Rehabilitation for ankle fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fracture is one of the most common lower limb fractures. Whilst immobilisation of the ankle can support and protect the fracture site during early healing, this also increases the risk of ankle weakness, stiffness, and residual pain. Rehabilitation aims to address the after-effects of this injury, to improve ankle function and quality of life. Approaches are wide-ranging and include strategies to improve ankle joint movement, muscle strength, or both. This is an update of a Cochrane review last published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of rehabilitation interventions following surgical or non-surgical management of ankle fractures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two clinical trials registers in May 2022, and conducted additional searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in March 2023. We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any rehabilitation intervention delivered to adults with ankle fracture. Interventions could have been given during or after the initial fracture management period (typically the first six weeks after injury), which may or may not have included surgical fixation. We excluded participants with multi-trauma, pathological fracture, or with established complications secondary to ankle fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for five outcomes: activity limitation (ankle function), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), participant satisfaction with treatment, pain, and adverse events (we focused on re-operation, defined as unplanned return to theatre). We report the findings up to six months after injury. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 studies (45 RCTs, 8 quasi-RCTs) with 4489 adults with ankle fracture. In most studies, orthopaedic management included surgical fixation but was non-surgical in five studies, and either surgical or non-surgical in six studies. Here, we summarise the findings for three common rehabilitation comparisons; these included the most data and were the most clinically relevant. Because of different intervention approaches, we sometimes included a study in more than one comparison. Data for other less common comparisons were also available but often included few participants and were imprecise. All studies were unavoidably at high risk of performance and detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of all evidence for this reason. We also downgraded for imprecision and when we noted inconsistencies between studies that precluded meta-analysis of data. Early (within 3 weeks of surgery) versus delayed weight-bearing (12 studies, 1403 participants) Early weight-bearing probably leads to better ankle function (mean difference (MD) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 5.78; 5 studies, 890 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this does not include a clinically meaningful difference. Early weight-bearing may offer little or no difference to HRQoL compared to delayed weight-bearing (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 5 studies, 739 participants; low-certainty evidence); when translated to the EQ-5D scale (a commonly-used HRQoL questionnaire), any small difference was not clinically important. We were unsure whether there were any differences in participant satisfaction or pain because these outcomes had very low-certainty evidence. For adverse events, there may be little or no difference in re-operation (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.68; 7 studies, 1007 participants; low-certainty evidence). Removable versus non-removable ankle support (25 studies, 2206 participants) Following surgery, using a removable ankle support may lead to better ankle function (MD 6.39, 95% CI 1.69 to 11.09; 6 studies, 677 participants; low-certainty evidence). This effect included both a clinically important and unimportant difference. There is probably an improvement in HRQoL with a removable ankle support, although this difference included both a clinically important and unimportant difference when translated to the EQ-5D scale (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50; 3 studies, 477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported participant satisfaction. We were unsure of the effects on pain because of very low-certainty evidence (1 study, 29 participants). There may be little or no difference in re-operations (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.71; 6 studies, 624 participants; low-certainty evidence). Following non-surgical management, there may be little or no difference between removable and non-removable ankle supports in ankle function (MD 1.08, 95% CI -3.18 to 5.34; 3 studies, 399 participants), and HRQoL (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.15; 3 studies, 397 participants); low-certainty evidence. No studies reported participant satisfaction. We were unsure of the effects on pain (2 studies, 167 participants), or re-operation because of very low-certainty evidence (1 study, 305 participants). Physical therapy interventions versus usual care or other physical therapy interventions (9 studies, 857 participants) Types of interventions included the use of active controlled motion, a spring-loaded ankle trainer, an antigravity treadmill, and variations of enhanced physiotherapy (e.g. additional stretching, joint mobilisation, neuromuscular exercises), delivered during or after the initial fracture management period. We were unable to pool data because of the differences in the design of interventions and their usual care comparators. Studies often included very few participants. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes in this comparison was very low, and therefore we were unsure of the effectiveness of these therapies. No studies in this comparison reported re-operation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Early weight-bearing may improve outcomes in the first six months after surgery for ankle fracture, but the difference is likely to be small and may not always be clinically important. A removable ankle support may also provide a better outcome, but again, the difference may not always be clinically important. It is likely that neither approach increases the re-operation risk. We assume that the findings for these comparisons are applicable to people with closed ankle fractures, and that satisfactory fracture stabilisation had been achieved with surgery. For people who have non-surgical treatment, there is no evidence that either a removable or non-removable ankle support may be superior. We were uncertain whether any physical therapy interventions were more effective than usual care or other physical therapy interventions. We encourage investigators of future studies on rehabilitation interventions for ankle fracture to use a core outcome set.

Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and socioeconomic costs of fractures are considerable. The length of time to healing is an important factor in determining a person's recovery after a fracture. Ultrasound may have a therapeutic role in reducing the time to union after fracture by stimulating osteoblasts and other bone-forming proteins. This is an update of a review previously published in February 2014.   OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of low-intensity ultrasound (LIPUS), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFUS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapies (ECSW) as part of the treatment of acute fractures in adults.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase (1980 to March 2022), Orthopaedic Proceedings, trial registers and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs including participants over 18 years of age with acute fractures (complete or stress fractures) treated with either LIPUS, HIFUS or ECSW versus a control or placebo-control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following critical outcomes: participant-reported quality of life, quantitative functional improvement, time to return to normal activities, time to fracture union, pain, delayed or non-union of fracture. We also collected data for treatment-related adverse events. We collected data in the short term (up to three months after surgery) and in the medium term (later than three months after surgery).   MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies, involving 1543 fractures in 1517 participants; two studies were quasi-RCTs. Twenty studies tested LIPUS and one trial tested ECSW; no studies tested HIFUS. Four studies did not report any of the critical outcomes. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency. LIPUS versus control (20 studies, 1459 participants) We found very low-certainty evidence for the effect of LIPUS on Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured by SF-36 at up to one year after surgery for lower limb fractures (mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.85 to 3.97, favours LIPUS; 3 studies, 393 participants). This result was compatible with a clinically important difference of 3 units with both LIPUS or control. There may be little to no difference in time to return to work after people had complete fractures of the upper or lower limbs (MD 1.96 days, 95% CI -2.13 to 6.04, favours control; 2 studies, 370 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There is probably little or no difference in delayed union or non-union up to 12 months after surgery (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.09, favours control; 7 studies, 746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Although data for delayed and non-union included both upper and lower limbs, we noted that there were no incidences of delayed or non-union in upper limb fractures. We did not pool data for time to fracture union (11 studies, 887 participants; very low-certainty evidence) because of substantial statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain. In upper limb fractures, MDs ranged from 0.32 to 40 fewer days to fracture union with LIPUS. In lower limb fractures, MDs ranged from 88 fewer days to 30 more days to fracture union. We also did not pool data for pain experienced at one month after surgery in people with upper limb fractures (2 studies, 148 participants; very low-certainty evidence) because of substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Using a 10-point visual analogue scale, one study reported less pain with LIPUS (MD -1.7, 95% CI -3.03 to -0.37; 47 participants), and the effect was less precise in the other study (MD -0.4, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.53; 101 participants). We found little or no difference in skin irritation (a possible treatment-related adverse event) between groups but judged the certainty of the evidence from this small study to be very low (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.65; 1 study, 101 participants). No studies reported data for functional recovery. Data for treatment adherence were inconsistently reported across studies, but was generally described to be good. Data for costs were reported for one study, with higher direct costs, as well as combined direct and indirect costs, for LIPUS use. ECSW versus control (1 study, 56 participants) We are uncertain whether ECSW reduces pain at 12 months after surgery in fractures of the lower limb (MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.27, favours ECSW); the difference between pain scores was unlikely to be clinically important, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are also uncertain of the effect of ECSW on delayed or non-union at 12 months because the certainty of this evidence is very low (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.01; 1 study, 57 participants). There were no treatment-related adverse events. This study reported no data for HRQoL, functional recovery, time to return to normal activities, or time to fracture union. In addition, no data were available for adherence or cost. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were uncertain of the effectiveness of ultrasound and shock wave therapy for acute fractures in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), for which few studies reported data. It is probable that LIPUS makes little or no difference to delayed union or non-union. Future trials should be double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials recording validated PROMs and following up all trial participants. Whilst time to union is difficult to measure, the proportion of participants achieving clinical and radiographic union at each follow-up point should be ascertained, alongside adherence with the study protocol and cost of treatment in order to better inform clinical practice.

Interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal femur (the far end of the thigh bone just above the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments have been used in the management of these injuries but the best treatment remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in adults comparing interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur. Interventions included surgical implants (retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN), fixed-angle devices, non-locking plate fixation, locking plate, internal fixation, distal femoral replacement, mono-axial plates, poly-axial plates and condylar buttress plates) and non-surgical management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), direct adverse events, participant-reported quality of life (QoL) and pain scores. Our other important outcomes were adverse events indirectly related to intervention, symptomatic non-union, malunion and resource use. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with 753 participants: 13 studies compared different surgical interventions, and one study compared surgical with non-surgical management. Here, we report the effects for RIMN compared with locking plates. Three studies (221 participants) reported this comparison; it included the largest study population and these are the two most commonly used devices in contemporary orthopaedic trauma practice. Studies used three different tools to assess PROMs. We found very-low certainty evidence for lower Disability Rating Index scores after RIMN at short-term follow-up favouring RIMN (mean difference (MD) -21.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -38.16 to -5.64; 1 study, 12 participants) and low-certainty evidence of little or no difference at long-term follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.06; 2 studies, 198 participants). Re-expressing the SMD of the long-term follow-up data to Knee Society Score (KSS) used by one study found no clinical benefit of RIMN, based on a minimal clinically important difference of 9 points (MD 2.47, 95% CI -6.18 to 0.74). The effect on QoL was very uncertain at four months (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.44; 1 study, 14 participants) and one year (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21; 1 study, 156 participants); this evidence was very low certainty. For direct adverse events, studies reported reoperation, loss of fixation, superficial and deep infection, haematoma formation and implant loosening. Effects for all events were imprecise with the possibility of benefit or harm for both treatments. We considered reoperation the most clinically relevant. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in reoperation between the two implants (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.00; 1 study, 104 participants). No studies reported pain.  For other important outcomes, we noted that people treated with RIMN may be more likely to have varus/valgus deformity (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.37; 1 study, 33 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we found no evidence of any important differences between treatments in terms of bony union, indirect adverse events, or resource use. Other comparisons of surgical interventions included in the review were: RIMN versus single fixed-angle device (3 studies, 175 participants); RIMN versus non-locking plate fixation (1 study, 18 participants); locking plate versus single fixed-angle device (2 studies, 130 participants); internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement (1 study, 23 participants); mono-axial plates versus poly-axial plates (2 studies, 67 participants); mono-axial plate versus condylar buttress plate (1 study, 78 participants). The certainty of the evidence for outcomes in these comparisons was low to very low, and most effect estimates were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform clinical practice. Priority should be given to randomised controlled trials comparing contemporary treatments for people with fractures of the distal femur. At a minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years, with an agreed core outcome set. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.

Factors associated with humeral shaft nonunion.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim was to identify patient and injury factors independently associated with humeral diaphyseal fracture nonunion after nonoperative management. The secondary aim was to determine the effect of management (operative/nonoperative) on nonunion. METHODS: From 2008-2017, a total of 734 humeral shaft fractures (732 consecutive skeletally mature patients) were retrospectively identified from a trauma database. Follow-up was available for 663 fractures (662 patients, 90%) that formed the study cohort. Patient and injury characteristics were recorded. There were 523 patients (79%) managed nonoperatively and 139 (21%) managed operatively. Outcome (union/nonunion) was determined from medical records and radiographs. RESULTS: The median age at injury was 57 (range 16-96) years and 54% (n = 359/662) were female. Median follow-up was 5 (1.2-74) months. Nonunion occurred in 22.7% (n = 119/524) of nonoperatively managed injuries. Multivariate analysis demonstrated preinjury nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; odds ratio [OR] 20.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.12-199.48; P = .009) and glenohumeral arthritis (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.03-5.77; P = .043) were independently associated with an increased risk of nonunion. Operative fixation was independently associated with a lower risk of nonunion (2.9%, n = 4/139) compared with nonoperative management (OR for nonoperative/operative management 9.91, 95% CI 3.25-30.23; P < .001). Based on these findings, 5 patients would need to undergo primary operative fixation in order to avoid 1 nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: Preinjury NSAIDs and glenohumeral arthritis were independently associated with nonunion following nonoperative management of a humeral diaphyseal fracture. Operative fixation was the independent factor most strongly associated with a lower risk of nonunion. Targeting early operative fixation to at-risk patients may reduce the rate of nonunion and the morbidity associated with delayed definitive management.

