The Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) Identifies Radiographic Nonunion of Femoral Neck Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) is a previously validated outcome instrument designed to improve intra- and interobserver reliability when describing the radiographic healing of femoral neck fractures. The ability to identify fractures that have not healed is important for defining nonunion in clinical trials and predicting patients who will likely require additional surgery to promote fracture healing. We sought to investigate the utility of the RUSH score to define femoral neck fracture nonunion. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What RUSH score threshold yields at least 98% specificity to diagnose nonunion at 6 months postinjury? (2) Using the threshold identified, are patients below this threshold at greater risk of reoperation for nonunion and for other indications? METHODS: A representative sample of 250 out of a cohort of 725 patients with adequate 6-month hip radiographs was analyzed from a multinational elderly hip fracture trial (FAITH). All patients had a femoral neck fracture and were treated with either multiple cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw. Two reviewers independently determined the RUSH score based on the 6-month postinjury radiographs and interrater reliability was assessed with the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). There was substantial reliability between the reviewers assigning the RUSH scores (ICC, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.85). The RUSH score is a checklist-based system that quantifies four measures of healing: cortical bridging, cortical fracture disappearance, trabecular consolidation, and trabecular fracture disappearance.. Fracture healing was determined by two independent methods: (1) concurrently by the treating surgeon using both clinical and radiographic assessments as per routine clinical care; and (2) retrospectively by a Central Adjudication Committee using complete obliteration of the fracture line on radiographs alone. Receiver operating characteristic tables were used to define a RUSH threshold score that was > 98% specific for fracture nonunion. RESULTS: A threshold score of < 18 was associated with a 100% specificity (95% CI, 97%-100%) and a positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI, 73%-100%) for radiographic nonunion. In contrast, using the fracture healing assessments of the treating surgeons failed to identify a useful discriminatory nonunion threshold and the highest positive predictive value was 43%. With respect to complications, patients with RUSH scores below 18 had greater risk of undergoing reoperation for nonunion (reoperation when < 18: six of 13 [46%]; reoperation when ≥ 18: 11 of 237 [54%]; relative risk [RR], 9.9 [95% CI, 4.4-22.7]; p < 0.001) and for all indications (reoperation when < 18: eight of 13 [62%]; reoperation when ≥ 18: 54 of 237 [38%]; RR, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.7-4.4]; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-month RUSH score is a reliable method for assessing radiographic healing. Our results highlight the discordance between radiographic determinations and clinician assessments of fracture healing and stress the need for clinical data to be incorporated in research studies evaluating fracture healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Comparing medical cannabis use in 5 US states: a retrospective database study.

BACKGROUND: US states have been adopting their own medical cannabis laws since 1996. There is substantial variability in the medical cannabis programs between states, and these differences have not been thoroughly investigated in the literature. The objective of the study was to compare medical cannabis patient characteristics across five states to identify differences potentially caused by differing policies surrounding condition eligibility. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses following a retrospective study of a registry database with data from 33 medical cannabis evaluation clinics in the US, owned and operated by CB2 Insights. This study narrowed the dataset to include patients from five states with the largest samples: Massachusetts (n = 27,892), Colorado (n = 16,434), Maine (n = 4591), Connecticut (n = 2643), and Maryland (n = 2403) to conduct an in-depth study of the characteristics of patients accessing medical cannabis in these states, including analysis of variance to compare average ages and number of conditions and chi-squared tests to compare proportions of patient characteristics between states. RESULTS: Average ages varied between the states, with the youngest average in Connecticut (42.2) and the oldest in Massachusetts (47.0). Males represented approximately 60% of the patients with data on gender in each state. The majority of patients in each state had cannabis experience prior to seeking medical certification. Primary medical conditions varied for each state, with chronic pain, anxiety, and back and neck problems topping the list in varying orders for Massachusetts, Maine, and Maryland. Colorado had 78.7% of patients report chronic pain as their primary condition, and 70.4% of patients in Connecticut reported post-traumatic stress disorder as their primary medical condition. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the significant impact that policy has on patients' access to medical cannabis in Massachusetts, Colorado, Maine, Connecticut, and Maryland utilizing real-world data. It highlights how qualifications differ between the five states and brings into question the routes through which patients in states with stricter regulations surrounding eligible conditions choose to seek treatment with cannabis. These patients may turn to alternative treatments, or to the illicit or recreational cannabis markets, where permitted.

