RESUMEN
Introduction Perilunate injuries are uncommon yet challenging and often missed injuries, representing 7% of all carpal traumas. Two types of injuries can be identified as follows: perilunate dislocations (PLD) and perilunate fracture-dislocations (PLFD). The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish which surgical treatment is superior for patients with perilunate injuries and the significance of delayed treatment. Methods A total of 2056 articles were screened, and 16 articles were included. Risk of bias for case-control series and case series were assessed through the National Institute of Health study quality assessment tool. Qualitative outcomes of clinical scores for hand function were compared between different time points (acute, < 7 days; delayed 7-45 days; chronic > 45 days), open and closed reduction, and PLD and PLFD. Results Overall, the clinical outcome scores of patients treated within 7 days are good. The results suggest that closed reduction and internal fixation (CRIF) offers slightly better outcomes than open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for PLFD. Patients treated 6 weeks or more after the initial injury seem to have the worst overall outcomes than patients in the acute or delayed setting. The results suggest that patients with chronic PLD have even worse outcomes than patients with chronic PLFD. Conclusions Timing of surgery is essential for an optimal outcome. When there is a delay of treatment, the outcomes are inferior to those treated acutely. Early referral to centralized treatment units for perilunate injuries would allow for targeted treatment and facilitate research on this difficult wrist injury.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures are essential in the evaluation of facial palsy. Aim of this study was to translate and validate the Facial Disability Index (FDI) for use in the Netherlands. METHODS: The FDI was translated into Dutch according to a forward-backward method. Construct validity was assessed by formulating 22 hypotheses regarding associations of FDI scores with the Facial Clinimetric Evaluation scale, the Synkinesis Assessment Questionnaire, the Short Form-12 and the Sunnybrook Facial Grading System. Validity was considered adequate if at least 75% (i.e. 17 out of 22) of the hypotheses were confirmed. Additionally, confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Cronbach's α was calculated as a measure of internal consistency. Participants were asked to fill out the FDI a second time after 2 weeks to analyse test-retest reliability. Lastly, smallest detectable change was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 19 hypotheses (86.4%) were confirmed. Confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable fit for the two factor structure of the original FDI (root mean square error of approximation = 0.064, standardized root mean square residual = 0.081, comparative fit index = 0.925, Chi-square = 50.22 with 34 degrees of freedom). Internal consistency for the FDI physical function scale was good (α > 0.720). Internal consistency for the FDI social/well-being scale was slightly less (α > 0.574). Test-retest reliability for both scales was good (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.786). Smallest detectable change at the level of the individual was 17.6 points for the physical function and 17.7 points for the social/well-being function, and at group level 1.9 points for both scales. CONCLUSION: The Dutch version FDI shows good psychometric properties. The relatively large values for individual smallest detectable change may limit clinical use. The translation and widespread use of the FDI in multiple languages can help to compare treatment results internationally.