The results of meniscal allograft transplantation surgery: what is success?

BACKGROUND: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) may improve symptoms and function, and may limit premature knee degeneration in patients with symptomatic meniscal loss. The aim of this retrospective study was to examine patient outcomes after MAT and to explore the different potential definitions of 'success' and 'failure'. METHODS: Sixty patients who underwent MAT between 2008 and 2014, aged 18-50 were identified. Six validated outcome measures for knee pathologies, patient satisfaction and return to sport were incorporated into a questionnaire. Surgical failure (removal of most/all the graft, revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty), clinical failure (Lysholm < 65), complication rates (surgical failure plus repeat arthroscopy for secondary allograft tears) and whether patients would have the procedure again were recorded. Statistics analysis included descriptive statistics, with patient-reported outcome measures reported as median and range. A binomial logistic regression was performed to assess factors contributing to failure. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (72%) responded, mean age 35.6 (±7.5). 72% required concomitant procedures, and 44% had Outerbridge III or IV chondral damage. The complication rate was 21% (9). At mean follow-up of 3.4 (±1.6) years, 9% (4) were surgical failures and 21% (9) were clinical failures. Half of those patients considered a failure stated they would undergo MAT again. In the 74% (32) reporting they would undergo MAT again, median KOOS, IKDC and Lysholm scores were 82.1, 62.1 and 88, compared to 62.2, 48.5 and 64 in patients who said they would not. None of the risk factors significantly contributed to surgical or clinical failure, although female gender and number of concomitant procedures were nearly significant. Following MAT, 40% were dissatisfied with type/level of sport achieved, but only 14% would not consider MAT again. CONCLUSIONS: None of the risk factors examined were linked to surgical or clinical failure. Whilst less favourable outcomes are seen with Outerbridge Grade IV, these patients should not be excluded from potential MAT. Inability to return to sport is not associated with failure since 73% of these patients would undergo MAT again. The disparity between 'clinical failure' and 'surgical failure' outcomes means these terms may need re-defining using a specific/bespoke MAT scoring system.

Quadriceps tendon versus hamstring tendon graft for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is most commonly performed with hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts, although the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has recently increased in popularity. This systematic review and meta-analysis review compares QT and HT autografts for primary ACLR with a sole focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A prospective protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023427339). The search included MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science until February 2024. Only comparative RCTs were included. The primary outcome was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form score. Secondary outcomes included: other validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), objective strength scores, complications, and return to sport and work. RESULTS: From 2,609 articles identified, seven were included (n = 474 patients). This meta-analysis did not identify a significant difference in post-operative IKDC scores (5 articles; p = 0.73), Lysholm scores (3 studies; p = 0.80) or Tegner activity scales (2 studies; p = 0.98). There were no differences in graft failure rates (4 studies; p = 0.92) or in overall adverse events (4 studies; p = 0.83) at 24 months post-ACLR as per meta-analysis. Donor site morbidity scores were significantly lower in the QT group (MD -4.67, 95% CI -9.29 to -0.05; 2 studies, 211 patients; p = 0.05, I2 = 34%). CONCLUSION: There were no differences between QT and HT in PROMs, graft failure rates or overall complications based on low- to moderate-quality evidence. There may possibly be lower donor site morbidity with the QT autograft, however, the evidence is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

