Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture). METHODS: In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications. RESULTS: A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

How Are Age, Gender, and Country Differences Associated With PROMIS Physical Function, Upper Extremity, and Pain Interference Scores?

BACKGROUND: The interpretation of patient-reported outcomes requires appropriate comparison data. Currently, no patient-specific reference data exist for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), Upper Extremity (UE), and Pain Interference (PI) scales for individuals 50 years and older. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Can all PROMIS PF, UE, and PI items be used for valid cross-country comparisons in these domains among the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany? (2) How are age, gender, and country related to PROMIS PF, PROMIS UE, and PROMIS PI scores? (3) What is the relationship of age, gender, and country across individuals with PROMIS PF, PROMIS UE, and PROMIS PI scores ranging from very low to very high? METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews to collect custom PROMIS PF (22 items), UE (eight items), and PI (eight items) short forms, as well as sociodemographic data (age, gender, work status, and education level), with participants randomly selected from the general population older than 50 years in the United States (n = 900), United Kingdom (n = 905), and Germany (n = 921). We focused on these individuals because of their higher prevalence of surgeries and lower physical functioning. Although response rates varied across countries (14% for the United Kingdom, 22% for Germany, and 12% for the United States), we used existing normative data to ensure demographic alignment with the overall populations of these countries. This helped mitigate potential nonresponder bias and enhance the representativeness and validity of our findings. We investigated differential item functioning to determine whether all items can be used for valid crosscultural comparisons. To answer our second research question, we compared age groups, gender, and countries using median regressions. Using imputation of plausible values and quantile regression, we modeled age-, gender-, and country-specific distributions of PROMIS scores to obtain patient-specific reference values and answer our third research question. RESULTS: All items from the PROMIS PF, UE, and PI measures were valid for across-country comparisons. We found clinically meaningful associations of age, gender, and country with PROMIS PF, UE, and PI scores. With age, PROMIS PF scores decreased (age ß Median = -0.35 [95% CI -0.40 to -0.31]), and PROMIS UE scores followed a similar trend (age ß Median = -0.38 [95% CI -0.45 to -0.32]). This means that a 10-year increase in age corresponded to a decline in approximately 3.5 points for the PROMIS PF score-a value that is approximately the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Concurrently, we observed a modest increase in PROMIS PI scores with age, reaching half the MCID after 20 years. Women in all countries scored higher than men on the PROMIS PI and 1 MCID lower on the PROMIS PF and UE. Additionally, there were higher T-scores for the United States than for the United Kingdom across all domains. The difference in scores ranged from 1.21 points for the PROMIS PF to a more pronounced 3.83 points for the PROMIS UE. Participants from the United States exhibited up to half an MCID lower T-scores than their German counterparts for the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI. In individuals with high levels of physical function, with each 10-year increase in age, there could be a decrease of up to 4 points in PROMIS PF scores. Across all levels of upper extremity function, women reported lower PROMIS UE scores than men by an average of 5 points. CONCLUSION: Our study provides age-, gender-, and country-specific reference values for PROMIS PF, UE, and PI scores, which can be used by clinicians, researchers, and healthcare policymakers to better interpret patient-reported outcomes and provide more personalized care. These findings are particularly relevant for those collecting patient-reported outcomes in their clinical routine and researchers conducting multinational studies. We provide an internet application ( www.common-metrics.org/PROMIS_PF_and_PI_Reference_scores.php ) for user-friendly accessibility in order to perform age, gender, and country conversions of PROMIS scores. Population reference values can also serve as comparators to data collected with other PROMIS short forms or computerized adaptive tests. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.

Epidemiology of pelvic and acetabular fractures in the USA from 2007 to 2014.

Incidence of pelvic and acetabular fracture is increasing in Europe. From 2007 to 2014 in the USA, this study found an age-adjusted incidence of 198 and 40 fractures/100,000/year, respectively, much higher than what has been described before. Incidence remained steady over that period and only a small increase in incidence of pelvic fracture in men was identified. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of pelvic ring and acetabular fractures in the USA over the period 2007-2014 and to examine trends over time. METHODS: Retrospective population-based observational study using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), a 20% stratified all-payer sample of US hospital-based emergency departments (EDs). All patients seen in the ED and diagnosed with pelvic/acetabular fracture from 2007 to 2014 were included. The primary outcome was age-adjusted incidence of pelvic and acetabular fractures per 100,000 persons/years. Secondary outcomes included incidence stratified by age and sex, patient- and hospital-related characteristics, and ED procedures. Tests for linear trends were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences by sex and age groups over time. RESULTS: The age-adjusted incidence of pelvic fracture was 198 fractures/100,000/year, 323 in women and 114 in men. The age-adjusted incidence of acetabular fracture was 40 fractures/100,000/year, 36 in women and 51 in men. A small increase in the age-adjusted incidence of pelvic fracture in men was the only significant trend observed during the study time (p = 0.03). Over that period, the mean age of patients at presentation increased, as well as their number of comorbidities and associated fragility fractures, and they were more often sent home or to nursing facilities. CONCLUSIONS: When considering all patients coming to the ED, not only those admitted to the hospital, adjusted incidence of pelvic and acetabular fracture is much higher than what has been described before. Contrarily to the global increase seen in other countries, incidence of pelvic and acetabular fractures dropped in the USA from 2007 to 2014 and only a small increase in age-adjusted incidence of pelvic fracture in men was identified.

