Aspirin or Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis after a Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients with fractures, but trials of its effectiveness as compared with aspirin are lacking. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we enrolled patients 18 years of age or older who had a fracture of an extremity (anywhere from hip to midfoot or shoulder to wrist) that had been treated operatively or who had any pelvic or acetabular fracture. Patients were randomly assigned to receive low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) at a dose of 30 mg twice daily or aspirin at a dose of 81 mg twice daily while they were in the hospital. After hospital discharge, the patients continued to receive thromboprophylaxis according to the clinical protocols of each hospital. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were nonfatal pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, and bleeding complications. RESULTS: A total of 12,211 patients were randomly assigned to receive aspirin (6101 patients) or low-molecular-weight heparin (6110 patients). Patients had a mean (±SD) age of 44.6±17.8 years, 0.7% had a history of venous thromboembolism, and 2.5% had a history of cancer. Patients received a mean of 8.8±10.6 in-hospital thromboprophylaxis doses and were prescribed a median 21-day supply of thromboprophylaxis at discharge. Death occurred in 47 patients (0.78%) in the aspirin group and in 45 patients (0.73%) in the low-molecular-weight-heparin group (difference, 0.05 percentage points; 96.2% confidence interval, -0.27 to 0.38; P<0.001 for a noninferiority margin of 0.75 percentage points). Deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 2.51% of patients in the aspirin group and 1.71% in the low-molecular-weight-heparin group (difference, 0.80 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.31). The incidence of pulmonary embolism (1.49% in each group), bleeding complications, and other serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with extremity fractures that had been treated operatively or with any pelvic or acetabular fracture, thromboprophylaxis with aspirin was noninferior to low-molecular-weight heparin in preventing death and was associated with low incidences of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and low 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; PREVENT CLOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02984384.).

Perioperative nutritional status thought to be important, but poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES: Malnutrition has been shown to increase complications and leads to poor outcomes in surgical patients, but it has not been studied extensively in orthopedic trauma. This study's purpose is to determine the perspective and assessment of nutrition by orthopedic traumatologists. METHODS: A survey was created and distributed via REDCap to orthopedic traumatologists at 60 U.S. trauma centers. Out of 183 distributed surveys, 130 surgeons completed the survey (71%). The survey focused on the importance of nutrition and practice patterns in orthopedic trauma. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of surgeons thought that nutritional status was "very important" to the final outcome of patients with orthopedic trauma injuries, 24% responded "somewhat important" and 1% responded "not important." Furthermore, 88% perform nutritional assessments; most surgeons (77%) utilize nutritional laboratory markers, with the most common markers being albumin, pre-albumin, transferrin and CRP. Additionally, 42% think trending the laboratory markers is important, and 50% are not sure if nutrition markers should be tested at multiple time points. Despite 75% of surgeons believing that nutrition is very important, only 8% discuss it with patients routinely. When asked what is more important for outcomes, nutrition or Vitamin D, almost three times as many surgeons thought nutrition was more important (29% vs 11%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: While orthopedic traumatologists believe nutrition is an important determinant of patient outcomes, this study shows a clear lack of consensus and variability in practice regarding nutrition among surgeons. Orthopedic trauma surgeons need specific guidelines on how to assess and treat malnutrition in trauma patients.

Do superficial infections increase the risk of deep infections in tibial plateau and plafond fractures?

