Routine 6-weeks outpatient visit in patients treated surgically for upper extremity fractures: Is it truly necessary?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the usefulness of the routinely planned six-week outpatient visit and x-ray in patients treated surgically for the most common upper extremity fractures including clavicle, proximal humerus, humeral shaft, olecranon, radial shaft and distal radius. METHOD: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients treated surgically for the most common upper extremity fractures between 2019 and 2022 in a level 1 trauma center. The first outcome of interest was the incidence of abnormalities found on the x-ray made at the 6-week outpatient visit. Abnormalities were defined as all differences between the intra-operative (or direct postoperative) and 6-week x-ray. In case an abnormality was detected, the hospital records were screened to determine its clinical consequence. The clinical consequences were categorized into requiring either additional diagnostics, additional interventions, change of standard postoperative immobilization, weightbearing or allowed range of motion (ROM). The second outcome of interest was the incidence of deviations from the local standard post operative treatment and follow-up protocol based on the 6-week outpatient visit as a whole. Deviations were also categorized into either requiring additional diagnostics, additional interventions, change of standard postoperative immobilization, weightbearing or allowed range of motion. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were included. Abnormalities on x-ray at 6 weeks postoperatively were found in only 10 (3.7%) patients of which only 4 (1.5%) had clinical implications (in three patients extra imaging was required and in one patient it was necessary to deviate from standard weightbearing/ROM limitation regime). The clinical/radiological findings during the 6-week outpatient visit led to a deviation from standard in only 8 (3.0%) patients. Notably, the majority of these patients experienced symptoms suggestive for complications. CONCLUSION: The routine 6-week outpatient visit and x-ray, after surgery for common upper extremity fractures, rarely has clinical consequences. It should be questioned whether these routine visits are necessary and whether a more selective approach should be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Case Series; Prognosis Study.

Let's Agree to Disagree on Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Distal Radius Fractures in Older People: Protocol for a Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures are the most frequently encountered fractures in Western societies, typically affecting patients aged 50 years and older. Although this is a common injury, the best treatment for these fractures in older patients is still under debate. OBJECTIVE: This prospective study aims to compare the outcome of operatively and nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures in the older population. Only patients with distal radius fractures for which equipoise regarding the optimal treatment exists will be included. METHODS: This prospective international multicenter observational cohort study will be designed as a natural experiment. Natural experiments are observational studies in which treatment allocation is determined by factors outside the control of the investigators but also (largely) independent of patient characteristics. Patients aged 65 years and older with an acute distal radius fracture will be considered for inclusion. Treatment allocation (operative vs nonoperative) will be based on the local preferences of the treating hospital either in Switzerland or the Netherlands. Hence, the process governing treatment allocation resembles that of randomization. Patients will be identified after treatment has been initiated. Based on the radiographs and baseline information of the patient, an expert panel of 6 certified trauma surgeons from 2 regions will provide their treatment recommendation. Only patients for whom the experts disagree on treatment recommendations will ultimately be included in the study (ie, for whom there is a clinical equipoise). For these patients, both operative and nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures are viable, and treatment choice is predominantly determined by personal or local preference. The primary outcome will be the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, the EQ questionnaire, pain, the living situation, range of motion, complications, and radiological outcomes. By including outcomes such as living situation and the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, which are not relevant for younger cohorts, valuable information to tailor treatment to the needs of the older population can be gained. According to the sample size collection, which was based on the minimal important clinical difference of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, 92 patients will have to be included, with at least 46 patients in each treatment group. RESULTS: Enrollment began in July 2023 and is expected to continue until summer 2024. The final follow-up will be 2 years after the last patient is included. CONCLUSIONS: Although many trials on this topic have previously been published, there remains an ongoing debate regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures in older patients. This observational study, which will use a fairly new methodological study design, will provide further information on treatment outcomes for older patients with distal radius fractures for which to date equipoise exists regarding the optimal treatment. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52917.

Does plate position influence the outcome in midshaft clavicular fractures? A multicenter analysis.