Assessment of the added value of intravenous gadolinium for knee osteosarcoma resection planning in pediatric and young adult patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences on Preoperative imaging evaluation and surgical planning parameters for osteosarcoma (OS) of the knee in pediatric and young adult patients. METHODS: Thirty MRI scans of patients with OS about the knee were reviewed by five orthopedic oncologists. Key preoperative parameters (neurovascular bundle involvement, intra-articular tumor extension, extent of intramedullary extension) and surgical plans were evaluated based on non-contrast versus Gd contrast enhanced sequences. Assessment agreement, inter-rater agreement, and intrarater agreement between pre and postcontrast images were evaluated via Kappa statistics. RESULTS: Moderate agreement was seen between non and contrast-enhanced assessment of neurovascular involvement and intra-articular tumor extension. Intrarater reproducibility was substantial for neurovascular bundle involvement (precontrast Kappa: 0.63, postcontrast Kappa: 0.69). Intrarater reproducibility was also substantial for precontrast (Kappa: 0.70) and moderate for postcontrast (Kappa: 0.50) assessment of intra-articular tumor extension. Planned resection length and choice of surgical approach were similar between sequences. The addition of Gd-enhanced sequences improved the inter-rater agreement across collected parameters. CONCLUSIONS: While some findings suggest that contrast enhanced sequences may not significantly alter the assessment of key preoperative planning parameters by orthopedic oncologists, they may help reduce variability among providers with differing experience levels.

Using bookmarking methods with orthopedic clinicians and patients with fractures produces score interpretation labels for patient-reported outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) score ranges associated with descriptive labels (i.e., within normal limits, mild, moderate, severe) by using bookmarking methods with orthopedic clinicians and patients who have experienced a bone fracture. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We created vignettes comprised of six items and responses from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Function, Physical Function, and Pain Interference item banks reflecting different levels of severity. Two groups of patients with fractures (n = 11) and two groups of orthopedic clinicians (n = 16) reviewed the vignettes and assigned descriptive labels independently and then discussed as a group until reaching consensus via a videoconference platform. RESULTS: PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference thresholds (T = 50, 40, 25/30 and T = 50/55, 60, 65/70, respectively) for patients with bone fractures were consistent with the results from other patient populations. Upper Extremity thresholds were about 10 points (1 SD) more severe (T = 40, 30, 25/20) compared to the other measures. Patient and clinician perspectives were similar. CONCLUSION: Bookmarking methods generated meaningful score thresholds for PROMIS measures. These thresholds between severity categories varied by domain. Threshold values for severity represent important supplemental information to interpret PROMIS scores clinically.

Which Factors Are Considered by Patients When Considering Total Joint Arthroplasty? A Discrete-choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: TKA and THA are major surgical procedures, and they are associated with the potential for serious, even life-threatening complications. Patients must weigh the risks of these complications against the benefits of surgery. However, little is known about the relative importance patients place on the potential complications of surgery compared with any potential benefit the procedures may achieve. Furthermore, patient preferences may often be discordant with surgeon preferences regarding the treatment decision-making process. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) is a quantitative survey technique designed to elicit patient preferences by presenting patients with two or more hypothetical scenarios. Each scenario is composed of several attributes or factors, and the relative extent to which respondents prioritize these attributes can be quantified to assess preferences when making a decision, such as whether to pursue lower extremity arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this DCE, we asked: (1) Which patient-related factors (such as pain and functional level) and surgery-related factors (such as the risk of infection, revision, or death) are influential in patients' decisions about whether to undergo lower extremity arthroplasty? (2) Which of these factors do patients emphasize the most when making this decision? METHODS: A DCE was designed with the following attributes: pain; physical function; return to work; and infection risks, reoperation, implant failure leading to premature revision, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality. From October 2021 to March 2022, we recruited all new patients to two arthroplasty surgeons' clinics who were older than 18 years and scheduled for a consultation for knee- or hip-related complaints who had no previous history of a primary TKA or THA. A total of 56% (292 of 517) of new patients met the inclusion criteria and were approached with the opportunity to complete the DCE. Among the cohort, 51% (150 of 292) of patients completed the DCE. Patients were administered the DCE, which consisted of 10 hypothetical scenarios that had the patient decide between a surgical and nonsurgical outcome, each consisting of varying levels of eight attributes (such as infection, reoperation, and ability to return to work). A subsequent demographic questionnaire followed this assessment. To answer our first research question about the patient-related and surgery-related factors that most influence patients' decisions to undergo lower extremity arthroplasty, we used a conditional logit regression to control for potentially confounding attributes from within the DCE and determine which variables shifted a patient's determination to pursue surgery. To answer our second question, about which of these factors received the greatest priority by patients, we compared the relevant importance of each factor, as determined by each factor's beta coefficient, against each other influential factor. A larger absolute value of beta coefficient reflects a relatively higher degree of importance placed on a variable compared with other variables within our study. Of the respondents, 57% (85 of 150) were women, and the mean age at the time of participation was 64 ± 10 years. Most respondents (95% [143 of 150]) were White. Regarding surgery, 38% (57 of 150) were considering THA, 59% (88 of 150) were considering TKA, and 3% (5 of 150) were considering both. Among the cohort, 49% (74 of 150) of patients reported their average pain level as severe, or 7 to 10 on a scale from 0 to 10, and 47% (71 of 150) reported having 50% of full physical function. RESULTS: Variables that were influential to respondents when deciding on lower extremity total joint arthroplasty were improvement from severe pain to minimal pain (ß coefficient: -0.59 [95% CI -0.72 to -0.46]; p < 0.01), improvement in physical function level from 50% to 100% (ß: -0.80 [95% CI -0.9 to -0.7]; p < 0.01), ability to return to work versus inability to return (ß: -0.38 [95% CI -0.48 to -0.28]; p < 0.01), and the surgery-related factor of risk of infection (ß: -0.22 [95% CI -0.30 to -0.14]; p < 0.01). Improvement in physical function from 50% to 100% was the most important for patients making this decision because it had the largest absolute coefficient value of -0.80. To improve physical function from 50% to 100% and reduce pain from severe to minimal because of total joint arthroplasty, patients were willing to accept a hypothetical absolute (and not merely an incrementally increased) 37% and 27% risk of infection, respectively. When we stratified our analysis by respondents' preoperative pain levels, we identified that only patients with severe pain at the time of their appointment found the risk of infection influential in their decision-making process (ß: -0.27 [95% CI -0.37 to -0.17]; p = 0.01) and were willing to accept a 24% risk of infection to improve their physical functioning from 50% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that patients consider pain alleviation, physical function improvement, and infection risk to be the most important attributes when considering total joint arthroplasty. Patients with severe baseline pain demonstrated a willingness to take on a hypothetically high infection risk as a tradeoff for improved physical function or pain relief. Because patients seemed to prioritize postoperative physical function so highly in our study, it is especially important that surgeons customize their presentations about the likelihood an individual patient will achieve a substantial functional improvement as part of any office visit where arthroplasty is discussed. Future studies should focus on quantitatively assessing patients' understanding of surgical risks after a surgical consultation, especially in patients who may be the most risk tolerant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons should be aware that patients with the most limited physical function and the highest baseline pain levels are more willing to accept the more potentially life-threatening and devastating risks that accompany total joint arthroplasty, specifically infection. The degree to which patients seemed to undervalue the harms of infection (based on our knowledge and perception of those harms) suggests that surgeons need to take particular care in explaining the degree to which a prosthetic joint infection can harm or kill patients who develop one.

