Long-Term Follow-up (14 to 25 Years) Following Closed Reduction and Early Movement for Simple Dislocation of the Elbow.

BACKGROUND: We have previously reported on the midterm outcomes after a nonoperative protocol to treat simple dislocations of the elbow that included a short period of splinting followed by early movement. We have now performed extended follow-up of the original patient group from the prior study to determine whether the excellent results that previously had been reported were maintained in the long term and also to determine the rate of and need for any late surgical intervention. METHODS: We attempted to contact all of the patients from the original study group. We requested that they complete the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) survey, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, and a validated patient satisfaction questionnaire. Patients also were requested to attend a face-to-face assessment to have a clinical examination that included neurovascular, range-of-motion, and ligamentous stability assessments. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients from the original patient group agreed to participate in the new study. The mean duration of follow-up was 19.3 years. At the time of the final follow-up, patients reported excellent functional outcome scores and a preserved functional range of movement in the injured elbow. The mean OES was 91.6 points, the mean DASH score was 5.22 points, and the mean satisfaction score was 90.9 points. None of the patients had undergone delayed or secondary surgery for instability during the interval period. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the original excellent outcomes following treatment with a protocol of a short period of splinting and early movement remained excellent and were maintained into the very long term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Protocolised MRI as an adjunct to CT in the diagnosis of femoral neck fracture in high energy ipsilateral femoral shaft fractures - A break-even analysis.

BACKGROUND: In high-energy femoral shaft fractures (FSFs), ipsilateral femoral neck fractures (FNFs) can be missed by conventional trauma computed topography (CT) imaging, resulting in increased treatment costs and patient complications. Preliminary evidence suggests that a rapid, limited-sequence pelvis and hip magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol can identify these occult fractures and be feasibly implemented in the trauma setting. This study aims to establish the economic break-even point for implementing such an MRI protocol in all high-energy FSFs. METHODS: We used an adapted break-even economic tool to determine whether the costs of a targeted MRI protocol can be offset by cost-savings achieved through prevention of missed fractures (thus avoiding prolonged admission and re-operation). Sensitivity analyses were performed to demonstrate reliability of the economic modelling across a range of assumptions. RESULTS: Assuming a baseline of FNFs missed on CT of 12%, an MRI cost of £129 and cost of treating each missed FNF of £2457.5, the equation yielded a break-even rate of 7% and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 5%, indicating that for every 100 FSFs, MRI would need to diagnose 5 of the 12 missed FNF to be economically viable (number needed to treat (NNT)=20). Economic viability was maintained even at double the cost of MRI, while increasing the cost of treating each complication served to reduce the ARR further, increasing cost-savings. CONCLUSION: A rapid, limited-sequence MRI protocol to exclude occult ipsilateral FNFs in all high-energy FSFs appears to be economically justified measure. Further research exploring the feasibility of such a protocol, as well as the role of intra-operative fluoroscopy in this context, is required.

Robotic versus non-robotic instruments in spatially constrained operating workspaces: a pre-clinical randomized crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of robotic and non-robotic laparoscopic instruments in spatially constrained workspaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgeons performed intracorporeal sutures with various instruments within three different cylindrical workspace sizes. Three pairs of instruments were compared: 3-mm non-robotic mini-laparoscopy instruments; 5-mm robotic instruments; and 8-mm robotic instruments. Workspace diameters were 4, 6 and 8 cm, with volumes of 50, 113 and 201 cm(3) respectively. Primary outcomes were validated objective task performance scores and instrument workspace breach counts. RESULTS: A total of 23 participants performed 276 suture task repetitions. The overall median task performance scores for the 3-, 5- and 8-mm instruments were 421, 398 and 402, respectively (P = 0.12). Task scores were highest (best) for the 3-mm non-robotic instruments in all workspace sizes. Scores were significantly lower when spatial constraints were imposed, with median task scores for the 4-, 6- and 8-cm diameter workspaces being 388, 415 and 420, respectively (P = 0.026). Significant indirect relationships were seen between boundary breaches and workspace size (P < 0.001). Higher breach counts occurred with the robotic instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller workspaces limit the performance of both robotic and non-robotic instruments. In operating workspaces <200 cm(3) , 3-mm non-robotic instruments are better suited for advanced bimanual operative tasks such as suturing. Future robotic instruments need further optimization if this technology is to be uniquely advantageous for clinical roles that involve endoscopic access to workspace-restricted anatomical areas.