PURPOSE: To date, it remains unclear whether superior or anterior plating is the best option for treating midshaft clavicular fractures. The aim of this study was to compare both techniques with regard to the incidence of implant removal due to implant irritation, risk of complications, time to union, and function. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all midshaft clavicular fractures treated operatively between 2017 and 2020 in two hospitals in Switzerland were analyzed. The participating hospitals differed with regard to their standard practice; one offered superior plating only, while the other predominantly employed an anterior plate. The primary outcome was the incidence of implant removal for irritation. Secondary outcomes were time to union, complications, re-interventions, and range of motion during the follow-up period of at least 6 months. RESULTS: In total, 168 patients were included in the study of which 81 (48%) received anterior plating and 87 (52%) superior plating. The overall mean age was 45 years (SD 16). There was no significant difference between anterior and superior plating with regard to implant removal (58.5% versus 57.1%, p = 0.887), infection (5.7% versus 1.8%, p = 0.071), and time to union (median 48 weeks versus 52 weeks, p = 0.643). Data on range of motion were available in 71 patients. There was no significant difference in anteflexion (median 180 degrees anterior versus 180 degrees superior) and abduction (median 180 degrees anterior versus 180 degrees superior) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This retrospective cohort study did not find sufficient evidence to recommend one implant position over the other for midshaft clavicular fractures with regard to removal due to irritation. Time to union was similar and Infections were equally rare in both groups. Notably, a considerable number of patients in both groups had their implants removed due to irritation. Larger prospective studies are needed to determine how much plate position contributes to the occurrence of irritation and whether other patient or implant-related factors might play a role. Until this is clarified, implant position should be based on surgeons preference and experience.

Nonoperative treatment of multiple rib fractures, the results to beat: International multicenter prospective cohort study among 845 patients.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment (i.e. nonoperative or operative) for patients with multiple rib fractures remains debated. Studies that compare treatments are rationalized by the alleged poor outcomes of nonoperative treatment. METHODS: The aim of this prospective international multicenter cohort study (between January 2018 and March 2021) with one-year follow-up, was to report contemporary outcomes of nonoperatively treated patients with multiple rib fractures. Including 845 patients with three or more rib fractures. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (HLOS), (pulmonary) complications, and quality of life. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.7 ± 17.0 years, median Injury Severity Score was 17 (13-22) and the median number of rib fractures was 6 (4-8). In-hospital mortality rate was 1.5% (n = 13), 112 (13.3%) patients had pneumonia and four (0.5%) patients developed a symptomatic non-union. The median HLOS was 7 (4-13) days, and median intensive care unit length of stay was 2 (1-5) days. Mean EQ-5D-5L index value was 0.83 ± 0.18 one year after trauma. Polytrauma patients had a median HLOS of 10 (6-18) days, a pneumonia rate of 17.6% (n = 77) and mortality rate of 1.7% (n = 7). Elderly patients (≥65 years) had a median HLOS of 9 (5-15) days, a pneumonia rate of 19.7% (n = 57) and mortality rate of 4.1% (n = 12). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nonoperative treatment of patients with multiple rib fractures shows low mortality and morbidity rate and good quality of life after one year. Future studies evaluating the benefit of operative stabilisation should use contemporary outcomes to establish the therapeutic margin of rib fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic/Care Management.

[Distal radius fracture-tactic and approach]. / Distale Radiusfrakturen ­ Taktik und Zugangswahl.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of surgical treatment is fracture healing with restored alignment, rotation, and joint surface. Stable fixation allows for functional postoperative aftercare. INDICATIONS: Displaced intra- and extra-articular fractures which either could not be adequately reduced or in which a secondary displacement is to expected due to instability criteria. The following factors are considered instability criteria: age > 60 years, female, initial dorsal displacement > 20°, dorsal comminution, radial shortening > 5 mm, palmar displacement. CONTRAINDICATIONS: The only absolute contraindication is if the patient is deemed unfit for surgery due to concerns regarding anesthesia. Old age is a relative contraindication, as it is currently debated whether older patients benefit from the operation. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: The surgical technique is guided by the fracture pattern. Palmar plating is most commonly performed. If the joint surface needs to be visualized, a dorsal approach (in combination with another approach or alone) or arthroscopically assisted fixation should be chosen. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: In general, a functional postoperative regime can be carried out after plate fixation with mobilization without weightbearing. Short-term splinting can provide pain relief. Concomitant ligamentous injuries and fixations, which are not stable enough for functional aftercare (such as k­wires) require a longer period of immobilization. RESULTS: Provided the fracture is reduced correctly, osteosynthesis improves functional outcome. The complication rate ranges between 9 and 15% with the most common complication being tendon irritation/rupture and plate removal. Whether surgical treatment holds the same benefits for patients > 65 years as for younger patients is currently under debate.

In patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, does fracture fixation of the clavicle improve clinical outcomes? A multicenter prospective cohort study of 232 patients.

