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.).

Opioid Prescribing Rate for Nonoperative Distal Radius Fractures and Clinician Response to a Clinical Decision Support Alert.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly prescribed for the management of acute orthopedic trauma pain, including nonoperative distal radius fractures. OBJECTIVES: This prospective study aimed to determine if a clinical decision support intervention influenced prescribing decisions for patients with known risk factors. We sought to quantify frequency of opioid prescriptions for acute nonoperative distal radius fractures treated. METHODS: We performed a prospective study at one large health care system. Utilizing umbrella code S52.5, we identified all distal radius fractures treated nonoperatively, and the encounters were merged with the Prescription Reporting with Immediate Medication Mapping (PRIMUM) database to identify encounters with opioid prescriptions and patients with risk factors for opioid use disorder. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine patient characteristics associated with the prescription of an opioid. Among encounters that triggered the PRIMUM alert, we calculated the percentage of encounters where the PRIMUM alert influenced the prescribing decision. RESULTS: Of 2984 encounters, 1244 (41.7%) included an opioid prescription. Age increment is a significant factor to more likely receive opioid prescriptions (p < 0.0001) after adjusting for other factors. Among encounters where the physician received an alert, those that triggered the alert for early refill were more likely to influence physicians' opioid prescribing when compared with other risk factors (p = 0.0088). CONCLUSION: Over 90% of patients (106/118) continued to receive an opioid medication despite having a known risk factor for abuse. Additionally, we found older patients were more likely to be prescribed opioids for nonoperatively managed distal radius fractures.

PrEvention of posttraumatic contractuRes with Ketotifen 2 (PERK 2) - protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Injuries and resulting stiffness around joints, especially the elbow, have huge psychological effects by reducing quality of life through interference with normal daily activities such as feeding, dressing, grooming, and reaching for objects. Over the last several years and through numerous research results, the myofibroblast-mast cell-neuropeptide axis of fibrosis had been implicated in post-traumatic joint contractures. Pre-clinical models and a pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) demonstrated the feasibility and safety of using Ketotifen Fumarate (KF), a mast cell stabilizer to prevent elbow joint contractures. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of KF in reducing joint contracture severity in adult participants with operately treated elbow fractures and/or dislocations. METHODS/DESIGN: A Phase III randomized, controlled, double-blinded multicentre trial with 3 parallel groups (KF 2 mg or 5 mg or lactose placebo twice daily orally for 6 weeks). The study population consist of adults who are at least 18 years old and within 7 days of injury. The types of injuries are distal humerus (AO/OTA type 13) and/or proximal ulna and/or proximal radius fractures (AO/OTA type 2 U1 and/or 2R1) and/or elbow dislocations (open fractures with or without nerve injury may be included). A stratified randomization scheme by hospital site will be used to assign eligible participants to the groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is change in elbow flexion-extension range of motion (ROM) arc from baseline to 12 weeks post-randomization. The secondary outcomes are changes in ROM from baseline to 6, 24 & 52 weeks, PROMs at 2, 6, 12, 24 & 52 weeks and impact of KF on safety including serious adverse events and fracture healing. Descriptive analysis for all outcomes will be reported and ANCOVA be used to evaluate the efficacy KF over lactose placebo with respect to the improvement in ROM. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence for the use of KF in reducing post-traumatic joint contractures and improving quality of life after joint injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered (July 10, 2018) with ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT03582176.

Opioid Prescribing in the Pediatric Orthopaedic Trauma Population.

The purpose of this article is to describe opioid prescribing patterns for children with orthopaedic injuries. A retrospective chart review was conducted on pediatric orthopaedic trauma patients (n = 124) who were discharged from the hospital or emergency department or had a clinic visit during a 1-month period. Patient demographics, prescription specifics, injury details, and fracture fixation information were collected. Results show that most children received opioids after injury (82.3%). While children undergoing operative fixation typically received opioids, only 39.5% with closed reduction did. Hydrocodone- acetaminophen accounted for 93% of prescriptions, but adolescents were more likely to receive other drugs. There was a significant trend of increasing daily dosage with increased age; 36.73% of adolescents received > 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day. Children with orthopaedic injuries are typically prescribed opioids; older children more commonly receive higher dosages. Further study is needed to define prescribing trends across facility and specialty types to aid in development of standardized prescribing guidelines. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 27(4):269-273, 2018).

Improving outcomes: understanding the psychosocial aspects of the orthopaedic trauma patient.

