, femur fractures, and minor thoracic wall injuries are associated with increased mortality. Comparative outcome analysis of a population with a reference database that differs in case-mix with respect to these injuries should be interpreted cautiously. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level II.

Functional treatment versus plaster for simple elbow dislocations (FuncSiE): a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Elbow dislocations can be classified as simple or complex. Simple dislocations are characterized by the absence of fractures, while complex dislocations are associated with fractures. After reduction of a simple dislocation, treatment options include immobilization in a static plaster for different periods of time or so-called functional treatment. Functional treatment is characterized by early active motion within the limits of pain with or without the use of a sling or hinged brace. Theoretically, functional treatment should prevent stiffness without introducing increased joint instability. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial is to compare early functional treatment versus plaster immobilization following simple dislocations of the elbow. METHODS/DESIGN: The design of the study will be a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 100 patients who have sustained a simple elbow dislocation. After reduction of the dislocation, patients are randomized between a pressure bandage for 5-7 days and early functional treatment or a plaster in 90 degrees flexion, neutral position for pro-supination for a period of three weeks. In the functional group, treatment is started with early active motion within the limits of pain. Function, pain, and radiographic recovery will be evaluated at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. The secondary outcome measures are the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, Oxford elbow score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow joint at both sides, rate of secondary interventions and complication rates in both groups (secondary dislocation, instability, relaxation), health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), radiographic appearance of the elbow joint (degenerative changes and heterotopic ossifications), costs, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a functional treatment for the management of simple elbow dislocations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR2025).