BACKGROUND: Clavicle and rib fractures are often sustained concomitantly. The combination of injuries may result in decreased stability of the chest wall, making these patients prone to (respiratory) complications and prolonged hospitalization. This study aimed to assess whether adding chest wall stability by performing clavicle fixation improves clinical outcomes in patients with concurrent clavicle and rib fractures. METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was performed including all adult patients admitted between January 2018 and March 2021 with concurrent ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures. Patients treated operatively versus nonoperatively for their clavicle fracture were matched using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (HLOS). Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, pain, complications, and quality of life at 6 weeks and 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 232 patients with concomitant ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures were included. Fifty-two patients (22%) underwent operative treatment of which 39 could be adequately matched to 39 nonoperatively treated patients. No association was observed between clavicle plate fixation and HLOS (mean difference, 2.3 days; 95% confidence interval, -2.1 to 6.8; p = 0.301) or any secondary endpoint. Eight of the 180 nonoperatively treated patients (4%) had a symptomatic nonunion, for which 5 underwent secondary clavicle fixation. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that, in patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, plate fixation of the clavicle reduces HLOS, pain, or (pulmonary) complications, nor that it improves quality of life. STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Quality of life and clinical outcomes of operatively treated patients with flail chest injuries: A multicentre prospective cohort study.

Introduction: Most studies about rib fractures focus on mortality and morbidity. Literature is scarce on long term and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Therefore, we report QoL and long-term outcomes after rib fixation in flail chest patients. Methods: A prospective cohort study of clinical flail chest patients admitted to six level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands and Switzerland between January 2018 and March 2021. Outcomes included in-hospital outcomes and long-term outcomes, such as QoL measurements 12 months after hospitalization using the EuroQoL five dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Results: Sixty-one operatively treated flail chest patients were included. Median hospital length of stay was 15 days and intensive care length of stay was 8 days. Sixteen (26%) patients developed pneumonia and two (3%) died. One year after hospitalization the mean EQ5D score was 0.78. Complication rates were low and included hemothorax (6%) pleural effusion (5%) and two revisions of the implant (3%). Implant related irritation was commonly reported by patients (n = 15, 25%). Conclusions: Rib fixation for flail chest injuries can be considered a safe procedure and with low mortality rates. Future studies should focus on quality of life rather than solely short-term outcomes.Trial registration: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017 and the Swiss Ethics Committees Registration Number 2019-00668.

Outcomes after fixation of rib fractures sustained during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A retrospective single center analysis.

Background: Historically rib fractures have been typically treated non-operatively. Recent studies showed promising results after osteosynthesis of rib fractures in trauma patients with flail segments or multiple rib fractures. However, there is a paucity of data on rib fixation after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study evaluated the outcomes of patients who received rib fixation after CPR. Methods: Adult patients who received surgical fixation of rib fractures sustained during CPR between 2010 and 2020 were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective study. Outcome measures included complications, quality of life (EQ 5D 5L) and level of dyspnea. Results: Nineteen patients were included with a mean age of 66.8 years. The mean number of fractured ribs was ten, seven patients additionally had a sternum fracture. Pneumonia occurred in 15 patients (74%), of which 13 were diagnosed preoperatively and 2 post-operatively. Six patients developed a postoperative pneumothorax, none of which required revision surgery. One patient showed persistent flail chest after rib fixation and required additional fixation of a concomitant sternum fracture. One infection of the surgical site of sternal plate occurred, while no further surgery related complications were reported. Mean EQ-5D-5L was 0.908 and the average EQ VAS was 80. One patient reported persisting dyspnea. Conclusion: To date, this is the largest reported cohort of patients who received rib fixation for fractures sustained during CPR. No complications associated with rib fixation were reported whereas one infection after sternal fixation did occur. Current follow-up demonstrated a good long-term quality of life after fixation, warranting further studies on this topic. Deeper knowledge on this subject would be beneficial for a wide spectrum of physicians.

Validation of the modified AO sternum classification system.