The care of orthopaedic trauma patients with multiple injuries has dramatically improved in the past 25 years. The understanding of the physiology of trauma has evolved, new surgical approaches have been developed, and technologic advances have created better implants. New methods of treating fractures include fluoroscopic and computer-assisted imaging. Surgical interventions have changed from extensive and prolonged dissections to more limited and effective percutaneous and minimally invasive techniques. The lives of patients are being saved, and radiographic outcomes are improving; however, medical and surgical advances that achieve better radiographic and anatomic outcomes do not always improve functional outcomes. Understanding and optimizing the management of the psychosocial factors that affect trauma patients can improve outcomes.

How many sites should an orthopedic trauma prospective multicenter trial have? A marginal analysis of the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium completed trials.

BACKGROUND: Multicenter trials in orthopedic trauma are costly, yet crucial to advance the science behind clinical care. The number of sites is a key cost determinant. Each site has a fixed overhead cost, so more sites cost more to the study. However, more sites can reduce total costs by shortening the study duration. We propose to determine the optimal number of sites based on known costs and predictable site enrollment. METHODS: This retrospective marginal analysis utilized administrative and financial data from 12 trials completed by the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium. The studies varied in size, design, and clinical focus. Enrollment across the studies ranged from 1054 to 33 patients. Design ranged from an observational study with light data collection to a placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Initial modeling identified the optimal number of sites for each study and sensitivity analyses determined the sensitivity of the model to variation in fixed overhead costs. RESULTS: No study was optimized in terms of the number of participating sites. Excess sites ranged from 2 to 39. Excess costs associated with extra sites ranged from $17K to $330K with a median excess cost of $96K. Excess costs were, on average, 7% of the total study budget. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that studies with higher overhead costs require more sites to complete the study as quickly as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support that this model may be used by clinical researchers to achieve future study goals in a more cost-effective manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Please see Table 1 for individual trial registration numbers and dates of registration.

Do Transtibial Amputations Outperform Amputations of the Hind- and Midfoot Following Severe Limb Trauma?: A Secondary Analysis of the OUTLET Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare 18-month clinical and patient-reported outcomes between patients with severe lower-limb injuries treated with a transtibial amputation or a hind- or midfoot amputation. Despite the theoretical benefits of hind- and midfoot-level amputation, we hypothesized that patients with transtibial amputations would report better function and have fewer complications. METHODS: The study included patients 18 to 60 years of age who were treated with a transtibial amputation (n = 77) or a distal amputation (n = 17) and who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Outcomes Following Severe Distal Tibial, Ankle, and/or Foot Trauma (OUTLET) study. The primary outcome was the difference in Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores, and secondary outcomes included pain, complications, amputation revision, and amputation healing. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients with distal versus transtibial amputation in any of the domains of the SMFA: dysfunction index [distal versus transtibial], 31.2 versus 22.3 (p = 0.13); daily activities, 37.3 versus 26.0 (p = 0.17); emotional status, 41.4 versus 29.3 (p = 0.07); mobility, 36.5 versus 27.8 (p = 0.20); and bother index, 34.4 versus 23.6 (p = 0.14). Rates of complications requiring revision were higher for distal amputations but not significantly so (23.5% versus 13.3%; p = 0.28). One distal and no transtibial amputees required revision to a higher level (p = 0.18). A higher proportion of patients with distal compared with transtibial amputation required local surgical revision (17.7% versus 13.3%; p = 0.69). There was no significant difference between the distal and transtibial groups in scores on the Brief Pain Index at 18 months post-injury. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical complication rates did not differ significantly between patients who underwent transtibial versus hind- or midfoot amputation for severe lower-extremity injury. The average SMFA scores were higher (worse), although not significantly different, for patients undergoing distal compared with transtibial amputation, and more patients with distal amputation had a complication requiring surgical revision. Of note, more patients with distal amputation required closure with an atypical flap, which likely contributed to less favorable outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Deep Surgical Site Infection after Fracture Has a Profound Effect on Functional Outcomes.

