Social Determinants of Health and Patients With Traumatic Injuries: Is There a Relationship Between Social Health and Orthopaedic Trauma?

BACKGROUND: Although economic stability, social context, and healthcare access are well-known social determinants of health associated with more challenging recovery after traumatic injury, little is known about how these factors differ by mechanism of injury. Our team sought to use the results of social determinants of health screenings to better understand the population that engaged with psychosocial support services after traumatic musculoskeletal injury and fill a gap in our understanding of patient-reported social health needs. QUESTION/PURPOSE: What is the relationship between social determinants of health and traumatic musculoskeletal injury? METHODS: Trauma recovery services is a psychosocial support program at our institution that offers patients and their family members resources such as professional coaching, peer mentorship, post-traumatic stress disorder screening and treatment, educational resources, and more. This team engages with any patient admitted to, treated at, and released from our institution. Their primary engagement population is individuals with traumatic injury, although not exclusively. Between January 2019 and October 2021, the trauma recovery services team interacted with 6036 patients. Of those who engaged with this service, we considered only patients who experienced a traumatic musculoskeletal injury and had a completed social determinants of health screening tool. During the stated timeframe, 13% (814 of 6036) of patients engaged with trauma recovery services and had a complete social determinants of health screening tool. Of these, 53% (428 of 814) had no physical injury. A further 26% (99 of 386) were excluded because they did not have traumatic musculoskeletal injuries, leaving 4.8% (287) for analysis in this cross-sectional study. The study population included patients who interacted with trauma recovery services at our institution after a traumatic orthopaedic injury that occurred between January 2019 and October 2021. Social determinants of health risk screening questionnaires were self-administered prospectively using a screening tool developed by our institution based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services social determinants of health screening questions. Mechanisms of injury were separated into intentional (physical assault, sexual assault, gunshot wound, or stabbing) and unintentional (fall, motor vehicle collision, or motorcycle crash). During the study period, 287 adult patients interacted with trauma recovery services after a traumatic musculoskeletal injury and had complete social determinant of health screening; 123 injuries were unintentional and 164 were intentional. Patients were primarily women (55% [159 of 287]), single (73% [209 of 287]), and insured by Medicaid or Medicare (78% [225 of 287]). Mechanism category was determined after a thorough medical record review to verify the appropriate category. An initial exploratory univariate analysis was completed for the primary outcome variable using the Pearson chi-squared test for categorical variables and a two-tailed independent t-test for continuous variables. All demographic variables and social determinants of health with p < 0.20 in the univariate analysis were included in a multivariate binary regression analysis to determine independent associations with injury mechanism. All variables with p < 0.05 in the multivariate analysis were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: After controlling for potential demographic confounders, younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.96]; p < 0.001), Black race (compared with White race, OR 2.71 [95% CI 1.20 to 6.16]; p = 0.02), Hispanic ethnicity (compared with White race, OR 5.32 [95% CI 1.62 to 17.47]; p = 0.006), and at-risk status for food insecurity (OR 4.27 [95% CI 1.18 to 15.39]; p = 0.03) were independently associated with intentional mechanisms of injury. CONCLUSION: There is a relationship between the mechanism of traumatic orthopaedic injury and social determinants of health risks. Specifically, data showed a correlation between food insecurity and intentional injury. Healthcare systems and providers should be cognizant of this, as well as the additional challenges patients may face in their recovery journey because of social needs. Screening for needs is only the first step in addressing patient's social health needs. Healthcare systems should also allocate resources for personnel and programs that support patients in meeting their social health needs. Future studies should evaluate the impact of such programming in responding to social needs that impact health outcomes and improve health disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic study.

Getting Them Back in the Game: When Can Athletes With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Safely Return to Sports? A Mixed-effects Study of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Association of North America.

BACKGROUND: Despite the relative frequency of posterior spinal fusion (PSF) and instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), there are limited guidelines for postoperative return to sports. Few studies explore factors influencing treating surgeons' recommendations. METHODS: A survey presenting several clinical vignettes of patients who had undergone PSF for AIS was distributed to 1496 Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) members. Of the 257 returned surveys, 170 met the inclusion criteria. Mixed-effects models were created to assess the effects of the surgeon and hypothetical patient characteristics on return to jogging, noncontact, contact, and collision sports. RESULTS: Estimated marginal mean time to return to sporting activities increased for more physically demanding sports [jogging: 4.1 mo, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8-4.3; noncontact: 4.6 mo, 95% CI: 4.3-4.9; contact: 6.8 mo, 95% CI: 6.4-7.1; collision: 9.8 mo, 95% CI: 9.2-10.4]. Hypothetical patient characteristics (sex, age, obesity, skeletal maturity, levels fused, and fusions ending in thoracic versus lumbar spine) were not associated with changes in return to sport recommendations for jogging, noncontact, contact, or collision activities. Surgeon volume, experience, fellowship type, and practice setting all affected return to all activities (P<0.05). Surgeons with prior complications from return to sport delayed return to collision activities (9.4 mo, 95% CI: 8.4-10.3) versus surgeons without complications (7.2 mo, 95% CI: 5.7-8.7, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons currently allow earlier return to high-intensity sports after PSF for AIS compared with previous studies. Protocol trends vary based on physician-related factors such as years in practice, case volume, fellowship training, practice type, and prior experience with complications. Patient-related factors were not found to impact return to sport protocols. This survey provides a portrait of current practice trends and serves as a foundation for future investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V-survey study.

Correlation between Femoral Neck Version, Sagittal Femoral Bowing Angle and Sagittal Offset of the Femoral Head from the Distal Femur Axis in an Osteological Collection.

Aim: Radiographic analysis of lower limb alignment is crucial for the planning and evaluation of deformity correction. Assessment in the sagittal plane is often overlooked compared with the coronal plane for a variety of reasons. We aimed to investigate the relationship between the femoral head in the sagittal plane and femoral neck version in the axial plane, and how sagittal femoral bowing angle (sFBA) may contribute. Materials and methods: Twenty-five each of high (1-2 standard deviations above mean), normal (2.5° below to 2.5° above the mean), and low (1-2 standard deviations below the mean) version femurs were randomly selected from an osteological collection database, photographed and measured for sFBA and sagittal offset of femoral head from the distal femur axis. Lines were drawn within the proximal and distal quartiles of the shaft to create sFBA. The offset of the distal quartile line and the femoral head was also measured. High intra- and inter-observer correlations were established. The relationship between parameters was assessed using the Pearson coefficient (r). Results: Sagittal offset of the femoral head from the distal femur axis was found to be highly correlated with sFBA (r = 0.78), and only mildly with femoral neck version (r = 0.52). Sagittal femoral bowing angle and femoral neck version share no relationship (r = 0.05). Conclusions: Neither the sFBA nor sagittal femoral head offset is strongly associated with femoral neck version. Clinical significance: Our data reinforce the need for long leg lateral films to include the femoral head in sagittal deformity analysis, as imaging limited to the knee will not account for the effect of bowing on femoral head position. How to cite this article: Ho D, Liu RW, Mcclure PK. Correlation between Femoral Neck Version, Sagittal Femoral Bowing Angle and Sagittal Offset of the Femoral Head from the Distal Femur Axis in an Osteological Collection. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(1):12-15.