INTRODUCTION: The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) foundation along with the Orthopaedic. Trauma Association (OTA) introduced a new classification for sternal fractures in 2018 aiming to provide greater uniformity and clinical utility for the surgical community. A previous validation study identified some critical issues such as the differentiation between type A and B fractures and localization of the fracture either in the manubrium or in the body. Due to the moderate agreement in inter- and intra-observer variability, some modifications were proposed in order to improve the performance of the classification. The aim of this study was to re-assess the inter- and intra-observer variability after adding modifications to the classification. Our hypothesis was that a significative improvement of inter- and intra-observer variability could be achieved. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with sternal fractures were analyzed by six. Junior and six senior surgeons independently. Two assessments were performed with an interval of 6 weeks. The kappa (K) value was calculated in order to assess inter- and intra-observer variability. RESULTS: The overall mean kappa value for inter-observer variability improved from 0.364 to 0.468 (p < 0.001). Inter-observer variability mean for location was 0.573 (SD 0.221) and for type was 0.441 (SD: 0.181). Intra-observer variability showed a mean of 0.703 (SD: 0.153) with a statistic significant improvement when compared to the previous study (mean 0.414, SD: 0.256, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: By modifying the AO/OTA classification of sternal fractures, the inter- and intra-observer variability improved and now shows moderate to substantial agreement.

Treatment and outcome in combined scapula and rib fractures: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The primary aim was to describe the population characteristics of patients with combined scapula and rib fractures and outcomes associated with different treatment strategies. METHODS: All adult (≥ 18 years) patients with concurrent ipsilateral scapula and rib fractures admitted to the study hospital between 1st January 2010 and 31st June 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients were admitted with concurrent ipsilateral rib and scapula fractures. A total of 160 patients (72%) were treated conservatively, 63 patients (28%) operatively. Among operatively treated patients, 32 (51%) underwent rib fixation (RF) only, 24 (38%) underwent scapula fixation (SF) only, and seven patients (11%) underwent combined fixation of scapula and ribs (SRF). In general, more severely injured patients were treated with more extensive surgery. RF patients had a median hospital length of stay of 16 days, the SF patients 11 days and SRF patients 18 days. There were no significant differences in complications (pneumonia, recurrent pneumothorax and revision surgery) between groups. CONCLUSION: Injury severity resulted in different treatment modalities. As a result, different patient characteristics between treatment groups were observed, which makes direct comparison between treatment modalities impossible. All treatment modalities seem feasible; however, the additional value of both rib and scapula fixation has yet to be proven in large multicentre studies.

Non-operative vs. operative treatment for multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. RESULTS: In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8-9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI - 0.2-0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. CONCLUSIONS: We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017.

[Augmentation in the treatment of proximal humeral and femoral fractures]. / Augmentation bei der Versorgung proximaler Humerus- und Femurfrakturen.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humeral and trochanteric femoral fractures in older patients are typically caused by low-energy trauma and are therefore often associated with osteoporosis. The treatment of such fragility fractures can be difficult as implant purchase is reduced in osteoporotic bone. By augmenting the fixation with cement the contact surface between implant and bone can be increased, which improves the stability of the osteosynthesis. OBJECTIVE: This article describes the operative technique for the augmentation of trochanteric femoral fractures treated with the Trochanteric Fixation Nail-Advanced (TFNA, DePuy Synthes, Oberdorf BL, Switzerland) and proximal humeral fractures stabilized with a PHILOS plate (DePuy Synthes). Furthermore, the evidence for the augmentation of these two fracture types is elucidated. RESULTS: Biomechanical studies could show an improved stability of the osteosynthesis after successful augmentation for both fracture types. The current evidence also indicates a clinical reduction of fixation failure. Whether the augmentation has an influence on the functional result could so far not yet clearly be proven. CONCLUSION: Augmentation seems to be a safe and valuable addition to available treatment options especially for patients with fragility fractures.

The value of fibular fixation in patients with stabilized distal tibia fractures.

PURPOSE: There is currently no consensus regarding the need for fixation of concomitant fibula fractures in patients with surgically treated distal tibia fracture. Although studies have shown it to be beneficial for fractures involving the syndesmosis, it remains unclear for suprasyndesmotic fractures. This study evaluates what effect the fixation of such suprasyndesmotic fibula fractures had on patients who underwent fixation of distal tibia fractures. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive adult patients who received surgical treatment for an extra-articular or simple intraarticular distal tibia fracture between 2012 and 2020 and had a concomitant fibula fracture proximal to the syndesmosis. Two groups were formed depending on whether the fibula was stabilized. The need for revision surgery, the occurrence of complications, fracture healing, rotational and angular malalignment were evaluated for both groups. RESULTS: This study included 120 patients, of which 40 (33.3%) had operative treatment of the fibula fracture. Of those with stabilized fibula fractures, 28 (70%) were treated with a plate and 12 (30%) with a titanium elastic nail. The group of patients with surgically treated fibula fractures had significantly more angular malalignments (10% vs 1.2%, p = 0.042), while there was no difference regarding rotational malalignment or fracture healing. Further, infections of the fibular surgical site occurred in 15% of surgically treated patients leading to significantly more revision surgeries in this group (40% vs 20%, p = 0.03). All infections occurred when a plate was used. CONCLUSION: This study was unable to show any benefit from stabilizing concomitant, suprasyndesmotic fibula fractures in surgically treated distal tibia fractures. On the contrary, infection, revision surgery and angular malalignment were more frequent when the fibula was fixed. Therefore, such concomitant fibula fractures should not routinely be fixed and if stabilization is deemed necessary, the implant should be chosen carefully.

