Five-Year Follow-Up of Surgery vs Functional Bracing for Closed Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures.

This study compares outcomes of surgery and functional bracing for closed humeral shaft fractures after 5 years of follow-up.

Concordance of shoulder symptoms and imaging findings: a protocol for the Finnish Imaging of Shoulder (FIMAGE) study.

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder pain is a substantial medical and socioeconomic problem in most societies, affecting the ability to work or carry out leisure time activities as well as subsequently influencing physical and psychological well-being. According to a nationwide survey in Finland, 27% of the population reported shoulder pain within the last 30 days. In clinical practice, imaging findings of structural abnormalities are typically thought to explain symptoms, even though such findings are also prevalent in asymptomatic individuals, particularly with increasing age. Overall, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence on the prevalence, clinical relevance and prognosis of 'abnormal' imaging findings of the shoulder.The aim of the Finnish Imaging of Shoulder (FIMAGE) study is fourfold: to assess (1) the prevalence of shoulder symptoms and the most common anatomical variants and imaging abnormalities of the shoulder; (2) the concordance between shoulder symptoms, function and imaging abnormalities; (3) the most important determinants of symptoms, function and imaging abnormalities; and (4) the course of shoulder complaints over 5 years. METHODS: The FIMAGE target population of 600 participants, aged 40-75 years, will be randomly selected from a nationally representative general population sample of 9922 individuals originally recruited for the Finnish Health 2000 Survey. On giving informed consent, the participants will be invited to a clinical visit that includes assessment of general health, shoulder symptoms, bilateral shoulder examination and imaging of both shoulders with plain radiography and MRI. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District. The findings will be published according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05641415.

Prediction of fracture nonunion leading to secondary surgery in patients with distal femur fractures.

Aims: Several previously identified patient-, injury-, and treatment-related factors are associated with the development of nonunion in distal femur fractures. However, the predictive value of these factors is not well defined. We aimed to assess the predictive ability of previously identified risk factors in the development of nonunion leading to secondary surgery in distal femur fractures. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with traumatic distal femur fracture treated with lateral locking plate between 2009 and 2018. The patients who underwent secondary surgery due to fracture healing problem or plate failure were considered having nonunion. Background knowledge of risk factors of distal femur fracture nonunion based on previous literature was used to form an initial set of variables. A logistic regression model was used with previously identified patient- and injury-related variables (age, sex, BMI, diabetes, smoking, periprosthetic fracture, open fracture, trauma energy, fracture zone length, fracture comminution, medial side comminution) in the first analysis and with treatment-related variables (different surgeon-controlled factors, e.g. plate length, screw placement, and proximal fixation) in the second analysis to predict the nonunion leading to secondary surgery in distal femur fractures. Results: We were able to include 299 fractures in 291 patients. Altogether, 31/299 fractures (10%) developed nonunion. In the first analysis, pseudo-R2 was 0.27 and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.81. BMI was the most important variable in the prediction. In the second analysis, pseudo-R2 was 0.06 and AUC was 0.67. Plate length was the most important variable in the prediction. Conclusion: The model including patient- and injury-related factors had moderate fit and predictive ability in the prediction of distal femur fracture nonunion leading to secondary surgery. BMI was the most important variable in prediction of nonunion. Surgeon-controlled factors had a minor role in prediction of nonunion.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs. high tibial osteotomy for medial knee osteoarthritis (UNIKORN): a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common health problem resulting in knee pain and limiting patients' physical activity. After failed conservative treatment, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) are possible surgical treatment options for this condition. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence in the literature comparing objective and subjective outcomes of these procedures. Also, there is no common agreement on whether these procedures provide comparable results in late-stage medial knee OA patients. METHODS: We will perform a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing HTO and UKA in patients with late-stage medial knee OA. 100 patients with isolated medial knee OA (KL III-IV) are assigned to either UKA (n = 50) or HTO (n = 50) procedure in patients 45-65 years of age. Our primary outcome will be KOOS5 at one year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include OARSI physical assessment, length of stay, wearable activity watch, radiographs (OA progression according to Kellgren-Lawrence classification), patient-reported outcomes (KOOS subscales, pain visual analog scale [VAS], Lysholm, and Oxford knee scores), and adverse events (conversion to total knee arthroplasty, surgery-related complications, need for revision surgery) outcomes. Our hypothesis is that neither of the interventions is superior as measured with KOOS5 at 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District has approved the protocol. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov/TooloH NCT05442242. Registered on 7/1/2022.