Medical cannabis use in the United States: a retrospective database study.

INTRODUCTION: Growing interest in the medicinal properties of cannabis has led to an increase in its use to treat medical conditions, and the establishment of state-specific medical cannabis programs. Despite medical cannabis being legal in 33 states and the District of Colombia, there remains a paucity of data characterizing the patients accessing medical cannabis programs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a registry with data from 33 medical cannabis evaluation clinics in the United States, owned and operated by CB2 Insights. Data were collected primarily by face-to-face interviews for patients seeking medical cannabis certification between November 18, 2018 and March 18, 2020. Patients were removed from the analysis if they did not have a valid date of birth, were less than 18, or did not have a primary medical condition reported; a total of 61,379 patients were included in the analysis. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics expressed as a mean (standard deviation (SD)) or median (interquartile range (IQR)) as appropriate for continuous variables, and number (percent) for categorical variables. Statistical tests performed across groups included t-tests, chi-squared tests and regression. RESULTS: The average age of patients was 45.5, 54.8% were male and the majority were Caucasian (87.5%). Female patients were significantly older than males (47.0 compared to 44.6). Most patients reported cannabis experience prior to seeking medical certification (66.9%). The top three mutually exclusive primary medical conditions reported were unspecified chronic pain (38.8%), anxiety (13.5%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (8.4%). The average number of comorbid conditions reported was 2.7, of which anxiety was the most common (28.3%). Females reported significantly more comorbid conditions than males (3.1 compared to 2.3). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study highlighted the range and number of conditions for which patients in the US seek medical cannabis. Rigorous clinical trials investigating the use of medical cannabis to treat pain conditions, anxiety, insomnia, depression and PTSD would benefit a large number of patients, many of whom use medical cannabis to treat multiple conditions.

Effectiveness of Iodophor vs Chlorhexidine Solutions for Surgical Site Infections and Unplanned Reoperations for Patients Who Underwent Fracture Repair: The PREP-IT Master Protocol.

Importance: The risk of developing a surgical site infection after extremity fracture repair is nearly 5 times greater than in most elective orthopedic surgical procedures. For all surgical procedures, it is standard practice to prepare the operative site with an antiseptic solution; however, there is limited evidence to guide the choice of solution used for orthopedic fracture repair. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs chlorhexidine solutions to reduce surgical site infections and unplanned fracture-related reoperations for patients who underwent fracture repair. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PREP-IT (Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Pre-operative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma) master protocol will be followed to conduct 2 multicenter pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trials, Aqueous-PREP (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Aqueous Antiseptic Skin Solution in Open Fractures) and PREPARE (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Alcohol Skin Solutions in Fractured Extremities). The Aqueous-PREP trial will compare 4% aqueous chlorhexidine vs 10% povidone-iodine for patients with open extremity fractures. The PREPARE trial will compare 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol vs 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol for patients with open extremity fractures and patients with closed lower extremity or pelvic fractures. Both trials will share key aspects of study design and trial infrastructure. The studies will follow a pragmatic cluster randomized crossover design with alternating treatment periods of approximately 2 months. The primary outcome will be surgical site infection and the secondary outcome will be unplanned fracture-related reoperations within 12 months. The Aqueous-PREP trial will enroll a minimum of 1540 patients with open extremity fractures from at least 12 hospitals; PREPARE will enroll a minimum of 1540 patients with open extremity fractures and 6280 patients with closed lower extremity and pelvic fractures from at least 18 hospitals. The primary analyses will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle and account for potential between-cluster and between-period variability. The patient-centered design, implementation, and dissemination of results are guided by a multidisciplinary team that includes 3 patients and other relevant stakeholders. Discussion: The PREP-IT master protocol increases efficiency through shared trial infrastructure and study design components. Because prophylactic skin antisepsis is used prior to all surgical procedures and the application, cost, and availability of all study solutions are similar, the results of the PREP-IT trials are poised to inform clinical guidelines and bring about an immediate change in clinical practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03385304 and NCT03523962.

Large variations in the practice patterns of surgical antiseptic preparation solutions in patients with open and closed extremity fractures: a cross-sectional survey.