PURPOSE: Open reduction internal fixation of tibial plateau and pilon fractures may be complicated by deep surgical site infection requiring operative debridement and antibiotic therapy. The management of superficial surgical site infection is controversial. We sought to determine whether superficial infection is associated with an increased risk of deep infection requiring surgical debridement after fixation of tibial plateau and pilon fractures. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from the VANCO trial, which included 980 adult patients with a tibial plateau or pilon fracture at elevated risk of infection who underwent open reduction internal fixation with plates and screws with or without intrawound vancomycin powder. An association of superficial surgical site infection with deep surgical site infection requiring debridement surgery and antibiotics was explored after matching on risk factors for deep surgical site infection. RESULTS: Of the 980 patients, we observed 30 superficial infections (3.1%) and 76 deep infections (7.8%). Among patients who developed a superficial infection, the unadjusted incidence of developing a deep infection within 90 days was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-24.2%). However, after a 3:1 match on infection risk factors, the 90-day marginal probability of a deep surgical site infection after sustaining a superficial infection was 6.0% (95% CI - 6.5-18.5%, p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Deep infection after superficial infection is uncommon following operative fixation of tibial plateau and pilon fractures. Increased risk of subsequent deep infection attributable to superficial infection was inconclusive in these data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Changes in Opioid Prescribing Following the Implementation of State Policies Limiting Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose in a Commercially Insured Population.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid mortality doubled 2002-2016 in the United States. Given the association between high-dose opioid prescribing and opioid mortality, several states have enacted morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) policies to limit high-dose prescribing. The study objective is to evaluate the impact of state-level MEDD policies on opioid prescribing among the privately insured. METHODS: Claims data, 2010-2015 from 9 policy states and 2 control states and a comparative interrupted time series design were utilized. Primary outcomes were any monthly opioid use and average monthly MEDD. Stratified analyses evaluated theorized weaker policies (guidelines) and theorized stronger policies (passive alert systems, legislative acts, and rules/regulations) separately. Patient groups explicitly excluded from policies (eg, individuals with cancer diagnoses or receiving hospice care) were also examined separately. Analyses adjusted for covariates, state fixed effects, and time trends. RESULTS: Both guideline and strong policy implementation were both associated with 15% lower odds of any opioid use, relative to control states. However, there was no statistically significant change in the use of high-dose opioids in policy states relative to control states. There was also no difference in direction and significance of the relationship among targeted patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: MEDD policies were associated with decreased use of any opioids relative to control states, but no change in high-dose prescribing was observed. While the overall policy environment in treatment states may have discouraged opioid prescribing, there was no evidence of MEDD policy impact, specifically. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms through which MEDD policies may influence prescribing behavior.

Evaluation of an online motivational interviewing training program for rehabilitation professionals: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of an online motivational interviewing training program for rehabilitation professionals. DESIGN: Pre-post design with two groups. SETTING: Private rehabilitation hospital and an academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Group 1 included 19 motivational interviewing-experienced rehabilitation professionals. Group 2 included 25 motivational interviewing-naïve rehabilitation professionals. INTERVENTIONS: Group 1 was exposed to an online motivational training program and Group 2 was exposed to an online motivational training program and a live booster session. MAIN MEASURES: Motivational interviewing communication skills were measured with an adapted Helpful Responses Questionnaire. Knowledge and attitudes were measured with an adapted Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test. Confidence, importance, and feasibility for implementing motivational interviewing were measured using the Motivational Interviewing Rulers. RESULTS: Group 1 showed improvement in communication skills (2.6/5-3.3/5; P < 0.05) and confidence (6.0/01-7.4/10; P < 0.01) after online training. Improvements seen in skills and confidence were maintained at three months. Group 2 showed improvement in skills (2.1/5-3.3/5; P < 0.001), knowledge (7.7/10-8.5/10; P < 0.01), confidence (6.4/10-7.5/10; P < 0.01), and importance (8.3/10-8.9/10; P < 0.05) after online training. At three-months post-booster, improvements in communication skills and knowledge were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Online training can be a cost and time effective approach to improve rehabilitation professionals' skills in motivational interviewing. Follow-up training activities are needed to maintain the level of knowledge and skill improvement.

Role of psychosocial factors on the effect of physical activity on physical function in patients after lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the longitudinal postoperative relationship between physical activity, psychosocial factors, and physical function in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: We enrolled 248 participants undergoing surgery for a degenerative lumbar spine condition. Physical activity was measured using a triaxial accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X) at 6-weeks (6wk), 6-months (6M), 12-months (12M) and 24-months (24M) following spine surgery. Physical function (computerized adaptive test domain version of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) and psychosocial factors (pain self-efficacy, depression and fear of movement) were assessed at preoperative visit and 6wk, 6M, 12M and 24M after surgery. Structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques were utilized to analyze data, and results are represented as standardized regression weights (SRW). Overall SRW were computed across five imputed datasets to account for missing data. The mediation effect of each psychosocial factor on the effect of physical activity on physical function were computed [(SRW for effect of activity on psychosocial factor X SRW for effect of psychosocial factor on function) ÷ SRW for effect of activity on function]. Each SEM model was tested for model fit by assessing established fit indexes. RESULTS: The overall effect of steps per day on physical function (SRW ranged from 0.08 to 0.19, p<0.05) was stronger compared to the overall effect of physical function on steps per day (SRW ranged from non-existent to 0.14, p<0.01 to 0.3). The effect of steps per day on physical function and function on steps per day remained consistent after accounting for psychosocial factors in each of the mediation models. Depression and fear of movement at 6M mediated 3.4% and 5.4% of the effect of steps per day at 6wk on physical function at 12M, respectively. Pain self-efficacy was not a statistically significant mediator. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that the relationship between physical activity and physical function is stronger than the relationship of function to activity. However, future research is needed to examine whether promoting physical activity during the early postoperative period may result in improvement of long-term physical function. Since depression and fear of movement had a very small mediating effect, additional work is needed to investigate other potential mediating factors such as pain catastrophizing, resilience and exercise self-efficacy.