Are Detailed, Patient-level Social Determinant of Health Factors Associated With Physical Function and Mental Health at Presentation Among New Patients With Orthopaedic Conditions?

BACKGROUND: It is well documented that routinely collected patient sociodemographic characteristics (such as race and insurance type) and geography-based social determinants of health (SDoH) measures (for example, the Area Deprivation Index) are associated with health disparities, including symptom severity at presentation. However, the association of patient-level SDoH factors (such as housing status) on musculoskeletal health disparities is not as well documented. Such insight might help with the development of more-targeted interventions to help address health disparities in orthopaedic surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of patients presenting for new patient visits in an orthopaedic surgery clinic who were unemployed but seeking work reported transportation issues that could limit their ability to attend a medical appointment or acquire medications, reported trouble paying for medications, and/or had no current housing? (2) Accounting for traditional sociodemographic factors and patient-level SDoH measures, what factors are associated with poorer patient-reported outcome physical health scores at presentation? (3) Accounting for traditional sociodemographic factor patient-level SDoH measures, what factors are associated with poorer patient-reported outcome mental health scores at presentation? METHODS: New patient encounters at one Level 1 trauma center clinic visit from March 2018 to December 2020 were identified. Included patients had to meet two criteria: they had completed the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 at their new orthopaedic surgery clinic encounter as part of routine clinical care, and they had visited their primary care physician and completed a series of specific SDoH questions. The SDoH questionnaire was developed in our institution to improve data that drive interventions to address health disparities as part of our accountable care organization work. Over the study period, the SDoH questionnaire was only distributed at primary care provider visits. The SDoH questions focused on transportation, housing, employment, and ability to pay for medications. Because we do not have a way to determine how many patients had both primary care provider office visits and new orthopaedic surgery clinic visits over the study period, we were unable to determine how many patients could have been included; however, 9057 patients were evaluated in this cross-sectional study. The mean age was 61 ± 15 years, and most patients self-reported being of White race (83% [7561 of 9057]). Approximately half the patient sample had commercial insurance (46% [4167 of 9057]). To get a better sense of how this study cohort compared with the overall patient population seen at the participating center during the time in question, we reviewed all new patient clinic encounters (n = 135,223). The demographic information between the full patient sample and our study subgroup appeared similar. Using our study cohort, two multivariable linear regression models were created to determine which traditional metrics (for example, self-reported race or insurance type) and patient-specific SDoH factors (for example, lack of reliable transportation) were associated with worse physical and mental health symptoms (that is, lower PROMIS scores) at new patient encounters. The variance inflation factor was used to assess for multicollinearity. For all analyses, p values < 0.05 designated statistical significance. The concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was used to assess clinical importance. Regression coefficients represent the projected change in PROMIS physical or mental health symptom scores (that is, the dependent variable in our regression analyses) accounting for the other included variables. Thus, a regression coefficient for a given variable at or above a known MCID value suggests a clinical difference between those patients with and without the presence of that given characteristic. In this manuscript, regression coefficients at or above 4.2 (or at and below -4.2) for PROMIS Global Physical Health and at or above 5.1 (or at and below -5.1) for PROMIS Global Mental Health were considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Among the included patients, 8% (685 of 9057) were unemployed but seeking work, 4% (399 of 9057) reported transportation issues that could limit their ability to attend a medical appointment or acquire medications, 4% (328 of 9057) reported trouble paying for medications, and 2% (181 of 9057) had no current housing. Lack of reliable transportation to attend doctor visits or pick up medications (ß = -4.52 [95% CI -5.45 to -3.59]; p < 0.001), trouble paying for medications (ß = -4.55 [95% CI -5.55 to -3.54]; p < 0.001), Medicaid insurance (ß = -5.81 [95% CI -6.41 to -5.20]; p < 0.001), and workers compensation insurance (ß = -5.99 [95% CI -7.65 to -4.34]; p < 0.001) were associated with clinically worse function at presentation. Trouble paying for medications (ß = -6.01 [95% CI -7.10 to -4.92]; p < 0.001), Medicaid insurance (ß = -5.35 [95% CI -6.00 to -4.69]; p < 0.001), and workers compensation (ß = -6.07 [95% CI -7.86 to -4.28]; p < 0.001) were associated with clinically worse mental health at presentation. CONCLUSION: Although transportation issues and financial hardship were found to be associated with worse presenting physical function and mental health, Medicaid and workers compensation insurance remained associated with worse presenting physical function and mental health as well even after controlling for these more detailed, patient-level SDoH factors. Because of that, interventions to decrease health disparities should focus on not only sociodemographic variables (for example, insurance type) but also tangible patient-specific SDoH characteristics. For example, this may include giving patients taxi vouchers or ride-sharing credits to attend clinic visits for patients demonstrating such a need, initiating financial assistance programs for necessary medications, and/or identifying and connecting certain patient groups with social support services early on in the care cycle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