MIPO vs. intra-medullary nailing for extra-articular distal tibia fractures and the efficacy of intra-operative alignment control: a retrospective cohort of 135 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Definitive treatment of distal extra-articular fractures of the tibia is challenging and both minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are considered to be feasible surgical modalities with their own implant-specific merits and demerits. This retrospective study was designed to compare MIPO versus IMN in terms of fracture healing, complications, functional and radiological outcomes and to assess the efficacy of intra-operative alignment control to reduce the rate of malalignment after definitive fixation of distal extra-articular fractures of the tibia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive adult patients with extra-articular distal meta- or diaphyseal tibia fractures that were treated between January 2012 and September 2019 either with MIPO or IMN were included. Outcome measures included fracture healing, complications (infection, malalignment, subsequent surgeries), functional and radiological outcomes. Intra-operative alignment control encompassed bilateral draping of the lower extremities. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were included out of which 72 patients (53%) were treated with MIPO and 63 patients (47%) underwent IMN. There was a significantly higher incidence of non-union for fractures treated with IMN (13 (22%) vs. 4 (6%), p = 0.04). There was no significant difference between both groups in terms of rotational malalignment (3% vs. 10%) and angular malalignment (4% vs. 5%). A significantly higher rate of infection was found after MIPO after correction of significant differences in baseline characteristics. No differences were found in subsequent surgeries or functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: Both MIPO and IMN are reliable surgical techniques. IMN is associated with higher rates of non-union, whereas MIPO results in a higher risk for infection. The incidence of malalignment was surprisingly low endorsing the utility of the intra-operative alignment control.

Nonunion of traumatic rib fractures: a suitable indication for surgery?

PURPOSE: Nonunion of traumatic rib fractures is a clinical/radiological diagnosis caused by an alteration of bone healing reparative process. Since it is a painful condition, nonunion has a significative impact on patient's morbidity and quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes after surgical stabilization of ribs affected by nonunion after traumatic fractures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients who were treated with surgical stabilization of nonunion after traumatic rib fractures. We analyzed demographic data as well as clinical and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were identified and included in this analysis. Median age was 49 years (range 25-69 years). Mean length of stay was 5.4 days. No in-hospital mortality was observed. After a median follow-up of 46.94 months (range 0-103), 16 (84.2%) patients were completely asymptomatic, while 3 (15.8%) were still suffering from pain after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical stabilization in patients affected by rib nonunion can be safely performed with few complications, good clinical outcomes and satisfactory quality of life.

Improving the protocol for whole-body CT scans in trauma patients.

PURPOSE: While whole-body computed tomography is an established diagnostic method for the work up of polytraumatized patients, the protocols used differ between trauma centers. This study aimed to compare scan duration and estimated radiation of two protocols. Secondary aim was to assess if using the revised CT protocol reduced the number of additional images of the upper extremities. METHODS: Two groups of consecutive trauma patients, which both received a whole-body CT, were analyzed. Patients, who received a three-phased CT during which their arms needed to be repositioned from their side to above the head, were assigned to group A. Those, who received a CT with their arms placed on a pillow ventral to the abdomen throughout the entire scan were assigned to group B. Estimated radiation dose, scan duration, number of upper limb injuries and number of additional images of the upper limbs within 24 h after initial CT were assessed. RESULTS: Group A consisted of 182 patients, group B of 218. The scan duration was 3 min shorter (p < 0.001) and the estimated radiation dose lower (15.0 vs 22.9 mSv, p < 0.001) in group B. There was no difference in the number of upper limb injuries detected or the number of upper limb additional images required within 24 h. CONCLUSION: Using a whole-body CT scan protocol in which the arms remain on a pillow ventral to the torso instead of one which requires a repositioning of the arms, both scan duration and estimated radiation dose can be reduced. Despite the arms being within the scanned area in the revised protocol, the number of additional imaging of the upper extremities could not be reduced.