The Impact of Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose Threshold Guidelines on Prescribed Dose in a Workers' Compensation Population.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid overdose has increased markedly and is of great concern among injured workers receiving workers' compensation insurance. Given the association between high daily dose of prescription opioids and negative health outcomes, state workers' compensation boards have disseminated Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD) guidelines to discourage high-dose opioid prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of MEDD guidelines among workers' compensation claimants on prescribed opioid dose. METHODS: Workers' compensation claims data, 2010-2013 from 2 guideline states and 3 control states were utilized. The study design was an interrupted time series with comparison states and average monthly MEDD was the primary outcome. Policy variables were specified to allow for both instantaneous and gradual effects and additional stratified analyses examined evaluated the policies separately for individuals with and without acute pain, cancer, and high-dose baseline use to determine whether policies were being targeted as intended. RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, state fixed-effects, and time trends, policy implementation was associated with a 9.26 mg decrease in MEDD (95% confidence interval, -13.96 to -4.56). Decreases in MEDD also became more pronounced over time and were larger in groups targeted by the policies. CONCLUSIONS: Passage of workers' compensation MEDD guidelines was associated with decreases in prescribed opioid dose among injured workers. Disseminating MEDD guidelines to doctors who treat workers' compensation cases may address an important risk factor for opioid-related mortality, while still allowing for autonomy in practice. Further research is needed to determine whether MEDD policies influence prescribing behavior and patient outcomes in other populations.

Reducing High-Dose Opioid Prescribing: State-Level Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose Policies, 2007-2017.

OBJECTIVE: To describe current state-level policies in the United States, January 1, 2007-June 1, 2017, limiting high morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) prescribing. METHODS: State-level MEDD threshold policies were reviewed using LexisNexis and Westlaw Next for legislative acts and using Google for nonlegislative state-level policies. The websites of each state's Medicaid agency, health department, prescription drug monitoring program, workers' compensation board, medical board, and pharmacy board were reviewed to identify additional policies. The final policy list was checked against existing policy compilations and academic literature and through contact with state health agency representatives. Policies were independently double-coded on the categories: state, agency/organization, policy type, effective date, threshold level, and policy exceptions. RESULTS: Currently, 22 states have at least one type of MEDD policy, most commonly guidelines (14 states), followed by prior authorizations (four states), rules/regulations (four states), legislative acts (three states), claim denials (two states), and alert systems/automatic patient reports (two states). Thresholds range widely (30-300 mg MEDD), with higher thresholds generally corresponding to more restrictive policies (e.g., claim denial) and lower thresholds corresponding to less restrictive policies (e.g., guidelines). The majority of policies exclude some groups of opioid users, most commonly patients with terminal illnesses or acute pain. CONCLUSIONS: MEDD policies have gained popularity in recent years, but considerable variation in threshold levels and policy structure point to a lack of consensus. This work provides a foundation for future evaluation of MEDD policies and may inform states considering adopting such policies.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Injury Prevention Programs: A Qualitative Exploration and Model Development.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma mandated implementation of injury prevention programs as a requirement for Level I and II trauma center designation. Little is known about the factors that facilitate or create barriers to establishing evidence-based injury prevention program implementation. The purpose of this research is to generate hypotheses regarding processes used to implement injury prevention programs at trauma centers, identify the factors that facilitate and serve as a barrier to implementation, and develop a model reflecting these factors and relationships. METHODS: This is a qualitative study of injury prevention programs at trauma centers. Study participants were chosen from 24 sites representing trauma centers of different patient volumes, geographic regions, and settings in the United States. Subjects participated in phone interviews based on guides developed from pilot interviews with prevention coordinators. Transcribed interviews from eight subjects were analyzed using a system of member checking to code; analysis informed the identification of factors that influence the establishment of evidence-based injury prevention programs. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data analysis: external factors, internal organizational factors, program capacity, program selection, and program success. Analysis revealed that successful program implementation was related to supportive leaders and collaborative, interdepartmental relationships. Additional themes indicated that while organizations were motivated primarily by verification requirements (external factor), strong institutional leadership (internal factor) was lacking. Employee readiness (program capacity) was hindered by limited training opportunities, and programs were often chosen (selection) based on implementation ease rather than evidence base or local data. CONCLUSIONS: Data analysis reveals five emerging themes of program implementation; using these data, we suggest an initial model of barriers and facilitators for implementing evidence-based injury prevention programs that could serve as the springboard for additional research involving a larger representative sample.

A patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique for orthopaedic trauma research.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to address the current limitations of the use of composite endpoints in orthopaedic trauma research by quantifying the relative importance of clinical outcomes common to orthopaedic trauma patients and use those values to develop a patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique. METHODS: A Best-Worst Scaling choice experiment was administered to 396 adult surgically-treated fracture patients. Respondents were presented with ten choice sets, each consisting of three out of ten plausible clinical outcomes. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to determine the utilities associated with the outcomes. RESULTS: Death was the outcome of greatest importance (mean utility = - 8.91), followed by above knee amputation (- 7.66), below knee amputation (- 6.97), severe pain (- 5.90), deep surgical site infection (SSI) (- 5.69), bone healing complications (- 5.20), and moderate pain (- 4.59). Mild pain (- 3.30) and superficial SSI (- 3.29), on the other hand, were the outcomes of least importance to respondents. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that patients' relative importance towards clinical outcomes followed a logical gradient, with distinct and quantifiable preferences for each possible component outcome. These findings were incorporated into a novel composite endpoint weighting technique.

Using m-health tools to reduce the misuse of opioid pain relievers.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) patients are among the many groups at risk for prescription drug overdose. There is limited research on how best to communicate with ED patients about options for pain management and the risks of opioids. The aim of this study is to pilot test a web-based, patient-centred educational programme that encourages the patient to have an informed discussion about pain medication options with their ED provider. METHODS: This multisite, randomised trial will evaluate an m-health programme designed to aid the patient in making an informed decision about their pain treatment. Patients reporting to the ED with an injury-related or pain- related chief complaint who agree to participate are randomised to receive the intervention programme, My Healthy Choices, or an attention-matched control. My Healthy Choices pairs tailored education with a patient decision aid to describe what opioid and non-opioid pain medications are, assess the patient's risk factors for opioid-related adverse effects, and produce a tailored report that patients are encouraged to share with their doctor. Data are collected through surveys at three time points during the ED encounter (baseline, immediately after the intervention and just before discharge), and at a 6-week follow-up survey. The primary outcomes are whether the patient prefers an opioid pain reliever (OPR) and whether the patient takes an OPR. DISCUSSION: We hope this programme will facilitate patient-provider communication, as well as reduce the number of prescriptions written for OPRs and thus the number of patients exposed to prescription opioids and the associated risks of addiction and overdose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03012087; Pre-results.

Traumatic injuries and persistent opioid use in the USA: findings from a nationally representative survey.

BACKGROUND: Although opioid abuse is a rising epidemic in the USA, there are no studies to date on the incidence of persistent opioid use following injuries. Therefore, the aims of this study are: (1) to examine the incidence of persistent opioid use among a nationally representative sample of injured and non-injured populations; (2) to evaluate whether an injury is an independent predictor of persistent opioid use. METHOD: Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were pooled (years 2009-2012). Adults were followed for about 2 years, during which they were surveyed about injury status and opioid use every 4-5 months. To determine whether injuries are associated with persistent opioid use, weighted multiple logistic regressions were constructed. RESULTS: While 2.3 million injured individuals received any opioid during the follow-up, 371 170 (15.6%) individuals became persistent opioid users (defined as opioid use across multiple time points). In a multiple logistic regression analysis adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported health, those who sustained injuries were 1.4 times (95% CI 1.1 to 1.9) more likely to report persistent opioid use than those without injuries. CONCLUSIONS: We found injuries to be significantly associated with persistent opioid use in a nationally representative sample. Further investment in injury prevention may facilitate reduction of persistent opioid use and, thus, improve population health and reduce health expenditures.