Background: Fracture-related infection is one of the most challenging complications in orthopaedic trauma surgery. However, the effect of infection on functional and pain-related outcomes has not been well established. The aims of this study were to evaluate functional recovery for patients with fracture and a deep surgical site infection compared with patients with fracture without infection and to evaluate whether pain severity, social support, and preinjury mental health have a moderating effect on the magnitude and direction of the relationship between deep surgical site infection and functional recovery. Methods: This is a secondary retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data from the VANCO trial (Local Antibiotic Therapy to Reduce Infection After Operative Treatment of Fractures at High Risk of Infection) and the OXYGEN (Supplemental Perioperative Oxygen to Reduce Surgical Site Infection After High Energy Fracture Surgery) trial. In this study, 2,116 patients with tibial plateau, pilon, or calcaneal fractures at high risk for infection were included. Patients were divided into cohorts of patients who experienced a deep surgical site infection and those who did not. The primary outcome measure was the functional outcome using the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12). Results: After controlling for covariates, deep surgical site infection was independently associated with functional outcome, with a 3.3-point reduction in the VR-12 Physical Component Score, and pain severity was independently associated with functional outcome, with a 2.5-point reduction in the VR-12 Physical Component Score. Furthermore, the Brief Pain Inventory pain severity demonstrated an important moderating effect on the relationship between infection and functional outcome. In patients with lower pain scores, infection had a large negative impact on functional outcome, whereas, in patients with higher pain scores, infection had no significant impact on functional outcome. Furthermore, the functional outcome in the entire cohort remains at only 61% of baseline. Conclusions: This study documents the negative impact of postoperative infection on functional recovery after injury, as well as the novel finding of pain severity as an important moderating factor. This study emphasizes not only the importance of developing effective interventions designed to reduce postoperative infection, but also the role that factors that moderate pain severity plays in limiting recovery of physical function. Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma: Pooled Data from 7 Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) is a well validated, widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure for orthopaedic patients. Despite its widespread use and acceptance, this measure does not have an agreed upon minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The purpose of the present study was to create distributional MCIDs with use of a large cohort of research participants with severe lower extremity fractures. METHODS: Three distributional approaches were used to calculate MCIDs for the Dysfunction and Bother Indices of the SMFA as well as all its domains: (1) half of the standard deviation (one-half SD), (2) twice the standard error of measurement (2SEM), and (3) minimal detectable change (MDC). In addition to evaluating by patient characteristics and the timing of assessment, we reviewed these calculations across several injury groups likely to affect functional outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4,298 SMFA assessments were collected from 3,185 patients who had undergone surgical treatment of traumatic injuries of the lower extremity at 60 Level-I trauma centers across 7 multicenter, prospective clinical studies. Depending on the statistical approach used, the MCID associated with the overall sample ranged from 7.7 to 10.7 for the SMFA Dysfunction Index and from 11.0 to 16.8 for the SMFA Bother Index. For the Dysfunction Index, the variability across the scores was small (<5%) within the sex and age subgroups but was modest (12% to 18%) across subgroups related to assessment timing. CONCLUSIONS: A defensible MCID can be found between 7 and 11 points for the Dysfunction Index and between 11 and 17 points for the Bother Index. The precise choice of MCID may depend on the preferred statistical approach and the population under study. While differences exist between MCID values based on the calculation method, values were consistent across the categories of the various subgroups presented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The VANCO Trial Findings Are Generalizable to a North American Trauma Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the generalizability of treatment effects observed in the VANCO trial to a broader population of patients with tibial plateau or pilon fractures. METHODS: Design and Setting: Clinical trial data from 36 United States trauma centers and Trauma Quality Programs registry data from more than 875 Level I-III trauma centers in the United States and Canada.Patient Selection Criteria: Patients enrolled in the VANCO trial treated with intrawound vancomycin powder from January 2015 to June 2017 and 31,924 VANCO-eligible TQP patients admitted in 2019 with tibial plateau and pilon fractures.Outcome Measure and Comparisons: Deep surgical site infection and gram-positive deep surgical site infection estimated in the TQP sample weighed by the inverse probability of trial participation. RESULTS: The 980 patients in the VANCO trial were highly representative of 31,924 TQP VANCO-eligible patients (Tipton generalizability index 0.96). It was estimated that intrawound vancomycin powder reduced the odds of deep surgical infection by odds ratio (OR) = 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.86) and gram-positive deep surgical infection by OR = 0.39 (95% CI, 0.18-0.84) within the TQP sample of VANCO-eligible patients. For reference, the trial average treatment effects for deep surgical infection and gram-positive deep surgical infection were OR = 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37-0.98) and OR = 0.44 (95% CI, 0.23-0.80), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This generalizability analysis found that the inferences of the VANCO trial generalize and might even underestimate the effects of intrawound vancomycin powder when observed in a wider population of patients with tibial plateau and pilon fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Application of Bayesian Methods to Help Interpret the VANCO Trial Results.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a Bayesian analysis changes the results of the VANCO trial. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial using Bayesian methods. SETTING: Thirty-six US trauma centers. PATIENTS: Patients ages 18-80 years with a tibial plateau or pilon fracture deemed high risk of infection and definitively treated with plate and screw fixation. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly allocated to receive 1000 mg of intrawound vancomycin powder at their definitive fixation or to a control group that received no topical antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: A deep surgical site infection requiring operative treatment within 6 months of definitive fixation. Secondary outcomes included gram-positive and gram-negative-only deep surgical site infections. RESULTS: Of the 980 patients randomized, 874 (89%) had at least 140 days of follow-up and were included in this Bayesian analysis. The estimated probability that intrawound vancomycin powder reduces the risk of a deep surgical site infection is >98% [relative risk (RR), 0.66; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.46-0.98]. There is a >99% chance intrawound vancomycin powder reduces gram-positive infections and an 80% chance the magnitude of this risk reduction exceeds 35% (RR, 0.52; 95% CrI, 0.33-0.84) exists. It is unlikely (44%) that intrawound vancomycin powder prevents gram-negative surgical site infections (RR, 1.06; 95% CrI, 0.48-2.45). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high probability (>98%) that intrawound vancomycin powder reduces deep surgical site infections in patients with tibial plateau or pilon fractures at high risk of infection and even more likely it reduces deep infections with gram-positive pathogens (>99%). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Challenges in severe lower limb injury rehabilitation.