Epidemiology of 936 humeral shaft fractures in a large Finnish trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Humeral shaft fractures are relatively common injuries and are classified according to location and fracture morphology. Epidemiological studies improve understanding of injury patterns and lay foundations for future research. There are only a few published larger epidemiological studies on humeral shaft fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of adult patients having sustained a humeral shaft fracture treated in the Helsinki University Hospital between 2006 and 2016. We recorded patient and fracture characteristics, timing and mechanism of injury, associated injuries, and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: We identified 914 patients (489 females, median age = 61.4 years; 425 males, median age = 50.4 years) with 936 fractures. Over 60% of these fractures were sustained from simple falls. The patient age distribution was bimodal, with highest fracture rates in elderly females and young males. We divided the fractures into typical traumatic, periprosthetic, and pathological fractures. Of the 872 typical traumatic fractures, 3.0% were open. In addition, there were 24 (2.6%) periprosthetic and 40 (4.3%) pathological fractures. An associated injury was found in 24% of patients, with primary radial nerve palsy (PRNP) being the most common (10%). PRNPs were more common in distal shaft fractures and high energy injuries. The 1-year mortality was 9.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the most common injury mechanism was a simple fall. The most common associated injury was PRNP. The observed bimodal fracture distribution is consistent with previous literature.

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for common outcome instruments in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture - analysis of the FISH randomised clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: Two common ways of assessing the clinical relevance of treatment outcomes are the minimal important difference (MID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). The former represents the smallest change in the given outcome that makes people feel better, while the latter is the symptom level at which patients feel well. METHODS: We recruited 124 patients with a humeral shaft fracture to a randomised controlled trial comparing surgery to nonsurgical care. Outcome instruments included the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, the Constant-Murley score, and two numerical rating scales (NRS) for pain (at rest and on activities). A reduction in DASH and pain scores, and increase in the Constant-Murley score represents improvement. We used four methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve, the mean difference of change, the mean change, and predictive modelling methods) to determine the MID, and two methods (the ROC and 75th percentile) for the PASS. As an anchor for the analyses, we assessed patients' satisfaction regarding the injured arm using a 7-item Likert-scale. RESULTS: The change in the anchor question was strongly correlated with the change in DASH, moderately correlated with the change of the Constant-Murley score and pain on activities, and poorly correlated with the change in pain at rest (Spearman's rho 0.51, -0.40, 0.36, and 0.15, respectively). Depending on the method, the MID estimates for DASH ranged from -6.7 to -11.2, pain on activities from -0.5 to -1.3, and the Constant-Murley score from 6.3 to 13.5. The ROC method provided reliable estimates for DASH (-6.7 points, Area Under Curve [AUC] 0.77), the Constant-Murley Score (7.6 points, AUC 0.71), and pain on activities (-0.5 points, AUC 0.68). The PASS estimates were 14 and 10 for DASH, 2.5 and 2 for pain on activities, and 68 and 74 for the Constant-Murley score with the ROC and 75th percentile methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study provides credible estimates for the MID and PASS values of DASH, pain on activities and the Constant-Murley score, but not for pain at rest. The suggested cut-offs can be used in future studies and for assessing treatment success in patients with humeral shaft fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01719887, first registration 01/11/2012.

BioFACTS: biomarkers of rhabdomyolysis in the diagnosis of acute compartment syndrome - protocol for a prospective multinational, multicentre study involving patients with tibial fractures.

INTRODUCTION: The ischaemic pain of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) can be difficult to discriminate from the pain linked to an associated fracture. Lacking objective measures, the decision to perform fasciotomy is based on clinical findings and performed at a low level of suspicion. Biomarkers of muscle cell damage may help to identify and monitor patients at risk, similar to current routines for patients with acute myocardial infarction. This study will test the hypothesis that biomarkers of muscle cell damage can predict ACS in patients with tibial fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients aged 15-65 years who have suffered a tibial fracture will be included. Plasma (P)-myoglobin and P-creatine phosphokinase will be analysed at 6-hourly intervals after admission to the hospital (for 48 hours) and-if applicable-after surgical fixation or fasciotomy (for 24 hours). In addition, if ACS is suspected at any other point in time, blood samples will be collected at 6-hourly intervals. An independent expert panel will assess the study data and will classify those patients who had undergone fasciotomy into those with ACS and those without ACS. All primary comparisons will be performed between fracture patients with and without ACS. The area under the receiver operator characteristics curves will be used to identify the success of the biomarkers in discriminating between fracture patients who develop ACS and those who do not. Logistic regression analyses will be used to assess the discriminative abilities of the biomarkers to predict ACS corrected for prespecified covariates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review Boards in Linköping (2017/514-31) and Helsinki/Uusimaa (HUS/2500/2000). The BioFACTS study will be reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04674592.