Diagnostic impacts on management of soft tissue injuries associated with tibial plateau fractures: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Currently there is no consensus on the need for investigating knee ligamentous and meniscal injuries in a patient with a tibial plateau fracture. Consequently, many soft tissue injuries are likely undiagnosed and therefore untreated. The impact this has on long term knee outcomes is not well defined. We aimed to identify the impacts of various diagnostic methods on the management of meniscal injuries associated with tibial plateau fractures and evaluate the clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review using Pubmed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane following Cochrane guidelines. We included studies that operatively managed tibial plateau fractures and soft tissue injuries, which were diagnosed with either preoperative MRI, intra-operative arthroscopy or arthrotomy. RESULTS: 18 articles with 884 people, with a mean age of 46.4 years were included. Soft tissue injuries were detected on MRI (32-73%) and arthroscopy (12-70%), of which the most common were lateral meniscal injuries (7-64% of tibial plateau fractures). When identified by arthroscopy and arthrotomy, these injuries were almost always treated, either by repair or debridement. The clinical outcomes of these patients were poorly reported, with a heterogenous use of patient reported outcome measures, and follow up time points. There were no randomised trials or control groups for comparative analysis, however operative treatment yielded good to excellent outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is a high incidence of concomitant soft tissue injuries with tibial plateau fractures, particularly lateral meniscal injuries. There are 2 main approaches to meniscal injuries: surgeons who don't investigate, don't treat, whilst surgeons who do investigate often do surgically treat. Although studies that treated these injuries achieved good to excellent results, the currently available evidence doesn't confirm treatment superiority. As there is plausibility for better outcomes, randomised studies are needed to further investigate this clinical question.

Incidence and severity of radiological lateral osteoarthritis 15 years following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

To assess the incidence of radiological lateral osteoarthritis (OA) at 15 years after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and assess the relationship of lateral OA with symptoms and patient characteristics. Cemented Phase 3 medial Oxford UKA implanted by two surgeons since 1998 for the recommended indications were prospectively followed. A 15-year cumulative revision rate for lateral OA of 5% for this series was previously reported. A total of 163 unrevised knees with 15-year (SD 1) anterior-posterior knee radiographs were studied. Lateral joint space width (JSWL) was measured and severity of lateral OA was classified as: nil/mild, moderate, and severe. Preoperative and 15-year Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) and American Knee Society Scores were determined. The effect of age, sex, BMI, and intraoperative findings was analyzed. Statistical analysis included one-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis H test, with significance set at 5%. The mean age was 80.6 years (SD 8.3), with 84 females and 79 males. The mean JSWL was 5.6 mm (SD 1.4), and was not significantly related to age, sex, or intraoperative findings. Those with BMI > 40 kg/m2 had a smaller JSWL than those with a 'normal' BMI (p = 0.039). The incidence of severe and moderate lateral OA were both 4.9%. Overall, 2/142 (1.4%) of those with nil/mild lateral OA, 1/8 (13%) with moderate, and 2/8 (25%) with severe subsequently had a revision. Those with severe (mean OKS 35.6 (SD 9.3)) and moderate OA (mean OKS 35.8 (SD 10.5)) tended to have worse outcome scores than those with nil/mild (mean OKS 39.5 (SD 9.2)) but the difference was only significant for OKS-Function (p = 0.044). This study showed that the rate of having severe or moderate radiological lateral OA at 15 years after medial UKA was low (both 4.9%). Although patients with severe or moderate lateral OA had a lower OKS than those with nil/mild OA, their mean scores (OKS 36) would be classified as good.

Compliance With the Royal College of Radiologists Guideline for Actionable Reporting and Its Impact on Patient Care: A Retrospective Analysis of Reporting Practices From a Major Trauma Center.

Introduction Prompt diagnosis forms the mainstay of management of any patient arriving at the hospital. In developed settings, apart from clinical assessment, imaging in the form of computed tomography (CT) scan plays a vital role in arriving at the patient diagnosis. The reporting should follow pre-defined Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) standards to improve the quality of the diagnostic process. Objectives To identify the compliance of reporting as per the RCR standards for the communication of radiological reports and fail-safe alert notification. Materials and methods A retrospective review of body CT scans was done in two cycles within a span of three months. A total of 100 randomized scans were assessed in each cycle, both from the A&E (accident and emergency) and inpatients. Normal scans and outpatient scans were excluded from the study. Data were collected using the online portal (CRIS) and statistical analysis was performed. Results After the first cycle of the audit, 95 reports out of 100 met the standard RCR criteria. After the second cycle, 97 reports met the criteria of the audit. One inpatient scan and two A&E reports did not meet the specified criteria in the second cycle. Conclusion After the two cycles of the audit carried out over three months, we were able to achieve almost 97% of reporting standards as compared to 95% obtained previously through a quality improvement project and create awareness.