What Are the Functional and Surgical Outcomes of Tibial Turnup-plasty for Salvage in Patients With Chronic Lower Extremity Infection?

BACKGROUND: Tibial turnup-plasty is a rarely performed surgical option for large bone defects of the distal or entire femur and can serve as an alternative to hip disarticulation or high above-knee amputation. It entails pedicled transport of the ipsilateral tibia with or without the proximal hindfoot for use as a vascularized autograft. It is rotated 180° in the coronal or sagittal plane to the remaining proximal femur or pelvis, augmenting the functional length of the thigh. Prior reports consist of small case series with heterogeneous surgical techniques. Patient-reported outcome measures after the procedure have not been reported, and ambulatory status after the procedure is also unknown. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of patients underwent reoperation after tibial turnup-plasty? (2) What is the ambulatory status and what proportion of patients used a prosthesis after tibial turnup-plasty? (3) What are the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 mental and physical function scores after tibial turnup-plasty? METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 11 patients who underwent tibial turnup-plasty between 2003 and 2021 by a single orthopaedic oncology division in collaboration with a reconstructive plastic surgery team. Nine patients were men, with a median age of 55 years (range 34 to 75 years). All had chronic infections after arthroplasty or oncologic reconstructions, with a median number of 13 surgeries before turnup-plasty. All were considered to have no other surgical options other than hip disarticulation or high transfemoral amputation. All patients who were offered this possibility accepted it. Data of interest included patient demographics and comorbidities, surgical history that led to limb compromise, medical and surgical perioperative complications, date of prosthesis fitting, and functional capacity at the most recent follow-up interval based on ambulatory status and PROMIS Global-10 mental and physical function scores. The statistical analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: The median number of reoperations after turnup-plasty was one (range 0 to 11). Of the six patients who underwent at least one reoperation, indications for surgery included wound infection (four patients), nonunion of the osteosynthesis site (two), heterotopic ossification (one), tumor recurrence (one), and flap hypoperfusion treated with local tissue revision (one). One patient underwent conversion to external hemipelvectomy for tumor recurrence. Ten of the 11 patients were ambulatory at the final follow-up interval with standard above-knee amputation prostheses. Two ambulated unassisted, four used a single crutch or cane, and four used two crutches or a walker. Of the nine patients for whom scores were available, the median PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores were 48 (range 30 to 68) and 53 (range 41 to 68), both within the standard deviation of the population mean of 50. CONCLUSION: The tibial turnup-plasty is a complex surgical option for patients with large bone defects of the femur for whom there are no alternative surgeries capable of producing residual extremities with acceptable functional length. This should be viewed as a procedure of last resort to avoid a hip disarticulation or a high transfemoral amputation in patients who have typically undergone numerous prior operations. Although ambulation with a prosthesis within 1 year can be expected, almost all patients will require an assistive device to do so, and reoperations are frequent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Rib fractures in the elderly population: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple rib fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in elderly patients. There is growing interest in surgical stabilization in this subgroup of patients. This systematic review compares conservative treatment to surgical fixation in elderly patients (older than 60 years) with multiple rib fractures. The primary outcome is mortality. Secondary outcomes include hospital and intensive care length of stay (HLOS and ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV) and pneumonia rates. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for comparative studies reporting on conservative versus operative treatment for rib fractures in patients older than 60 years. Both observational studies and randomised clinical trials were considered. RESULTS: Five observational studies (n = 2583) were included. Mortality was lower in operatively treated patients compared to conservative treatment (4% vs. 8%). Pneumonia rate and DMV were similar (5/6% and 5.8/6.5 days) for either treatment modality. Overall ILOS and HLOS of stay were longer in operatively treated patients (6.5 ILOS and 12.7 HLOS vs. 2.7 ILOS and 6.5 ILOS). There were only minimal reports on perioperative complications. Notably, the median number of rib fractures (8.4 vs. 5) and the percentage of flail chest were higher in operatively treated patients (47% vs. 39%). CONCLUSION: It remains unknown to what extent conservative and operative treatment contribute individually to reducing morbidity and mortality in the elderly with multiple rib fractures. To date, the quality of evidence is rather low, thus well-performed comparative observational studies or randomised controlled trials considering all confounders are needed to determine whether operative treatment can improve a patient's outcome.

