The Value of Routine Radiography in the Nonoperative Treatment of Metatarsal Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Although widely used in follow-up treatment protocols, the added value of routine radiographs to clinical decision-making in nonoperative treatment of patients with metatarsal fractures is unclear. This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine whether routine follow-up radiographs contributed to changes in treatment strategies in nonoperative treatment of patients with a metatarsal fracture. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) patients who received nonoperative follow-up treatment for a metatarsal fracture between May first, 2020 and May second, 2022 were included. All relevant data were extracted from patient records. Radiographs without a documented clinical indication were classified as routine. Outcomes included changes in treatment strategies based on routine radiographs during follow-up treatment and secondarily, changes in treatment strategy based on clinically indicated radiographs. A total of 168 patients were included, with 135 single and 33 multiple metatarsal fractures. During follow-up, 223 radiographs were performed, of which 154 (69%) were routine and 69 (31%) were on clinical indication. Of routine radiographs, 9 (6%) led to a change in treatment which only included additional imaging. No switch to operative treatment or prolonging of immobilization was observed based on routine radiographs. Of clinically indicated radiographs, 16 (23%) led to a change of treatment, including prolonged immobilization (n = 2), additional follow-up appointments (n = 1) and additional imaging (n = 12). Our results show routinely performed radiographs seldom affect treatment strategies in nonoperative treatment of metatarsal fractures, indicating minimal added value to clinical decision-making. Omitting routine radiographs from treatment protocols may contribute to the reduction of unnecessary healthcare resource utilization in clinical practice.

Orthopaedic trauma patients' experiences with emergency department care and follow-up through Virtual Fracture Care review: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify factors influencing orthopaedic trauma patients' experiences and satisfaction with emergency department (ED) care and follow-up through Virtual Fracture Care (VFC) review workflow. DESIGN: This study employed an explorative, descriptive, qualitative design using individual, semistructured interviews. SETTING: An urban level 2 trauma centre and teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were Dutch-speaking or English-speaking orthopaedic trauma patients, aged 18 years or above, who visited the hospital's ED between June and September 2022, and were treated through VFC review workflow. Exclusion criteria were: reason for follow-up other than injury, eye/motor/verbal score <15 at ED admission, follow-up treatment in another hospital, treatment initiated in another hospital, acute hospital admission (<24 hours). Twenty-three patients were invited for participation, of whom 15 participated and were interviewed. RESULTS: Several influential factors contributed to seven generic themes: (1) waiting times, (2) information provision, (3) healthcare professional communication, (4) care expectations, (5) care coordination, (6) care environment and (7) patient condition. Overall, participants were satisfied with received care. Interpersonal skills of healthcare professionals, and timing and content of provided information were specifically valued. Additionally, patients stated that their needs in the ED differed from those after ED discharge, and appreciated the way the VFC review workflow addressed this. Points of improvement included more active involvement of patients in the care process and prevention of inconsistent instructions by different healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences with ED care and VFC review follow-up are influenced by factors categorised into seven themes. The VFC review workflow effectively addresses these factors, leading to positive feedback. Recommendations for healthcare professionals include anticipating evolving post-ED information needs, engaging patients early to provide clarity about the care process, involving them in treatment decisions and expanding information provision across the entire care pathway.

Factors associated with decision regret after bariatric surgery.

It is assumed that the individuals who undergo bariatric surgery will experience significant improvements in their health and overall well-being. However, it is yet to be examined whether these individuals may also experience subsequent decision regret. The level of regret regarding the choice to undergo bariatric surgery was assessed 1 year after bariatric surgery using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). Associations of regret with patient characteristics, complications, weight loss and quality of life (BODY-Q) were investigated using linear regression analyses. In total, 115 patients completed the DRS (92% underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 8% underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG)). Two out of 115 patients indicated absolute regret about their decision to undergo bariatric surgery because of insufficient weight loss and complications. The median decision regret score was zero (range 0-80). Most patients experienced no decision regret (50.4%), followed by mild regret (34.8%) and moderate to strong regret (14.8%). Higher levels of regret were associated with having osteo-articular disorders, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or a history of psychiatric disorders at baseline. Patients with mild regret demonstrated significantly more weight loss and better psychological function. Major surgical complications were not associated with increased decision regret. Only two out of 115 patients (1.7%) indicated absolute regret about their decision to undergo bariatric surgery, and 15% reported moderate-to-strong regret according to the results of the DRS. These findings should be considered when providing pre-operative counselling and could assist patients in their decision-making process.