Factors Associated with Patient-Reported Outcomes Following a Humeral Shaft Fracture: Nonunion Results in a Poorer Outcome Despite Union after Surgical Fixation.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to assess patient-reported outcomes ≥1 year following a humeral diaphyseal fracture. The secondary aim was to compare outcomes of patients who united after initial management (operative/nonoperative) with those who united after nonunion fixation (NU-ORIF). DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: From 2008 to 2017, 291 patients [mean age, 55 years (17-86 years), 58% (n = 168/291) female] were available to complete an outcomes survey. Sixty-four (22%) were initially managed operatively and 227 (78%) nonoperatively. After initial management, 227 (78%) united (n = 62 operative, n = 165 nonoperative), 2 had a delayed union (both nonoperative), and 62 (21%) had a nonunion (n = 2 operative, n = 60 nonoperative). Fifty-two patients (93%, n = 52/56) united after NU-ORIF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: QuickDASH, EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D)/EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), 12-item Short Form Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS). RESULTS: At a mean of 5.5 years (range, 1.2-11.0 years) postinjury, the mean QuickDASH was 20.8, EQ-5D was 0.730, EQ-VAS was 74, PCS was 44.8 and MCS was 50.2. Patients who united after NU-ORIF reported worse function (QuickDASH, 27.9 vs. 17.6; P = 0.003) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EQ-5D, 0.639 vs. 0.766; P = 0.008; EQ-VAS, 66 vs. 76; P = 0.036; PCS, 41.8 vs. 46.1; P = 0.036) than those who united primarily. Adjusting for confounders, union after NU-ORIF was independently associated with a poorer QuickDASH (difference, 8.1; P = 0.019) and EQ-5D (difference, -0.102; P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Humeral diaphyseal union after NU-ORIF resulted in poorer patient-reported outcomes compared with union after initial management. Targeting early operative intervention to at-risk patients may mitigate the potential impact of nonunion on longer-term outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Fractures of the proximal- and middle-thirds of the humeral shaft should be considered as fragility fractures.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the current incidence and epidemiology of humeral diaphyseal fractures. The secondary aim was to explore variation in patient and injury characteristics by fracture location within the humeral diaphysis. METHODS: Over ten years (2008 to 2017), all adult patients (aged ≥ 16 years) sustaining an acute fracture of the humeral diaphysis managed at the study centre were retrospectively identified from a trauma database. Patient age, sex, medical/social background, injury mechanism, fracture classification, and associated injuries were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 900 fractures (typical 88.9%, n = 800/900; pathological 8.3%, n = 75/900; periprosthetic 2.8%, n = 25/900) were identified in 898 patients (mean age 57 years (16 to 97), 55.5% (n = 498/898) female). Overall fracture incidence was 12.6/100,000/year. For patients with a typical fracture (n = 798, mean age 56 years (16 to 96), 55.1% (n = 440/798) female), there was a bimodal distribution in men and unimodal distribution in older women (Type G). A fall from standing was the most common injury mechanism (72.6%, n = 581/800). The majority of fractures involved the middle-third of the diaphysis (47.6%, n = 381/800) followed by the proximal- (30.5%, n = 244/800) and distal-thirds (n = 175/800, 21.9%). In all, 18 injuries (2.3%) were open and a radial nerve palsy occurred in 6.7% (n = 53/795). Fractures involving the proximal- and middle-thirds were more likely to occur in older (p < 0.001), female patients (p < 0.001) with comorbidities (p < 0.001) after a fall from standing (p < 0.001). Proximal-third fractures were also more likely to occur in patients with alcohol excess (p = 0.003) and to be classified as AO-Orthopaedic Trauma Association type B or C injuries (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study updates the incidence and epidemiology of humeral diaphyseal fractures. Important differences in patient and injury characteristics were observed based upon fracture location. Injuries involving the proximal- and middle-thirds of the humeral diaphysis should be considered as fragility fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1475-1483.