The Surgeon's Perceived Value of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): An Exploratory Qualitative Study of 5 Different Surgical Subspecialties.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the surgeon's perceived value of PROMs in 5 different surgical subspecialties. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PROMs are validated questionnaires that assess the symptoms, function, and quality of life from the patient's perspective. Despite the increasing support for use of PROMs in the literature, there is limited uptake amongst surgeons. Furthermore, there is insufficient understanding of the surgeons' perceived value of PROMs. The aim of this study is to understand how surgeons perceive value in PROMs. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to understand the perceived value of PROMs from the perspective of surgeons in various subspecialties. Per convenience sampling, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 surgeons from 5 subspecialties across 3 academic medical centers. The surgical subspecialties included bariatric surgery, breast oncologic surgery, orthopedic surgery, plastic and reconstructive surgery, and rhinology. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and evaluated with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Surgeons endorsed that PROMs can be used to enhance clinical management, counsel patients in the preoperative and postoperative settings, and elicit sensitive information from patients that otherwise may go undetected. Obstacles to PROMs use include failure to generate actionable data, implementation obstacles, and inappropriate use of PROMs as a performance metric, with concerns regarding inadequate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing an effective PROMs program requires an understanding of the surgeon's perspective of PROMs. Despite obstacles, different subspecialty surgeons find PROMs to be valuable in different settings, depending on the specialty and clinical context.

Association of preoperative frailty with postoperative delirium in elderly orthopedic trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Among elderly orthopedic trauma patients, the prevalence of delirium during hospitalization has been reported to be as high as 60%. Frail elderly patients have an increased risk of delirium after elective surgery; however, such an association remains underexplored among trauma patients. AIM: Our goal was to investigate whether preoperative frailty is associated with postoperative delirium (POD) in elderly orthopedic trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study. All patients were ≥ 65 years of age and were admitted to the hospital between 01/01/2017 and 08/31/2018 for surgical intervention of a significant extremity fracture. Frailty was assessed using the fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illness, and loss of weight questionnaire. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method. POD was defined as new-onset delirium that occurred within 24 h after surgery. To investigate whether frailty is associated with POD, we performed a multiple variable logistic regression, controlling for biologically relevant confounders. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-six patients comprised the analytic cohort. Incidence of POD was 14% (n = 80). Multiple variable regression analysis demonstrated that each unit increment in FRAIL score was associated with a 33% higher likelihood of POD (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.02-1.72, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that preoperative frailty increases the risk of POD in hospitalized, elderly, orthopedic trauma patients. Future studies are needed to determine whether perioperative interventions focused on improving frailty can reduce the risk of POD and improve outcomes in this rapidly growing cohort of patients.

