Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture). METHODS: In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications. RESULTS: A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

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.).

Are Pelvic Binders an Effective Prehospital Intervention?

OBJECTIVE: Widespread adoption of prehospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) by emergency medical services (EMS) systems has been slow and variable across the United States. We sought to determine the frequency of prehospital PCCD use by EMS providers. Secondarily, we hypothesized that prehospital PCCD use would improve early hemorrhagic shock outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 162 unstable pelvic ring injuries transported directly to our center by EMS from 2011 to 2020. Included patients received a PCCD during their resuscitation (prehospital or emergency department). Prehospital treatment details were obtained from the EMS medical record. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a PCCD by EMS before hospital arrival. Secondarily, we explored factors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD, and its association with changes in vital signs, blood transfusion, and mortality. RESULTS: EMS providers documented suspicion of a pelvic ring fracture in 85 (52.8%) patients and 52 patients in the cohort (32.2%) received a prehospital PCCD. Wide variation in prehospital PCCD use was observed based on patient characteristics, geographic location, and EMS provider level. Helicopter flight paramedics applied a prehospital PCCD in 46% of the patients they transported (38/83); in contrast, the EMS organizations geographically closest to our hospital applied a PCCD in ≤5% of cases (2/47). Other predictors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD included lower body mass index (p = 0.005), longer prehospital duration (p = 0.001) and lower Injury Severity Score (p < 0.05). We were unable to identify any improvements in clinical outcomes associated with prehospital PCCD, including early vital signs, number of blood transfusions within 24 hours, or mortality during admission (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate wide practice variation in the application of prehospital PCCDs. Although disparate PCCD application across the state is likely explained by differences across EMS organizations and provider levels, our study was unable to identify any clinical benefits to the prehospital use of PCCDs. It is possible that the benefits of a prehospital PCCD can only be observed in the most displaced fracture patterns with the greatest early hemodynamic instability.

Patients Place More of an Emphasis on Physical Recovery Than Return to Work or Financial Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare models aim to incentivize healthcare providers to offer interventions that address determinants of health. Understanding patient priorities for physical and socioeconomic recovery after injury can help determine which services and resources are most useful to patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do trauma patients consistently identify a specific aspect/domain of recovery as being most important at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after an injury? (2) Does the relative importance of those domains change within the first year after injury? (3) Are differences in priorities greater between patients than for a given patient over time? (4) Are different recovery priorities associated with identifiable biopsychosocial factors? METHODS: Between June 2018 and December 2018, 504 adult patients with fractures of the extremities or pelvis were surgically treated at the study site. For this prospective longitudinal study, we purposefully sampled patients from 6 of the 12 orthopaedic attendings' postoperative clinics. The participating surgeons surgically treated 243 adult patients with fractures of the extremities or pelvis. Five percent (11 of 243) of patients met inclusion criteria but missed their appointments during the 6-week recruitment window and could not be consented. We excluded 4% (9 of 243) of patients with a traumatic brain injury, 1% (2) of patients with a spinal cord injury, and 5% (12) of non-English-speaking patients (4% Spanish speaking [10]; 1% other languages [2]). Eighty-six percent of eligible patients (209 of 243) were approached for consent, and 5% (11 of 209) of those patients refused to participate. All remaining 198 patients consented and completed the baseline survey; 83% (164 of 198 patients) completed at least 6 months of follow-up, and 68% (134 of 198 patients) completed the 12-month assessment. The study participants' mean age was 44 ± 17 years, and 63% (125 of 198) were men. The primary outcome was the patient's recovery priorities, assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after fracture using a discrete choice experiment. Discrete choice experiments are a well-established method for eliciting decisional preferences. In this technique, respondents are presented with a series of hypothetical scenarios, described by a set of plausible attributes or outcomes, and asked to select their preferred scenario. We used hierarchical Bayesian modeling to calculate individual-level estimates of the relative importance of physical recovery, work-related recovery, and disability benefits, based on the discrete choice experiment responses. The hierarchical Bayesian model improves upon more commonly used regression techniques by accounting for the observed response patterns of individual patients and the sequence of scenarios presented in the discrete choice experiment when calculating the model estimates. We computed the coefficient of variation for the three recovery domains and compared the between-patient versus within-patient differences using asymptotic tests. Separate prognostic models were fit for each of the study's three recovery domains to assess marginal changes in the importance of the recovery domain based on patient characteristics and factors that remained constant over the study (such as sex or preinjury work status) and patient characteristics and factors that varied over the study (including current work status or patient-reported health status). We previously published the 6-week results. This paper expands upon the prior publication to evaluate longitudinal changes in patient recovery priorities. RESULTS: Physical recovery was the respondents' main priority at all three timepoints, representing 60% ± 9% of their overall concern. Work-related recovery and access to disability benefits were of secondary importance and were associated with 27% ± 6% and 13% ± 7% of the patients' concern, respectively. The patients' concern for physical recovery was 6% (95% CrI 4% to 7%) higher at 12 months after fracture that at 6 weeks postfracture. The mean concern for work-related recovery increased by 7% (95% CrI 6% to 8%) from 6 weeks to 6 months after injury. The mean importance of disability benefits increased by 2% (95% CrI 1% to 4%) from 6 weeks to 6 months and remained 2% higher (95% CrI 0% to 3%) at 12 months after the injury. Differences in priorities were greater within a given patient over time than between patients as measured using the coefficient of variation (physical recovery [245% versus 7%; p < 0.001], work-related recovery [678% versus 12%; p < 0.001], and disability benefits [620% versus 33%; p < 0.001]. There was limited evidence that biopsychosocial factors were associated with variation in recovery priorities. Patients' concern for physical recovery was 2% higher for every 10-point increase in their Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) physical health status score (95% CrI 1% to 3%). A 10-point increase in the patient's PROMIS mental health status score was associated with a 1% increase in concern for work-related recovery (95% CrI 0% to 2%). CONCLUSION: Work-related recovery and accessing disability benefits were a secondary concern compared with physical recovery in the 12 months after injury for patients with fractures. However, the importance of work-related recovery was elevated after the subacute phase. Priorities were highly variable within a given patient in the year after injury compared with between-patient differences. Given this variation, orthopaedic surgeons should consider assessing and reassessing the socioeconomic well-being of their patients throughout their continuum of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