Treatment of hallux rigidus (HARD trial): study protocol of a prospective, randomised, controlled trial of arthrodesis versus watchful waiting in the treatment of a painful osteoarthritic first metatarsophalangeal joint.

INTRODUCTION: Hallux rigidus is a common problem of pain and stiffness of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) caused mainly by degenerative osteoarthritis. Several operative techniques have been introduced for the treatment of this condition without high-quality evidence comparing surgical to non-surgical care. In this trial, the most common surgical procedure, arthrodesis, will be compared with watchful waiting in the management of hallux rigidus. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ninety patients (40 years or older) with symptomatic first MTPJ osteoarthritis will be randomised to arthrodesis or watchful waiting in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome will be pain during walking, assessed using the 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at 1 year after randomisation. The secondary outcomes will be pain at rest (NRS), physical function (Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire), patient satisfaction in terms of the patient-acceptable symptom state, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), activity level (The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Sports subscale), use of analgesics or orthoses and the rate of complications. Our null hypothesis is that there will be no difference equal to or greater than the minimal important difference of the primary outcome measure between arthrodesis and watchful waiting. Our primary analysis follows an intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District, Finland. Written informed consent will be obtained from all the participants. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROTOCOL VERSION: 21 June 2021 V.2.0. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04590313.

Casting in finger trap traction without reduction versus closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation of dorsally displaced, over-riding distal metaphyseal radius fractures in children under 11 years old: a study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Distal radius is the most common site of fracture in children, comprising 23%-31% of all paediatric fractures. Approximately one-fifth of these fractures are displaced. Completely displaced distal metaphyseal radius fractures in children have traditionally been treated with closed reduction. Recent evidence suggests that correcting the shortening in over-riding distal metaphyseal radius fractures is not necessary in prepubertal children. To date, no published randomised controlled trial (RCT) has compared treatment of these fractures in children by casting the fracture in bayonet position to reduction and pin fixation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct an RCT to compare the outcomes of casting the fracture in bayonet position in children under 11 years of age to reduction and percutaneous pin fixation. 60 patients will be randomly assigned to casting or surgery groups. We have two primary outcomes. The first is ratio (injured side/non-injured side) in the total active forearm rotation and the second is ratio (injured side/non-injured side) in total active range of motion of the wrist in the flexion-extension plane at 6 months. The secondary outcomes will include axial radiographic alignment, passive extension of the wrists, grip strength and length of forearms and hands, patient-reported outcome QuickDASH and pain questionnaire PedsQL. Patients not willing to participate in the RCT will be asked to participate in a prospective cohort. Patients not eligible for randomisation will be asked to participate in a non-eligible cohort. These cohorts are included to enhance the external validity of the results of the RCT. Our null hypothesis is that the results of the primary outcome measures in the casting group are non-inferior to surgery group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District has approved the protocol. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04323410. PROTOCOL: V.1.1, 29 September 2020.