Hip Fractures in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: Worsening Liver Function Is Associated with Increased Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis is associated with osteoporosis, imbalance leading to falls, and subsequent fragility fractures. Knowing the prognosis of patients with liver cirrhosis of varying severity at the time of hip fracture would help physicians determine the course of treatment in this complex patient popultaion. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there an association between liver cirrhosis of varying severity and mortality in patients with hip fractures? (2) Is there an association between liver cirrhosis of varying severity and the in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day postoperative complications of symptomatic thromboembolism and infections including wound complications, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections? METHODS: Between 2015 and 2019, we identified 128 patients with liver cirrhosis who were treated for hip fractures at one of two Level I trauma centers. Patients younger than 18 years, those with incomplete medical records, fractures other than hip fractures or periprosthetic hip fractures, noncirrhotic liver disease, status after liver transplantation, and metastatic cancer other than hepatocellular carcinoma were excluded. Based on these exclusions, 77% (99 of 128) of patients were eligible; loss to follow-up was 0% within 1 year and 4% (4 of 99) at 2 years. The median follow-up duration was 750 days (interquartile range 232 to 1000). Ninety-four patients were stratified based on Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score subgroup (MELD scores of 6-9 [MELD6-9], 10-19 [MELD10-19], and 20-40 [MELD20-40]), and 99 were stratified based on compensation or decompensation status, both measures for liver cirrhosis severity. MELD scores combine laboratory parameters related to liver disease and are used to predict cirrhosis-related mortality based on metabolic abnormalities. Decompensation, however, is the clinical finding of acute deterioration in liver function characterized by ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and variceal hemorrhage, associated with increased mortality. MELD analyses excluded 5% (5 of 99) of patients due to missing laboratory values. Median age at the time of hip fracture was 69 years (IQR 62 to 78), and 55% (54 of 99) of patients were female. The primary outcome of mortality was determined at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic thromboembolism and infections, defined as any documented surgical wound complications, pneumonia, or urinary tract infections requiring treatment. These were determined by chart review at three timepoints: in-hospital and within 30 days or 90 days after discharge. The primary outcome was assessed using a Cox proportional hazard analysis for the MELD score and compensation or decompensation classifications; secondary outcomes were analyzed using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Patients in the MELD20-40 group had higher 90-day (hazard ratio 3.95 [95% CI 1.39 to 12.46]; p = 0.01), 1-year (HR 4.12 [95% CI 1.52 to 11.21]; p < 0.001), and 2-year (HR 3.65 [95% CI 1.68 to 7.93]; p < 0.001) mortality than those in the MELD6-9 group. Patients with decompensation had higher in-hospital (9% versus 0%; p = 0.04), 90-day (HR 3.35 [95% CI 1.10 to 10.25]; p = 0.03), 1-year (HR 4.39 [95% CI 2.02 to 9.54]; p < 0.001), and 2-year (HR 3.80 [95% CI 2.02 to 7.15]; p < 0.001) mortality than did patients with compensated disease. All in-hospital deaths were related to liver failure and within 30 days of surgery. The 1-year mortality was 55% for MELD20-40 and 53% for patients with decompensated disease, compared with 16% for patients with MELD6-9 and 15% for patients with compensated disease. In both the MELD and (de)compensation analyses, in-hospital and postdischarge 30-day symptomatic thromboembolic and infectious complications were not different among the groups (all p > 0.05). Ninety-day symptomatic thromboembolism was higher in the MELD20-40 group compared with the other two MELD classifications (13% for MELD20-40 and 0% for both MELD6-9 and MELD10-19; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The mortality of patients with preexisting liver cirrhosis who sustain a hip fracture is high, and it is associated with the degree of cirrhosis and decline in liver function, especially in those with signs of decompensation, defined as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and variceal hemmorrhage. Patients with mild-to-moderate cirrhosis (MELD score < 20) and those with compensated disease may undergo routine fracture treatment based on their prognosis. Those with severe (MELD score > 20) or decompensated liver cirrhosis should receive multidisciplinary, individualized treatment, with consideration given to palliative and nonsurgical treatment given their high risk of death within 1 year after surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Does the SORG Orthopaedic Research Group Hip Fracture Delirium Algorithm Perform Well on an Independent Intercontinental Cohort of Patients With Hip Fractures Who Are 60 Years or Older?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium in patients aged 60 years or older with hip fractures adversely affects clinical and functional outcomes. The economic cost of delirium is estimated to be as high as USD 25,000 per patient, with a total budgetary impact between USD 6.6 to USD 82.4 billion annually in the United States alone. Forty percent of delirium episodes are preventable, and accurate risk stratification can decrease the incidence and improve clinical outcomes in patients. A previously developed clinical prediction model (the SORG Orthopaedic Research Group hip fracture delirium machine-learning algorithm) is highly accurate on internal validation (in 28,207 patients with hip fractures aged 60 years or older in a US cohort) in identifying at-risk patients, and it can facilitate the best use of preventive interventions; however, it has not been tested in an independent population. For an algorithm to be useful in real life, it must be valid externally, meaning that it must perform well in a patient cohort different from the cohort used to "train" it. With many promising machine-learning prediction models and many promising delirium models, only few have also been externally validated, and even fewer are international validation studies. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Does the SORG hip fracture delirium algorithm, initially trained on a database from the United States, perform well on external validation in patients aged 60 years or older in Australia and New Zealand? METHODS: We previously developed a model in 2021 for assessing risk of delirium in hip fracture patients using records of 28,207 patients obtained from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Variables included in the original model included age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, functional status (independent or partially or totally dependent for any activities of daily living), preoperative dementia, preoperative delirium, and preoperative need for a mobility aid. To assess whether this model could be applied elsewhere, we used records from an international hip fracture registry. Between June 2017 and December 2018, 6672 patients older than 60 years of age in Australia and New Zealand were treated surgically for a femoral neck, intertrochanteric hip, or subtrochanteric hip fracture and entered into the Australian & New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry. Patients were excluded if they had a pathological hip fracture or septic shock. Of all patients, 6% (402 of 6672) did not meet the inclusion criteria, leaving 94% (6270 of 6672) of patients available for inclusion in this retrospective analysis. Seventy-one percent (4249 of 5986) of patients were aged 80 years or older, after accounting for 5% (284 of 6270) of missing values; 68% (4292 of 6266) were female, after accounting for 0.06% (4 of 6270) of missing values, and 83% (4690 of 5661) of patients were classified as ASA III/IV, after accounting for 10% (609 of 6270) of missing values. Missing data were imputed using the missForest methodology. In total, 39% (2467 of 6270) of patients developed postoperative delirium. The performance of the SORG hip fracture delirium algorithm on the validation cohort was assessed by discrimination, calibration, Brier score, and a decision curve analysis. Discrimination, known as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (c-statistic), measures the model's ability to distinguish patients who achieved the outcomes from those who did not and ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 1.0 indicating the highest discrimination score and 0.50 the lowest. Calibration plots the predicted versus the observed probabilities, a perfect plot has an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. The Brier score calculates a composite of discrimination and calibration, with 0 indicating perfect prediction and 1 the poorest. RESULTS: The SORG hip fracture algorithm, when applied to an external patient cohort, distinguished between patients at low risk and patients at moderate to high risk of developing postoperative delirium. The SORG hip fracture algorithm performed with a c-statistic of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.76). The calibration plot showed high accuracy in the lower predicted probabilities (intercept -0.28, slope 0.52) and a Brier score of 0.22 (the null model Brier score was 0.24). The decision curve analysis showed that the model can be beneficial compared with no model or compared with characterizing all patients as at risk for developing delirium. CONCLUSION: Algorithms developed with machine learning are a potential tool for refining treatment of at-risk patients. If high-risk patients can be reliably identified, resources can be appropriately directed toward their care. Although the current iteration of SORG should not be relied on for patient care, it suggests potential utility in assessing risk. Further assessment in different populations, made easier by international collaborations and standardization of registries, would be useful in the development of universally valid prediction models. The model can be freely accessed at: https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/hipfxdelirium/ . LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Postoperative delirium mediates 180-day mortality in orthopaedic trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been associated with increased incidence of postoperative delirium and mortality. We hypothesised that postoperative delirium mediates a clinically significant (≥1%) percentage of the effect of frailty on mortality in older orthopaedic trauma patients. METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective observational study including 558 adults 65 yr and older, who presented with an extremity fracture requiring hospitalisation without initial ICU admission. We used causal statistical inference methods to estimate the relationships between frailty, postoperative delirium, and mortality. RESULTS: In the cohort, 180-day mortality rate was 6.5% (36/558). Frail and prefrail patients comprised 23% and 39%, respectively, of the study cohort. Frailty was associated with increased 180 day mortality from 1.4% to 12.2% (11% difference; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4-13.6), which translated statistically into an 88.7% (79.9-94.3%) direct effect and an 11.3% (5.7-20.1%) postoperative delirium mediated effect. Prefrailty was also associated with increased 180 day mortality from 1.4% to 4.4% (2.9% difference; 2.4-3.4), which was translated into a 92.5% (83.8-99.9%) direct effect and a 7.5% (0.1-16.2%) postoperative delirium mediated effect. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is associated with increased postoperative mortality, and delirium might mediate a clinically significant, but small percentage of this effect. Studies should assess whether, in patients with frailty, attempts to mitigate delirium might decrease postoperative mortality.