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.

Are injured workers with higher rehabilitation service utilization less likely to be persistent opioid users? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Given its role in treating musculoskeletal conditions, rehabilitation medicine may be an important factor in decreasing the use of opioids among injured workers. The primary objective was to determine if increased utilization of rehabilitation services was associated with decreased persistent opioid use among workers' compensation claimants. The secondary objective was to determine the combined association of rehabilitation service utilization and persistent opioid use with days of work lost due to injury. METHODS: Using Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company claims data from 2008 to 2016, claimants with at least one filled opioid prescription within 90 days of injury were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was persistent opioid use, defined as at least one filled opioid prescription more than 90 days from injury. The secondary outcome was days lost due to injury. The primary variable of interest, rehabilitation service utilization, was quantified based on the number of rehabilitation service claims and grouped into five levels (no utilization, and four quartiles - low, medium, high, very high). RESULTS: Of the 9596 claimants included, 29% were persistent opioid users. Compared to claimants that did not utilize rehabilitation services, patients with very high rehabilitation utilization were nearly three times more likely (OR: 2.71, 95% CI: 2.28-3.23, p < 0.001) to be persistent opioid users and claimants with low and medium levels of rehabilitation utilization were less likely to be persistent opioid users (low OR: 0.20, 95%: 0.14-0.27, p < 0.001) (medium OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.21-0.32, p < 0.001). Compared to claimants that did not utilize rehabilitation services, very high rehabilitation utilization was associated with a 27% increase in days lost due to the injury (95% CI: 21.9-32.3, p < 0.001), while low (- 16.4, 95% CI: -21.3 - -11.5, p < 0.001) and medium (- 11.5, 95% CI: -21.6 - -13.8, p < 0.001) levels of rehabilitation utilization were associated with a decrease in days lost due to injury, adjusting for persistent opioid use. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of insurance claims data revealed that low to moderate levels of rehabilitation was associated with reduced persistent opioid use and days lost to injury. Very high rehabilitation utilization was associated with increased persistent opioid use and increased time from work.

The Current Treatment of Hip Fractures: Can a Consensus Be Reached?

There is a significant global burden of disease associated with the management of hip fractures. Despite numerous studies that are focused on the treatment of patients with proximal femur fractures, the management of these injuries remains controversial. Clinicians should become familiar with the current evidence regarding the management of these common injuries and understand the key issues and controversies because they will have important implications given the large-scale effect of hip fractures internationally.

High rate of reoperation and conversion to total hip arthroplasty after internal fixation of young femoral neck fractures: a population-based study of 796 patients.