Restoration of lower limb function following severe injury is a challenge. Rehabilitation must take into account psychosocial factors and patient self-efficacy as well as functional goals. The Return to Run clinical pathway, an integrated orthotic and rehabilitation initiative, is an example of goal-oriented rehabilitation with periodic assessment aimed at restoring wounded warriors to high-level performance following severe lower extremity trauma. Objective assessment measures of surgical and rehabilitation interventions are lacking for persons with high-level performance demands, such as those required by service members. Thus, the Military Performance Laboratory at the Center for the Intrepid has established normative data for several physical performance measures, some of which are now routinely used to assess service members with severe lower extremity trauma. Patient expectations of treatment and rehabilitation are high and must be met to avoid poor outcomes attributed to nonanatomic factors.

Measurement of functional outcomes in the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC).

Measurement of functional outcome is a central tool in the assessment of the human and economic consequences of trauma. As such, functional outcome is the ideal basis against which to judge the efficacy of surgical approaches, drugs, and devices in the context of evidence-based medicine. A well-designed outcome measurement plan improves the validity of clinical research, facilitates the optimal use of limited research resources, and maximizes opportunities for future secondary data analyses. However, a key challenge in the development of a study measurement plan is the identification of appropriate, practical, well-validated measures. The Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) is a large 5-year research effort to develop and conduct multicenter clinical studies relevant to the treatment and outcomes of orthopaedic trauma. METRC is funded to conduct nine clinical studies. One of the main goals is to benefit from the consortium approach by standardizing data collection across these studies. METRC investigators have developed a standard set of measurement instruments designed to examine outcomes across a defined set of key domains: complications, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, pain, activity and participation, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, and healthcare utilization. In addition, METRC investigators have developed a standard set of sociodemographic and clinical covariates to be collected across all studies.

Special topics.

Concerning the past decade of war, three special topics were examined at the Extremity War Injuries VII Symposium. These topics included the implementation of tourniquets and their effect on decreasing mortality and the possibility of transitioning the lessons gained to the civilian sector. In addition, the training of surgeons for war as well as residents in a wartime environment was reviewed.

Reprioritization of research for combat casualty care.

Since the beginning of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan more than a decade ago, much has been learned with regard to combat casualty care. Although progress has been significant, knowledge gaps still exist. The seventh Extremity War Injuries symposium, held in January 2012, reviewed the current state of knowledge and defined knowledge gaps in acute care, reconstructive care, and rehabilitative care in order to provide policymakers information on the areas in which research funding would be the most beneficial.

Training the New Generations of Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: Understanding Generational Differences to Maximize Educational Benefit.

ABSTRACT: Most of the current orthopaedic residents are considered Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and are often trained by attending surgeons who are from Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) or the Baby Boomer generation (born between 1946 and 1964). The Generation X orthopaedic surgeons were largely trained by Baby Boomers who were very demanding of their trainees and expected excellence. The Baby Boomers had been inspired, mentored, and trained by the Greatest Generation (born between 1901 and 1927). Baby Boomers took nothing for granted and nothing was given to them on a silver platter. Generation X was trained under these premises and was expected to abide by similar values. Regarding the next generation of residents, current faculty hope to instill the same qualities that had been instilled in them during their training. This value transference sometimes presents a challenge because of the differences in attitudes and perspectives that may exist between Millennial residents and their predecessors regarding work-life balance, teaching styles, the regulation of duty hours, and feedback assessments. These differences require an evolution in the methods of surgical education to optimize the educational benefit and ensure good will and rapport between the generations. Trainees and faculty alike have a responsibility to understand each other's differences and come together to ensure that knowledge, experience, values, and skill sets are effectively passed on to a new generation of orthopaedic surgeons.