Outcomes With Surgery vs Functional Bracing for Patients With Closed, Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures and the Need for Secondary Surgery: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the FISH Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Existing evidence indicates that surgery fails to provide superior functional outcome over nonoperative care in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture. However, up to one-third of patients treated nonoperatively may require secondary surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the 2-year outcomes of patients who required secondary surgery with the outcomes of patients with successful initial treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 2-year follow-up of the Finnish Shaft of the Humerus (FISH) randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with nonoperative treatment (functional brace) was completed in January 2020. Enrollment in the original trial was between November 2012 and January 2018 at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland. A total of 321 adult patients with closed, displaced humeral shaft fracture were assessed for eligibility. After excluding patients with cognitive disabilities, multimorbidity, or multiple trauma and those refusing randomization, 82 patients were randomized. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were surgery with plate fixation (n = 38; initial surgery group) or functional bracing (n = 44); the latter group was divided into the successful fracture healing group (n = 30; bracing group) and the secondary surgery group (n = 14) with fracture healing problems. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 2 years (range, 0 to 100 points; 0 denotes no disability, 100 extreme disability; minimal clinically important difference, 10 points). RESULTS: Of 82 randomized patients, 38 (46%) were female. The mean (SD) age was 48.9 (17.1) years. A total of 74 patients (90%) completed the 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, the mean DASH score was 6.8 (95% CI, 2.3 to 11.4) in the initial surgery group, 6.0 (95% CI, 1.0 to 11.0) in the bracing group, and 17.5 (95% CI, 10.5 to 24.5) in the secondary surgery group. The between-group difference was -10.7 points (95% CI, -19.1 to -2.3; P = .01) between the initial and secondary surgery groups and -11.5 points (95% CI, -20.1 to -2.9; P = .009) between the bracing group and secondary surgery group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients contemplating treatment for closed humeral shaft fracture should be informed that two-thirds of patients treated with functional bracing may heal successfully while one-third may experience fracture healing problems that require secondary surgery and lead to inferior functional outcomes 2 years after the injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01719887.

Effect of Surgery vs Functional Bracing on Functional Outcome Among Patients With Closed Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures: The FISH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Humeral shaft fractures traditionally have been treated nonsurgically, but there has been a steady increase in the rate of surgery over the past 2 decades without high-quality evidence to justify the trend. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing in the treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland, enrollment between November 2012 and January 2018 with a final follow-up of January 2019. A total of 82 adult patients with closed, unilateral, displaced humeral shaft fracture met criteria for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had cognitive disabilities preventing them from following the protocol or had multimorbidity or multiple trauma. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation (n = 38) or to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing (n = 44). Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 12 months (range, 0 to 100 points, 0 denotes no disability and 100 extreme disability; minimal clinically important difference, 10 points). Results: Among 82 patients who were randomized (mean age, 48.9 years; 38 women [46%]; 44 men [54%]), 78 (95%) completed the trial. Thirteen (30%) of the patients assigned to functional bracing underwent surgery during the 12-month follow-up period to promote healing of the fracture. At 12 months, the mean DASH score was 8.9 (95% CI, 4.2 to 13.6) in the surgery group and 12.0 (95% CI, 7.7 to 16.4) in the bracing group (between-group difference, -3.1 points; 95% CI, -9.6 to 3.3; P = .34). Eleven patients (25%) allocated to functional bracing developed fracture nonunion. Three patients (8%) allocated to surgery developed a temporary radial nerve palsy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with closed humeral shaft fracture, internal fixation surgery, compared with nonoperative functional bracing, did not significantly improve functional outcomes at 12 months. However, the substantial amount of treatment crossover from nonoperative to surgical treatment should be considered when interpreting the trial results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01719887.

Open reduction and internal fixation of humeral shaft fractures versus conservative treatment with a functional brace: a study protocol of a randomised controlled trial embedded in a cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Humeral shaft fractures represent 1%-3% of all fractures and 20% of humeral fractures in adults. The treatment of these fractures is mainly conservative and operative treatment is usually reserved for specific circumstances. To date, no randomised controlled trial (RCT) has compared operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures with conservative treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct an RCT to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment of humeral shaft fractures. After providing informed consent, 80 patients from 18 years of age with humeral shaft fracture will be randomly assigned to open reduction and internal fixation with locking plate or conservative treatment with functional bracing. We will follow the patients for 10 years and compare the results at different time points. The primary outcome will be Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) at 12 months. The secondary outcomes will include Numerical Rating Scale for pain at rest and in activities, Constant Score and quality of life instrument 15D. Patients not willing to participate in the RCT will be asked to participate in a prospective cohort follow-up study, 'the declined cohort'. This cohort will be followed up at the same time points as the randomised patients to assess the potential effect of participation bias on RCT results and to enhance the external validity of the RCT. In one of the recruiting centres, all cooperative patients with humeral shaft fractures not eligible for randomisation will be asked to participate in a 'non-eligible cohort' study. We will use blinded data interpretation of the randomised cohort to avoid biased interpretation of outcomes. Our null hypothesis is that there is no clinically relevant difference in the primary outcome measure between the two treatment groups. We will consider a difference of a minimum of 10 points in DASH clinically relevant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District has approved the protocol. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01719887; pre-results.