Background and purpose - Most often, the goal of non-geriatric femoral neck fracture surgery is to preserve the native hip joint. However, reoperations for painful implants, osteonecrosis, and nonunion are common. We determined the reoperation rate and time-to-reoperation following internal fixation of these fractures in a large population cohort. Patients and methods - This retrospective cohort study included patients between the ages of 18 and 50 years old who underwent internal fixation for a femoral neck fracture during 1997-2013. Patients were followed until December 2013. Primary outcomes were reoperation rate and time-to-reoperation. Time-to-event analysis was performed to estimate the rate of any reoperation and for THA specifically, while testing the dependency of time-to-reoperation on secondary variables. Results - 796 young femoral neck fracture patients were treated with internal fixation during the study period (median age 43 years, 39% women). Median follow-up was 8 years (IQR 4-13). One-third underwent at least 1 reoperation at a median 16 months after the index surgery (IQR 8-31). Half of reoperations were for implant removal, followed by conversion to total hip arthroplasty. 14% of the cohort were converted to THA. The median time to conversion was 2 years (IQR 1-4). Neither female sex nor older age had a statistically significant effect on time-to-reoperation or time-to-THA conversion. Interpretation - Following internal fixation of young femoral neck fracture, 1 in 3 patients required a reoperation, and 1 in 7 were converted to THA. These data should be considered by patients and surgeons during treatment decision-making.

Are large clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma justified?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the necessity of large clinical trials using FLOW trial data. METHODS: The FLOW pilot study and definitive trial were factorial trials evaluating the effect of different irrigation solutions and pressures on re-operation. To explore treatment effects over time, we analyzed data from the pilot and definitive trial in increments of 250 patients until the final sample size of 2447 patients was reached. At each increment we calculated the relative risk (RR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment effect, and compared the results that would have been reported at the smaller enrolments with those seen in the final, adequately powered study. RESULTS: The pilot study analysis of 89 patients and initial incremental enrolments in the FLOW definitive trial favored low pressure compared to high pressure (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.75-3.04; RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.60-3.23, respectively), which is in contradiction to the final enrolment, which found no difference between high and low pressure (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.33). In the soap versus saline comparison, the FLOW pilot study suggested that re-operation rate was similar in both the soap and saline groups (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.50-1.92), whereas the FLOW definitive trial found that the re-operation rate was higher in the soap treatment arm (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.04-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that studies with smaller sample sizes would have led to erroneous conclusions in the management of open fracture wounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01069315 (FLOW Pilot Study) Date of Registration: February 17, 2010, NCT00788398 (FLOW Definitive Trial) Date of Registration: November 10, 2008.

A scoping review of intimate partner violence educational programs for health care professionals.

Multiple intimate partner violence (IPV) educational programs have been developed for health care professionals (HCPs); however, program content and effectiveness vary substantially. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize the literature evaluating IPV education programs for HCPs to identify key areas for potential evidence-based recommendations and focus future research priorities. We conducted a systematic literature search using broad eligibility criteria to identify studies published between January 2000 and July 2015 that evaluated the effectiveness of IPV education programs in health care settings. All potentially eligible references were screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was completed independently by two reviewers for all eligible studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize all data. We identified 65 eligible studies, 55% of which reported positive program effectiveness. Effective programs often reported the use of online training components, delivery by an IPV educator/expert or physician/surgeon, the inclusion of a treatment protocol and resources for patients and HCPs, and included more than five training sessions lasting no more than one hours each. Our results demonstrate that IPV educational programs are heterogeneous and that a wide variety of methodologies have been used to evaluate their effectiveness.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty for the Management of Complex Proximal Humeral Fractures in the Elderly.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate regarding the optimal surgical treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) compared with hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the management of complex proximal humeral fractures, using a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: On the basis of data from published literature, a cost-utility analysis was conducted using decision tree and Markov modeling. A single-payer perspective, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of Can$50,000 (Canadian dollars), and a lifetime time horizon were used. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the study's primary outcome measure. RESULTS: In comparison with HA, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained for RTSA was Can$13,679. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed the model to be sensitive to the RTSA implant cost and the RTSA procedural cost. The ICER of Can$13,679 is well below the WTP threshold of Can$50,000, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 92.6% of model simulations favored RTSA. CONCLUSIONS: Our economic analysis found that RTSA for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly is the preferred economic strategy when compared with HA. The ICER of RTSA is well below standard WTP thresholds, and its estimate of cost-effectiveness is similar to other highly successful orthopedic strategies such as total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of hip arthritis.