Background: Surgically-managed fractures, particularly open fractures, are associated with high rates of surgical site infections (SSIs). To reduce the risk of an SSI, orthopaedic surgeons routinely clean open fracture wounds in the emergency department (ED) and then apply a bandage to the open wound. Prior to the surgical incision, it is standard practice to prepare the fracture region with an antiseptic skin solution as an additional SSI prevention strategy. Multiple antiseptic solutions are available. Objectives: To explore the variation in practice patterns among orthopaedic surgeons regarding antiseptic solution use in the ED and antiseptic preparatory techniques for fracture surgery. Methods: We developed a 27-item survey and surveyed members of several orthopaedic associations. Results: Two hundred and-ten surveys were completed. 71.0% of respondents irrigate the open wound and skin in the ED, primarily with saline alone (59.7%) or iodine-based solutions (32.9%). 90.5% of responders indicated that they dress the open wound in the ED, with 41.0% applying a saline-soaked bandage and 33.7% applying an iodine-soaked dressing (33.7%). In their surgical preparation of open fractures, 41.0% of respondents used an iodine-based solution, 26.7% used a chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-based solution, and 31.4% used a combination of the two. In closed fractures, 43.8% of respondents used a CHG-based solution, 28.1% used an iodine-based solution, and 27.1% used a combination. Despite theoretical concerns about the use of alcohol in open wounds, 51.4% used alcohol-based solutions or alcohol alone during skin preparation of open fractures. Conclusions: A lack of consensus exists regarding use of antiseptic surgical preparation solutions for fractures. High-quality clinical research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different surgical antiseptic preparation solutions on patient outcomes in fracture populations.

Vitamin D Use and Health Outcomes After Surgery for Hip Fracture.

Daily administration of vitamin D is important for maintaining bone homeostasis. The orthopedic community has shown increased interest in vitamin D supplementation and patient outcomes after fracture. The current study used data from a large hip fracture trial to determine the proportion of patients who consistently used vitamin D after hip fracture surgery and to determine whether supplementation was associated with improved health-related quality of life and reduced reoperation rates. The FAITH study is a multicenter trial of elderly patients with femoral neck fracture treated with internal fixation. The current study asked a subset of patients included in the FAITH study about vitamin D supplementation and categorized them as consistent users, inconsistent users, or nonusers. This study also evaluated whether supplementation was associated with improved quality of life and reduced reoperation rates. The final analysis included 573 patients (mean age, 74.1 years; female, 66.3%; nondis-placed fractures, 72.4%). A total of 18.7% of participants reported no use of vitamin D, 35.6% reported inconsistent use, and 45.7% reported consistent use. Adjusted analysis found that consistent supplementation was associated with a 2.42 increase of the Short Form-12 physical component score 12 months postoperatively (P=.033). However, supplementation was not associated with reduced reoperation rates (P=.386). Despite guidelines recommending vitamin D supplementation, a low proportion of elderly patients with hip fracture use vitamin D consistently, suggesting a need for additional strategies to promote compliance. This study found that the use of vitamin D was associated with a statistically significant but not clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life after hip fracture. Further research is needed to confirm these findings. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(5):e868-e875.].

A scoping review of intimate partner violence assistance programmes within health care settings.

Background: The lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) for women presenting to health care settings is estimated to be 38-59%. With the goal of providing help to victims of abuse, numerous IPV assistance programmes have been developed and evaluated across multiple health care settings. Objective: Our scoping review provides an overview of this literature to identify key areas for potential evidence-based recommendations and to focus research priorities. Methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and psycINFO. We used broad eligibility criteria to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of IPV assistance programmes delivered within health care settings. We completed all screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We used descriptive statistics to summarize all data. Results: Forty-three studies met all eligibility criteria and were included in our scoping review. Nine categories of assistance programmes were identified: counselling/advocacy, safety assessment/planning, referral, providing IPV resources, home visitation, case management, videos, provider cueing, and system changes. Characteristics of programmes amongst studies frequently reporting positive results included those in which one type of active assistance was used (77.8% of studies reported positive results), a counsellor, community worker, or case manager provided the intervention (83.3% of studies reported positive results), and programmes that were delivered over more than five sessions (100.0% of studies reported positive results). Conclusions: IPV assistance programmes are heterogeneous with regards to the types of assistance they include and how they are delivered and evaluated. This heterogeneity creates challenges in identifying which IPV assistance programmes, and which aspects of these programmes, are effective. However, it appears that many different types of IPV assistance programmes can have positive impacts on women.