Safety of gastric bypass with same-day discharge: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Dutch Audit for treatment of Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery with same-day discharge (SDD) is becoming increasingly common. Nevertheless, there is limited data available comparing gastric bypass patients with SDD to those with overnight hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term outcomes of gastric bypass with SDD compared to overnight hospitalization in The Netherlands. SETTING: Retrospective database study with the use of the Dutch national registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent gastric bypass surgery in 2022 were included and propensity score matching was performed to compare SDD with patients discharged on postoperative days (POD) 1-4. The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe complications within 30 days postoperative. RESULTS: A total of 775 SDD patients were matched with 1550 patients discharged on POD 1-4. The occurrence of severe complications was .9% in both groups (P = 1.000), and there were no significant differences in reoperations or mortality. A significant difference was observed in the readmission rate, with 3.9% in the SDD group compared to 1.6% in the other group (P = .001). A proportionally small, yet statistically significant difference favored the control group regarding anastomotic leakages (.6% versus 0%, P = .004) and unspecified surgical complications (1.4% versus .5%, P = .028). CONCLUSION: Gastric bypass with SDD is safe, with no increased risk of short-term severe complications, reoperations, or mortality. However, SDD is associated with a higher 30-day readmission rate compared to patients who stay overnight in the hospital after surgery.

Patient Satisfaction and Experience with Same-Day Discharge After Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Mixed-Methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Same-day discharge (SDD) after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a safe and effective healthcare pathway. However, there is limited understanding of the patient perspective on SDD. The aim of this study was to explore patient satisfaction and experience with SDD after RYGB. METHODS: A mixed-methods study with a concurrent design was conducted in a Dutch teaching hospital, using questionnaires and interviews. Patients who underwent RYGB and were discharged on the day of the surgery completed four questionnaires of the BODY-Q (satisfaction with the surgeon, satisfaction with the medical team, satisfaction with the office staff, and satisfaction with information provision) ± 4 months postoperative. The results of the questionnaires were compared with pre-existing data from a cohort of patients who stayed overnight after surgery (i.e., control group). A subset of patients was individually interviewed for an in-depth understanding of the patient perspective on SDD. RESULTS: In the questionnaires, median scores for the control group (n = 158) versus the present group of patients (n = 51) were as follows: 92/100 vs. 92/100 (p = 0.331) for the surgeon, 100/100 vs. 92/100 (p = 0.775) for the medical team, 100/100 vs. 100/100 (p = 0.616) for the office staff, and 90/100 vs. 73/100 (p = 0.015) for information provision. Interviews with 14 patients revealed seven themes, describing high satisfaction, along with several points of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction with SDD after RYGB is high, although information provision regarding the day of surgery could be improved. However, not every medically eligible patient might be suitable for this healthcare pathway, as responsibilities are shifted.

Minimal important difference in weight loss following bariatric surgery: Enhancing BODY-Q interpretability.

BODY-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for comprehensive assessment of outcomes specific to patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The clinical utility of BODY-Q is hampered by the lack of guidance on score interpretation. This study aimed to determine minimal important difference (MID) for assessment of BODY-Q. Prospective BODY-Q data from Denmark and the Netherlands pre- and post-bariatric surgery were collected. Two distribution-based methods were used to estimate MID by 0.2 standard deviations of baseline scores and the mean standardized response change of scores from baseline to 3-years postoperatively. In total, 5476 assessments from 2253 participants were included of which 1628 (72.3%) underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 586 (26.0%) sleeve gastrectomy, 33 (1.5%) gastric banding, and 6 (0.03%) other surgeries. The mean age was 45.1 ± 10.9 with a mean BMI of 46.6 ± 9.6. Baseline MID ranged from 1 to 4 in health-related quality of life (HRQL) and from 2 to 8 in appearance scales. The mean change of scores ranged from 4 to 5 in HRQL and from 4 to 7 in the appearance scales. The estimated MID for the change in BODY-Q HRQL and appearance scales ranged from 3 to 8 and is recommended for use to interpret BODY-Q scores and assess treatment effects in bariatric surgery.