Can the Knee Outcome and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) Function Subscale Be Linked to the PROMIS Physical Function to Crosswalk Equivalent Scores?

BACKGROUND: An increased focus on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has led to a proliferation of these measures in orthopaedic surgery. Mandating a single PROM in clinical and research orthopaedics is not feasible given the breadth of data already collected with older measures and the emergence of psychometrically superior measures. Creating crosswalk tables for scores between measures allows providers to maintain control of measure choice. Furthermore, crosswalk tables permit providers to compare scores collected with older outcome measures with newly collected ones. Given the widespread use of the newer Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF) and the established Knee Outcome and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), it would be clinically useful to link these two measures. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Can the KOOS Function in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale be robustly linked to the PROMIS PF to create a crosswalk table of equivalent scores that accurately reflects a patient's reported physical function level on both scales? METHODS: We sought to establish a common standardized metric for collected responses to the PROMIS PF and the KOOS ADL to develop equations for converting a PROMIS PF score to a score for the KOOS-ADL subscale and vice versa. To do this, we performed a retrospective, observational study at two academic medical centers and two community hospitals in an urban and suburban healthcare system. Patients 18 years and older who underwent TKA were identified. Between January 2017 and July 2020, we treated 8165 patients with a TKA, 93% of whom had a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis. Of those, we considered patients who had completed a full KOOS and PROMIS PF 10a on the same date as potentially eligible. Twenty-one percent (1708 of 8165) of patients were excluded because no PROMs were collected at any point, and another 67% (5454 of 8165) were excluded because they completed only one of the required PROMs, leaving 12% (1003 of 8165) for analysis here. PROMs were collected each time they visited the health system before and after their TKAs. Physical function was measured by the PROMIS PF version 1.0 SF 10a and KOOS ADL scale. Analyses to accurately create a crosswalk of equivalent scores between the measures were performed using the equipercentile linking method with both unsmoothed and log linear smoothed score distributions. RESULTS: Crosswalks were created, and adequate validation results supported their validity; we also created tables to allow clinicians and clinician scientists to convert individual patients' scores easily. The mean difference between the observed PROMIS PF scores and the scores converted by the crosswalk from the KOOS-ADL scores was -0.08 ± 4.82. A sensitivity analysis was conducted, confirming the effectiveness of these crosswalks to link the scores of two measures from patients both before and after surgery. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS PF 10a can be robustly linked to the KOOS ADL measure. The developed crosswalk table can be used to convert PROMIS PF scores from KOOS ADL and vice versa. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The creation of a crosswalk table between the KOOS Function in ADL subscale and PROMIS PF allows clinicians and researchers to easily convert scores between the measures, thus permitting greater choice in PROM selection while preserving comparability between patient cohorts and PROM data collected from older outcome measures. Creating a crosswalk, or concordance table, between the two scales will facilitate this comparison, especially when pooling data for meta-analyses.

Patient-Reported Mental Health Score Influences Physical Function After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), patients often have lingering pain and dysfunction. Recent studies have raised concerns that preoperative mental health may negatively affect outcomes after TKA. The primary aim of this study investigates the relationship between patient-reported mental health and postoperative physical function following TKA. METHODS: A retrospective study of 1392 primary TKA patients was performed. Mental health and physical function scores were measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health, and PROMIS Physical Function 10a and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function (KOOS-PS) short forms. These assessments were completed preoperatively and up to 1-year postoperatively. Patients were stratified based on preoperative mental health scores into five distinct categories ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent." Locally estimated scatter plot smoothing curves (LOESS) were fit to the data examining physical function score trends over time. RESULTS: Patients with higher mental health scores before surgery demonstrated better preoperative and postoperative physical function scores. However, all patients experienced similar gains in physical function following surgery. Despite this early improvement, patients with the worst mental health scores experienced a sharp decline in physical function approximately a year after surgery and did not appear to recover. CONCLUSIONS: Poor mental health should not be a contraindication for performing TKA. For patients with the lowest mental health scores, physicians should account for the possibility that physical function scores may deteriorate a year after surgery. Tighter follow-up guidelines, more frequent physical therapy visits, or treatment for mental health issues may be considered to counter such deterioration.

Risk Factors for Neuropathic Pain Following Major Upper Extremity Amputation.

BACKGROUND: Active treatment (targeted muscle reinnervation [TMR] or regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces [RPNIs]) of the amputated nerve ends has gained momentum to mitigate neuropathic pain following amputation. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the predictors for the development of neuropathic pain after major upper extremity amputation. METHODS: Retrospectively, 142 adult patients who underwent 148 amputations of the upper extremity between 2000 and 2019 were identified through medical chart review. All upper extremity amputations proximal to the metacarpophalangeal joints were included. Patients with a follow-up of less than 6 months and those who underwent TMR or RPNI at the time of amputation were excluded. Neuropathic pain was defined as phantom limb pain or a symptomatic neuroma reported in the medical charts at 6 months postoperatively. Most common indications for amputation were oncology (n = 53, 37%) and trauma (n = 45, 32%), with transhumeral amputations (n = 44, 30%) and shoulder amputations (n = 37, 25%) being the most prevalent. RESULTS: Neuropathic pain occurred in 42% of patients, of which 48 (32%) had phantom limb pain, 8 (5.4%) had a symptomatic neuroma, and 6 (4.1%) had a combination of both. In multivariable analysis, traumatic amputations (odds ratio [OR]: 4.1, p = 0.015), transhumeral amputations (OR: 3.9, p = 0.024), and forequarter amputations (OR: 8.4, p = 0.003) were independently associated with the development of neuropathic pain. CONCLUSION: In patients with an upper extremity amputation proximal to the elbow or for trauma, there is an increased risk of developing neuropathic pain. In these patients, primary TMR/RPNI should be considered and this warrants a multidisciplinary approach involving general trauma surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons, plastic surgeons, and vascular surgeons.