The impact of practice guidelines on opioid utilization for injured workers.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use is rising in the US and may cause special problems in workers compensation cases, including addiction and preventing a return to work after an injury. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates a physician-level intervention to curb opioid usage. An insurer identified patients with out-of-guideline opioid utilization and called the prescribing physician to discuss the patient's treatment protocol. RESEARCH DESIGN: This study uses a differences-in-differences study design with a propensity-score-matched control group. Medical and pharmaceutical claims data from 2005 to 2011 were used for analyses. RESULTS: Following the intervention, the use of opioids increased for the intervention group and there is little impact on medical spending. CONCLUSIONS: Counseling physicians about patients with high opioid utilization may focus more attention on their care, but did not impact short-term outcomes. More robust interventions may be needed to manage opioid use. PERSPECTIVE: While the increasing use of opioids is of growing concern around the world, curbing the utilization of these powerfully addictive narcotics has proved elusive. This study examines a prescribing guidelines intervention designed to reduce the prescription of opioids following an injury. The study finds that there was little change in the opioid utilization after the intervention, suggesting interventions along other parts of the prescribing pathway may be needed.

The Contribution of the Emergency Department To Opioid Pain Reliever Misuse And Diversion: A Critical Review.

Prescription opioid pain reliever (OPR) misuse and diversion is an important and growing public health problem in the United States that is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. Emergency physicians are among the top prescribers of OPRs, yet the relative contribution of emergency department (ED) OPR prescriptions to the overall opioid abuse epidemic remains unclear. This study critically reviews seven peer-reviewed studies that specifically identified the ED as a source of OPRs. Of the OPRs prescribed in the ED, approximately 10% are associated with indicators of inappropriate prescribing, and approximately 42% may ultimately be misused; of the OPRs that are diverted, approximately 10% originate from an ED prescription. Among patients who suffer an OPR-related death, approximately 1.8% of the OPR pills given to the decedents will have come from the ED. In addition to the need for more research, the existing literature suggests an urgent need for interventions in the ED to reduce OPR misuse and diversion.

Insurance status and health-related quality-of-life disparities after trauma: results from a nationally representative survey in the US.

PURPOSE: To determine whether insurance status modifies the association between injuries and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a nationally representative sample of US adults. METHODS: This is a longitudinal, observational study using the pooled 2000-2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). A total of 50,225 adults (age ≥ 18) with or without injuries were included in the study. HRQOL was evaluated using the EuroQoL Health Index (EQ-5D), visual analog scale (VAS), and the SF-12 physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS). A categorical variable of injury-insurance combinations was created (not injured-privately insured, not injured-publically insured, not injured-uninsured, injured-privately insured, injured-publically insured, or injured-uninsured) and was included in the linear regression models. Adjustment covariates included age, gender, education, race, diabetes, hypertension, and baseline self-reported health. Healthcare utilization was also examined among the study population by injury status and across insurance groups. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ten individuals reported injuries. Adjusted analyses showed that injured individuals with public insurance had lower EQ-5D (-0.25), VAS (-11.4), PCS (-8.5), and MCS (-4.9) than the privately insured controls, while uninsured had EQ-5D, VAS, PCS and MCS that were, respectively, -0.12, -7.2, -2.6 and -4.1 relative to privately insured controls. With the exception of hospital discharges, healthcare utilization among uninsured individuals was lower than those with public or private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: We found injured individuals to have lower HRQOL than those without injuries, and this effect was exacerbated by insurance status. These findings call for interventions aimed to narrow the outcome disparity among injured in the US.

Early opioid prescription and risk of long-term opioid use among US workers with back and shoulder injuries: a retrospective cohort study.