Cost-effectiveness and safety of continuous pulse oximetry for management of undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea in bariatric surgery: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Undetected obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent in patients undergoing bariatric surgery and increases perioperative risks. Screening for OSA using preoperative polygraphy (PG) with subsequent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is costly and time-consuming. Postoperative continuous pulse oximetry (CPOX) is less invasive, and is hypothesized to be a safe and cost-effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: This nationwide multicenter prospective observational cohort study compared CPOX monitoring with OSA-screening using PG. SETTING: High-volume bariatric centers. METHODS: Patients were either postoperatively monitored using CPOX without preoperative OSA-screening, or underwent preoperative PG and CPAP treatment when OSA was diagnosed. Cohort placement was based on local hospital protocols. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs. Surgical outcomes were also analyzed. Propensity score matching was used in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1390 patients were included. QALYs were similar between groups at baseline and 1-year postoperatively. Postoperative complications, intensive care unit (ICU)-admissions and admissions, particularly OSA-related, did not differ between groups. Mean costs per patient/year in the CPOX group was €3094 versus €3680 in the PG group; mean difference €-586 (95% CI €-933-€-242). Following propensity score matching, 1090 of 1390 included patients remained, and similar findings for cost-effectiveness, complications, and ICU admissions were observed. CONCLUSION: CPOX monitoring without preoperative OSA-screening was not associated with higher complication or readmission rates compared to PG. CPOX resulted in lower costs from a healthcare perspective and can therefore be considered a cost-effective alternative to routine OSA-screening in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Rehabilitation after musculoskeletal injury: European perspective.

Trauma is one of the main causes of death in younger people and ongoing disability worldwide. In Europe, while there is generally good organization of trauma reception and acute treatment, rehabilitation from major musculoskeletal injuries is less well defined and provided. This article documents the diverse approaches to rehabilitation after major injury in 6 European nations. The recognition of need is universal, but achieving a robust rehabilitation strategy is more elusive across the varying health care systems. Switzerland has the most robust service in the insured population. In the other countries, particularly where there is a reliance on public institutes, this provision is at best patchy. In the Netherlands, innovative patient-empowering strategies have gained traction with notable success, and in the United Kingdom, a recent randomized trial also showed this approach to be reproducible and robust. Overall, there is a clear need for learning across the national systems and implementation of a minimum set of standards.

Functional outcome of routine versus on-demand removal of the syndesmotic screw.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to present the mid-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared the functional outcome following routine removal (RR) to the outcome following on-demand removal (ODR) of the syndesmotic screw (SS). Methods: All patients included in the 'ROutine vs on DEmand removal Of the syndesmotic screw' (RODEO) trial received the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Hindfoot Score (AOFAS), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Out of the 152 patients, 109 (71.7%) completed the mid-term follow-up questionnaire and were included in this study (53 treated with RR and 56 with ODR). Median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range 43.0 to 56.0) since the initial surgical treatment of the acute syndesmotic injury. The primary outcome of this study consisted of the OMAS scores of the two groups. Results: The median OMAS score was 85.0 for patients treated with RR, and 90.0 for patients treated with ODR (p = 0.384), indicating no significant difference between ODR and RR. The secondary outcome measures included the AOFAS (88.0 in the RR group and 90.0 for ODR; p = 0.722), FAOS (87.5 in the RR group and 92.9 for ODR; p = 0.399), and EQ-5D (0.87 in the RR group and 0.96 for ODR; p = 0.092). Conclusion: This study demonstrated no functional difference comparing ODR to RR in syndesmotic injuries at a four year follow-up period, which supports the results of the primary RODEO trial. ODR should be the standard practice after syndesmotic screw fixation.