Conservative vs. operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to compare conservative vs. operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures in terms of the nonunion rate, reintervention rate, permanent radial nerve palsy rate, and functional outcomes. Secondarily, effect estimates from observational studies were compared with estimates of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS: The PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched for both RCTs and observational studies comparing conservative with operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures. RESULTS: A total of 2 RCTs (150 patients) and 10 observational studies (1262 patients) were included. The pooled nonunion rate of all studies was higher in patients treated conservatively (15.3%) vs. operatively (6.4%) (risk difference, 8%; odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-4.5; I2 = 0%). The reintervention rate was also higher for conservative treatment (14.3%) than for operative treatment (8.9%) (risk difference, 6%; OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5; I2 = 30%). The higher reintervention rate was predominantly attributable to the higher nonunion rate in patients treated conservatively. The permanent radial nerve palsy rate was equal in both groups (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-1.9; I2 = 18%). There appeared to be no difference in mean time to union and mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores between the treatment groups. No difference was found between effect estimates form observational studies and RCTs. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows that satisfactory results can be achieved with both conservative and operative management; however, operative treatment reduces the risk of nonunion compared with conservative treatment, with comparable reintervention rates (for indications other than nonunion). Furthermore, operative treatment results in a similar permanent radial nerve palsy rate, despite its inherent additional surgery-related risks. No difference in mean time-to-union and short-term functional results was detected.

Open Versus Closed Operative Treatment for Tongue-Type Calcaneal Fractures: Case Series and Literature Review.

Because consensus on the optimal surgical treatment of tongue-type calcaneal fractures is lacking, this study aimed to compare outcomes and postoperative complications of open and closed surgical treatment of these fractures. For this cases series, all patients 18 years or older who underwent operative fixation of tongue-type calcaneal fractures at 2 level I trauma centers between 2004 and 2015 were considered eligible for participation. Data on explanatory and outcome variables were collected from medical records based on available follow-up. Additionally, a systematic literature review on surgical treatment of these fractures was conducted. Fifty-six patients (58 tongue-type fractures) were included. Open reduction internal fixation was performed in 33 fractures, and closed reduction internal (percutaneous) fixation was performed in 25. More wound problems and deep infections were observed with open treatment compared with the closed approach: 10 (30%) versus 3 (12%) and 4 (12%) versus 0 (0%) procedures, respectively. In contrast, revision and hardware removal predominated in patients with closed treatments: 4 (16%) versus 1 (3%) and 9 (36%) versus 8 (24%) procedures, respectively. The systematic literature review yielded 10 articles reporting on surgical treatment for tongue-type fractures, all showing relatively good outcomes and low complication rates with no definite advantage for either technique. Both open and closed techniques are suggested as accurate surgical treatment options for tongue-type calcaneal fractures. Surgical treatment should be individualized, considering both fracture and patient characteristics and the treating surgeon's expertise. We recommend attempting closed reduction internal fixation if deemed feasible, with conversion to an open procedure if satisfactory reduction or fixation is unobtainable.

Surgical treatment of Neer type II and type V lateral clavicular fractures: comparison of hook plate versus superior plate with lateral extension: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Different fixation methods are used for treatment of unstable lateral clavicle fractures (LCF). Definitive consensus and guidelines for the surgical fixation of LCF have not been established. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported functional outcome after open reduction and internal fixation with the clavicle hook plate (CHP) and the superior clavicle plate with lateral extension (SCPLE). METHODS: A dual-center retrospective cohort study was performed. All patients operatively treated for unstable Neer type II and type V LCF between 2011 and 2016, with the CHP (n = 23) or SCPLE (n = 53), were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the QuickDASH score. Secondary outcomes were the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, complications, and implant removal. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients (88%) were available for the final follow-up. There was a significant difference in bicortical lateral fragment size, 15 mm (± 4, range 6-21) in the CPH group compared to 20 mm (± 8, range 8-43) in the SCPLE group (p ≤ 0.001). There was no significant difference in median QuickDASH score (CHP; 0.00 [IQR 0.0-0.0], SCPLE; 0.00 [IQR 0.0-4.5]; p = 0.073) or other functional outcome scores (NRS at rest; p = 0.373, NRS during activity; p = 0.559). There was no significant difference in median QuickDASH score or other functional outcome scores between Neer type II and type V fractures. There was no significant difference in complication rate, CHP 11% and SCPLE 8% (relative risk 1.26; [95% CI 0.25-6.33; p = 0.777]). The implant removal rate was 100% in the CHP group compared to 42% in the SCPLE group (relative risk 2.40; [95% CI 1.72-3.35; p ≤ 0.001]). CONCLUSION: Both the CHP and SCPLE are effective fixation methods for the treatment of unstable LCF, resulting in excellent patient-reported functional outcome and similar complication rates. SCPLE fixation is an effective fixation method for the treatment of both Neer type II and type V LCF. The SCPLE has a lower implant removal rate. Therefore, if technically feasible, we recommend SCPLE fixation for the treatment of unstable LCF.