The number of prescription opioid overdose deaths has increased dramatically in recent years and many prescribers are unsure how to balance treatment of pain with secondary prevention. Guidelines recommend low-severity injury patients not receive opioids early in the course of their care, but evidence supporting this guideline is limited. Data from 123 096 workers' compensation claims with back and shoulder injuries were analysed to evaluate this guideline. Back and shoulder injury claimants with early opioid use (≤1 month after injury) had 33% lower (95% CI 24% to 41% lower) odds and 29% higher (95% CI 6% to 58% higher) odds, respectively, of long-term opioid use (>3 months) than claimants with late opioid use, after adjusting for key covariates. Stratified analyses indicate that early opioid use does not appear to increase the risk of long-term use except in cases where no diagnosis or only the diagnosis of unspecified shoulder pain is given prior to prescription.

Does Surgical Stabilization of Lateral Compression-type Pelvic Ring Fractures Decrease Patients' Pain, Reduce Narcotic Use, and Improve Mobilization?

BACKGROUND: Debate remains over the role of surgical treatment in minimally displaced lateral compression (Young-Burgess, LC, OTA 61-B1/B2) pelvic ring injuries. Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) injuries are defined by an impaction fracture at the sacrum; type 2 (LC2) are defined by a fracture that extends through the posterior iliac wing at the level of the sacroiliac joint. Some believe that operative stabilization of these fractures limits pain and eases mobilization, but to our knowledge there are few controlled studies on the topic. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does operative stabilization of LC1 and LC2 pelvic fractures decrease patients' narcotic use and lower their visual analog scale pain scores? (2) Does stabilization allow patients to mobilize earlier with physical therapy? METHODS: This retrospective study of LC1 and LC2 fractures evaluated patients treated definitively at one institution from 2007 to 2013. All patients treated surgically, all nonoperative LC2, and all nonoperative LC1 fractures with complete sacral injury were included. In general, LC1 or LC2 fractures with greater than 10 mm of displacement and/or sagittal/axial plane deformity on static radiographs were treated surgically. One hundred fifty-eight patients in the LC1 group (107 [of 697 screened] nonoperative, 51 surgical) and 123 patients in the LC2 group (78 nonoperative, 45 surgical) met inclusion criteria. The surgical and nonoperative groups were matched for fracture type. To account for differences between patients treated surgically and nonoperatively, we used propensity modeling techniques incorporating treatment predictors. Propensity scores demonstrated good overlap and were used as part of multiple variable regression models to account for selection bias between the surgically treated and nonoperative groups. Patient-reported pain scores and narcotic administration were tallied in 24-hour increments during the first 24 hours of hospitalization, at 48 hours after intervention, and in the 24 hours before discharge. Time from intervention to mobilization out of bed was recorded; intervention was defined as the date of definitive surgical intervention or the day the surgeon determined the patient would be treated without surgery. RESULTS: There was no difference in the narcotics distributed to any of the groups with the exception that the patients with surgically treated LC2 fractures used, on average (mean [95% confidence interval]) 40.2 (-72.9 to -7.6) mg morphine less at the 48-hour mark (p = 0.016). In general, there were no differences between the groups' pain scores. The surgically treated patients with LC1 fractures mobilized 1.7 (-3.3 to -0.01) days earlier (p = 0.034) than their nonoperative counterparts. There was no difference in the LC2 cohort in terms of time to mobilization between those treated with and without surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There were few differences in pain scores and morphine use between the surgical and nonoperative groups, and the differences observed likely were not clinically important. We found no evidence that surgical stabilization of certain LC1 and LC2 pelvic fractures improves patients' pain, decreases their narcotic use, and improves time to mobilization. A randomized trial of patients with similar fractures and similar degrees initial displacement would help remove some of the confounders present in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Will My Tibial Fracture Heal? Predicting Nonunion at the Time of Definitive Fixation Based on Commonly Available Variables.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of tibial nonunions has eluded researchers. Reliably predicting tibial nonunions at the time of fixation could change management strategies and stimulate further research. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked (1) whether data from medical records, fracture characteristics, and radiographs obtained at the time of fixation would identify features predictive of tibial fracture nonunion; and (2) whether this information could be used to create a model to assess the chance of nonunion at the time of intramedullary (IM) nail fixation of the tibia. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all tibial shaft fractures treated at our center from 2007 to 2014. We conducted a literature review and collected data on 35 factors theorized to contribute to delayed bone healing. Patients were followed to fracture healing or surgery for nonunion. Patients with planned prophylactic nonunion surgery were excluded because their nonunions were anticipated and our focus was on unanticipated nonunions. Our cohort consisted of 382 patients treated with IM nails for tibial shaft fractures (nonunion, 56; healed, 326). Bivariate and multivariate regression techniques and stepwise modeling approaches examined the relationship between variables available at definitive fixation. Factors were included in our model if they were identified as having a modest to large effect size (odds ratio > 2) at the p < 0.05 level. RESULTS: A multiple variable logistic regression model was developed, including seven factors (p < 0.05; odds ratio > 2.0). With these factors, we created the Nonunion Risk Determination (NURD) score. The NURD score assigns 5 points for flaps, 4 points for compartment syndrome, 3 points for chronic condition(s), 2 points for open fractures, 1 point for male gender, and 1 point per grade of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status and percent cortical contact. One point each is subtracted for spiral fractures and for low-energy injuries, which were found to be predictive of union. A NURD score of 0 to 5 had a 2% chance of nonunion; 6 to 8, 22%; 9 to 11, 42%; and > 12, 61%. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed nonunion prediction model (NURDS) seems to have potential to allow clinicians to better determine which patients have a higher risk of nonunion. Future work should be directed at prospectively validating and enhancing this model. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Analgesic Access for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department Among Racial/Ethnic Minority Patients: A Nationwide Examination.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of acute abdominal pain provide conflicting data regarding the presence of racial/ethnic disparities in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate race/ethnicity-based differences in ED analgesic pain management among a national sample of adult patients with acute abdominal pain based on a uniform definition. RESEARCH DESIGN/SUBJECTS/MEASURES: The 2006-2010 CDC-NHAMCS data were retrospectively queried for patients 18 years and above presenting with a primary diagnosis of nontraumatic acute abdominal pain as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Independent predictors of analgesic/narcotic-specific analgesic receipt were determined. Risk-adjusted multivariable analyses were then performed to determine associations between race/ethnicity and analgesic receipt. Stratified analyses considered risk-adjusted differences by the level of patient-reported pain on presentation. Secondary outcomes included: prolonged ED-LOS (>6 h), ED wait time, number of diagnostic tests, and subsequent inpatient admission. RESULTS: A total of 6710 ED visits were included: 61.2% (n=4106) non-Hispanic white, 20.1% (n=1352) non-Hispanic black, 14.0% (n=939) Hispanic, and 4.7% (n=313) other racial/ethnic group patients. Relative to non-Hispanic white patients, non-Hispanic black patients and patients of other races/ethnicities had 22%-30% lower risk-adjusted odds of analgesic receipt [OR (95% CI)=0.78 (0.67-0.90); 0.70 (0.56-0.88)]. They had 17%-30% lower risk-adjusted odds of narcotic analgesic receipt (P<0.05). Associations persisted for patients with moderate-severe pain but were insignificant for mild pain presentations. When stratified by the proportion of minority patients treated and the proportion of patients reporting severe pain, discrepancies in analgesic receipt were concentrated in hospitals treating the largest percentages of both. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of 5 years of CDC-NHAMCS data corroborates the presence of racial/ethnic disparities in ED management of pain on a national scale. On the basis of a uniform definition, the results establish the need for concerted quality-improvement efforts to ensure that all patients, regardless of race/ethnicity, receive optimal access to pain relief.

Safety Strategy Use Among Women Seeking Temporary Protective Orders: The Relationship Between Violence Experienced, Strategy Effectiveness, and Risk Perception.

This study examined safety strategy use in relation to intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, perceived effectiveness of the strategies, and perception of danger from IPV among 197 abused women. More than 90% of the women used 1 or more strategies in the 6 months prior to their interview. Severe physical and sexual violence were significantly associated with an increased use of placating strategies. Perceived effectiveness of the strategies was high yet not associated with strategy use. Increased perception of danger from IPV was significantly associated with increased use of safety planning strategies. The findings suggest that safety planning should be tailored to fit women's specific contexts. Safety planning discussions should focus on strategies that reduce women's risk of continued violence and build on women's strengths.