Outcomes of Patients With Large Versus Small Bone Defects in Open Tibia Fractures Treated With an Intramedullary Nail: A Descriptive Analysis of a Multicenter Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes in patients with open tibia shaft fractures based on defect size. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Eighteen trauma centers. POPULATION: The study included 132 patients with diaphyseal tibia bone defects >1 cm and ≥50% cortical loss treated with intramedullary nail. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was number of secondary surgeries to promote healing (bone graft, revision fixation, or bone transport). Additional outcomes included occurrence of secondary surgeries (bone graft, infection, amputation, and flap failure) and proportion healed at one year. Results are compared by "radiographic apparent bone gap" of <2.5 or ≥2.5 cm. RESULTS: The estimated conditional probability of bone grafting within one year given graft-free at 90 days was 44% and 47% in the <2.5 cm and ≥2.5 cm groups, respectively. An estimated infection risk of 14% was observed in both groups [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-2.92], estimated amputation risk was 9% (<2.5 cm) and 4% (≥2.5 cm) (unadjusted HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.13-3.29), and estimated flap failure risk (among those with flaps) was 10% and 13%, respectively (unadjusted HR 1.71, 95% CI: 0.24-12.25). There was no appreciable difference in the proportion healed at one year between defect sizes [adjusted HR: 1.07 (95% CI, 0.63-1.82)]. CONCLUSIONS: Larger size bone defects were not associated with higher number of secondary procedures to promote healing or a lower overall one-year healing rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Long-Term Consequences of Major Extremity Trauma: A Pilot Study.

SUMMARY: Limited data are available on the longer-term physical and psychosocial consequences after major extremity trauma apart from literature on the consequences after major limb amputation. The existing literature suggests that although variations in outcome exist, a significant proportion of service members and civilians sustaining major limb trauma will have less than optimal outcomes or health and rehabilitation needs over their life course. The proposed pilot study will address this gap in current research by locating and consenting METRC participants with the period of 5-7 years postinjury, identifying potential participation barriers and appropriate use of incentives, and conducting the follow-up examination at several data collection sites. The resulting data will inform the primary objective of refining and developing specific hypotheses to determine the design, scope, and feasibility of the main long-term consequences of major extremity trauma. Three METRC enrollment centers will contact past participants to achieve the goal of completing an interview, select patient-reported outcomes, perform a medical record review, and conduct an in-person clinic visit that will consist of a physical examination, blood draw, and x-ray of the study injury area. If successful, it will be possible to design studies to further examine these effects and develop future therapeutic interventions.

Defining Incidence of Acute Compartment Syndrome in the Research Setting: A Proposed Method From the PACS Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the retrospective decision of an expert panel who assessed likelihood of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) in a patient with a high-risk tibia fracture with decision to perform fasciotomy. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Seven Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-two adults with severe tibia fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver-operator curve) of an expert panel's assessment of likelihood ACS compared with fasciotomy as the reference diagnostic standard. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The interrater reliability of the expert panel as measured by the Krippendorff alpha. Expert panel consensus was determined using the percent of panelists in the majority group of low (expert panel likelihood of ≤0.3), uncertain (0.3-0.7), or high (>0.7) likelihood of ACS. RESULTS: Comparing fasciotomy (the diagnostic standard) and the expert panel's assessment as the diagnostic classification (test), the expert panel's determination of uncertain or high likelihood of ACS (threshold >0.3) had a sensitivity of 0.90 (0.70, 0.99), specificity of 0.95 (0.90, 0.98), PPV of 0.70 (0.50, 0.86), and NPV of 0.99 (0.95, 1.00). When a threshold of >0.7 was set as a positive diagnosis, the expert panel assessment had a sensitivity of 0.67 (0.43, 0.85), specificity of 0.98 (0.95, 1.00), PPV of 0.82 (0.57, 0.96), and NPV of 0.96 (0.91, 0.98). CONCLUSION: In our study, the retrospective assessment of an expert panel of the likelihood of ACS has good specificity and excellent NPV for fasciotomy, but only low-to-moderate sensitivity and PPV. The discordance between the expert panel-assessed likelihood of ACS and the decision to perform fasciotomy suggests that concern regarding potential diagnostic bias in studies of ACS is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Streamlining Trauma Research Evaluation With Advanced Measurement (STREAM) Study: Implementation of the PROMIS Toolbox Within an Orthopaedic Trauma Clinical Trials Consortium.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.