RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient expectations influence patient-reported outcomes after musculoskeletal injuries. The goal of this study is to determine how pretreatment expectations correlate with outcomes in patients with distal radius fractures. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with an isolated distal radius fracture were prospectively enrolled into nonoperative and operative cohorts. The Trauma Expectation Factor-Trauma Outcome Measure (TEF-TOM) score was the primary outcome measure. Trauma Expectation Factor scores were recorded at the time of enrollment, and TOM scores were recorded at 3, 6, and 12 months. Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (qDASH) and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) scores were also recorded. RESULTS: Trauma Outcome Measure scores at all time points were worse than expected (P < .01). Expectations were higher for patients younger than 65 years than for the 65+ group (P = .02). In patients aged 65+ years, mean TOM at 3 months was not significantly different than expected (P = .11) but decreased by 6 (P = .04) and 12 months (P < .01). Baseline TEF and TEF-TOM scores were not significantly different between operative and nonoperative groups (P = .37). Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and PRWE scores were not significantly different between age or treatment groups at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The overall treatment of distal radial injuries in our study did not meet patient expectations. Patients aged 65 years or older had lower expectations but were not able to predict their outcomes better than patients aged <65 years. There were no differences in TEF or TOM by treatment method. Patients demonstrated improved functional outcomes (qDASH/PRWE) at all time points regardless of age and treatment method.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To estimate the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 transmission in a population of orthopaedic trauma patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 109 patients who underwent an emergent orthopedic procedure by a single orthopedic traumatologist between March 1, 2020 and May 15, 2020 during the first peak of the pandemic. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 82 patients (67 inpatients and 15 ambulatory) were identified for final analysis. The primary outcome measured was postoperative Coronavirus (COVID-19) status. Secondary outcome measures included length of stay and discharge disposition. Results: The mean age and length of stay in the hospital group was 59.5 years (± 21.7) and 4.3 days (± 4.6), respectively, versus 47.9 years (± 9.8) in the ambulatory group. 7.3% (6/82) of the inpatients subsequently tested or screened positive for COVID-19 at 2 weeks post-operatively, compared to 0/15 ambulatory patients (P=0.58). Of the 6 inpatients who tested positive, 4 (66.7%) were discharged to a rehabilitation center. Diabetes (P=0.05), hypertension (P=0.02), and congestive heart failure (P=0.005) were associated with transmission. Conclusion: In this analysis, there was a nosocomial transmission rate of 7% compared to zero in the ambulatory surgery center, however this was not found to be statistically significant. This data supports the use of precautions such as frequent screening, hand washing, and masks to reduce transmission when COVID-19 rates are high. There is a lower risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission for patients treated as an outpatient and elective surgical procedures may be safer in this setting.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) systems have gained attention for their use in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. Although traditional growing rods require frequent operations to lengthen the construct, MCGR allows for fewer open procedures and more frequent distractions by externally controlling rod elongation. Despite its appealing advantages, MCGR is not without limitations. OBSERVATIONS: The authors describe a case of premature spinal autofusion before growing rod removal and termination of rod distraction. LESSONS: This case highlights the limitations of MCGR systems, including length of use, body habitus restrictions, and risk of autofusion.