Long-term quality of life and functional outcome after rib fracture fixation.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to assess the long-term quality of life and functional outcome after rib fracture fixation for patients with multiple rib fractures or flail chest. Secondarily, this study sought to identify risk factors associated with the quality of life. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up by questionnaire was performed at a level-1 trauma center in Switzerland. All adult patients with three or more rib fractures treated with rib fixation between 2010 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. All outcomes were independently assessed for patients with multiple rib fractures and patients with a flail chest. The outcome measures were quality of life, level of dyspnea, return to work, implant irritation, and implant removal after a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Quality of life was assessed using the EuroQol five-dimensional five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and level of dyspnea was determined with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea (mMRC) scale. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 74 out of 102 patients (73%) at a median follow-up of 26 months (IQR 15-37). The median EQ-5D utility index score was 0.91 (0.89-1.0), which was equivalent to the reference population (0.902, p = 0.523). The vast majority of patients experienced 'no problems' or 'slight problems' in any of the EQ-5D-5L dimensions. The complication rate associated with rib fracture fixation was low, implant-related irritation was the most common long-term sequela and occurred in 31% of patients. In multivariable regression analyses, total length of stay on the intensive care unit (ICU-LOS) was independently associated with a worse quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent rib fracture fixation for multiple rib fractures or flail chest after severe chest trauma experienced a good quality of life at least 1 year after surgery. A longer ICU-LOS was independently associated with impaired quality of life. In addition, there were no significant differences in the long-term quality of life and functional outcome between patients with multiple rib fractures and a flail chest. Implant-related irritation was the most important long-term sequela and occurred in one-third of patients.

Is there a need for standardized postoperative X-rays after operative treatment of clavicular fractures?

PURPOSE: In most hospitals, acquiring postoperative X-rays after operative treatment of a fracture is the standard. Its value, however, after operative treatment for clavicular fractures is questionable. The aim of this study was to evaluate how often there is a change in treatment plan due to the postoperative X-ray after operative treatment of clavicular fractures when intra-operative images were acquired. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed in a level I trauma center. All consecutive patients treated surgically for clavicular fractures between 2014 and 2018 were included. The primary outcome was any deviation from the standard postoperative protocol resulting from the routine postoperative X-ray taken within the first 72 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included all other complications and re-interventions performed during follow-up of patients with at least 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 241 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 42 years (SD 17). Only one patient had an abnormality on postoperative X-ray necessitating additional CT-scanning. No additional re-interventions or deviations from standard postoperative protocol were required. For secondary analyses, 187 patients were available. Seven patients had a late implant associated infection: one was detected at the time of implant removal and six during revision for non-union. Six patients had aseptic complications: four with non-union and two with implant failure. One-hundred and seven patients had an implant removal due to irritation after consolidation. CONCLUSION: Routinely performing postoperative X-rays after osteosynthesis for clavicular fractures seems unnecessary. Refraining from performing unnecessary radiographs will decrease exposure to radiation and likely have a beneficial effect on costs, length of hospital stay as well as healthcare consumption. This study was performed in a single center; therefore, it remains to be seen whether the findings are reproducible in another setting.

Open plate fixation versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis compares open reduction and internal fixation with a plate (ORIF) versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures with regard to union, complications, general quality of life and shoulder/elbow function. METHODS: PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL was searched for observational studies and randomised clinical trials (RCT). Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. Results were presented as weighted odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Subgroup analysis was performed stratified for study design (RCTs and observational studies). RESULTS: Eighteen observational studies (4906 patients) and ten RCT's (525 patients) were included. The pooled effect estimates of observational studies were similar to those obtained from RCT's. More patients treated with nailing required re-intervention (RD 2%; OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-3.8) with shoulder impingement being the most predominant indication (17%). Temporary radial nerve palsy secondary to operation occurred less frequently in the nailing group (RD 2%; OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6). Notably, all but one of the radial nerve palsies resolved spontaneously in each groups. Nailing leads to a faster time to union (mean difference - 1.9 weeks, 95% CI - 2.9 to - 0.9), lower infection rate (RD 2%; OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.7) and shorter operation duration (mean difference - 26 min, 95% CI - 37 to - 14). No differences were found regarding non-union, general quality of life, functional shoulder scores, and total upper extremity scores. CONCLUSION: Nailing carries a lower risk of infection, postoperative radial nerve palsy, has a shorter operation duration and possibly a shorter time to union. Shoulder impingement requiring re-intervention, however, is an inherent disadvantage of nail fixation. Notably, absolute differences are small and almost all patients with radial nerve palsy recovered spontaneously. Satisfactory results can be achieved with both treatment modalities.