When Surgical Resources are Severely Constrained, Who Receives Care? Determinants of Access to Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: In low- and middle-income countries, the volume of traumatic injuries requiring orthopaedic intervention routinely exceeds the capacity of available surgical resources. The objective of this study was to identify predictors of surgical care for lower extremity fracture patients at a high-demand, resource-limited public hospital in Uganda. METHODS: Skeletally mature patients admitted with the intention of definitive surgical treatment of an isolated tibia or femur fractures to the national referral hospital in Uganda were recruited to participate in this study. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data were collected through participant interviews at the time of injury and 6 months post-injury. Social capital (use of social networks to gain access to surgery), financial leveraging, and ethnicity were also included as variables in this analysis. A probit estimation model was used to identify independent and interactive predictors of surgical treatment. RESULTS: Of the 64 patients included in the final analysis, the majority of participants were male (83%), with a mean age of 40.6, and were injured in a motor vehicle accident (77%). Due to resource constraints, only 58% of participants received surgical care. The use of social capital and femur fractures were identified as significant predictors of receiving surgical treatment, with social capital emerging as the strongest predictor of access to surgery (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Limited infrastructure, trained personnel, and surgical supplies rations access to surgical care. In this environment, participants with advantageous social connections were able to self-advocate for surgery where demand for these services greatly exceeded available resources.

Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

BACKGROUND: Level of evidence (LOE) framework is a tool with which to categorize clinical studies based on their likelihood to be influenced by bias. Improvements in LOE have been demonstrated throughout orthopaedics, prompting our evaluation of orthopaedic oncology research LOE to determine if it has changed in kind. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Has the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meeting improved over time? (2) Over the past decade, how do the MSTS and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings compare regarding LOE overall and for the subset of therapeutic studies? METHODS: We reviewed abstracts from MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE; there were 577 abstracts from MSTS and 645 from OTA. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS: There was no change over time in MSTS LOE for all study types (p = 0.13) and therapeutic (p = 0.36) study types during the reviewed decade. In contrast, OTA LOE increased over this time for all study types (p < 0.01). The proportion of Level I therapeutic studies was higher at the OTA than the MSTS (3% [14 of 413] versus 0.5% [two of 387], respectively), whereas the proportion of Level IV studies was lower at the OTA than the MSTS (32% [134 of 413] versus 75% [292 of 387], respectively) during the reviewed decade. The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased over time at OTA (p < 0.021), but not at MSTS (p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, limiting progress in evidence-based clinical care. Techniques used by the OTA to improve LOE may be emulated by the MSTS. These techniques focus on broad participation in multicenter collaborations that are designed in a comprehensive manner and answer a pragmatic clinical question.

The Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) Identifies Radiographic Nonunion of Femoral Neck Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) is a previously validated outcome instrument designed to improve intra- and interobserver reliability when describing the radiographic healing of femoral neck fractures. The ability to identify fractures that have not healed is important for defining nonunion in clinical trials and predicting patients who will likely require additional surgery to promote fracture healing. We sought to investigate the utility of the RUSH score to define femoral neck fracture nonunion. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What RUSH score threshold yields at least 98% specificity to diagnose nonunion at 6 months postinjury? (2) Using the threshold identified, are patients below this threshold at greater risk of reoperation for nonunion and for other indications? METHODS: A representative sample of 250 out of a cohort of 725 patients with adequate 6-month hip radiographs was analyzed from a multinational elderly hip fracture trial (FAITH). All patients had a femoral neck fracture and were treated with either multiple cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw. Two reviewers independently determined the RUSH score based on the 6-month postinjury radiographs and interrater reliability was assessed with the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). There was substantial reliability between the reviewers assigning the RUSH scores (ICC, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.85). The RUSH score is a checklist-based system that quantifies four measures of healing: cortical bridging, cortical fracture disappearance, trabecular consolidation, and trabecular fracture disappearance.. Fracture healing was determined by two independent methods: (1) concurrently by the treating surgeon using both clinical and radiographic assessments as per routine clinical care; and (2) retrospectively by a Central Adjudication Committee using complete obliteration of the fracture line on radiographs alone. Receiver operating characteristic tables were used to define a RUSH threshold score that was > 98% specific for fracture nonunion. RESULTS: A threshold score of < 18 was associated with a 100% specificity (95% CI, 97%-100%) and a positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI, 73%-100%) for radiographic nonunion. In contrast, using the fracture healing assessments of the treating surgeons failed to identify a useful discriminatory nonunion threshold and the highest positive predictive value was 43%. With respect to complications, patients with RUSH scores below 18 had greater risk of undergoing reoperation for nonunion (reoperation when < 18: six of 13 [46%]; reoperation when ≥ 18: 11 of 237 [54%]; relative risk [RR], 9.9 [95% CI, 4.4-22.7]; p < 0.001) and for all indications (reoperation when < 18: eight of 13 [62%]; reoperation when ≥ 18: 54 of 237 [38%]; RR, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.7-4.4]; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-month RUSH score is a reliable method for assessing radiographic healing. Our results highlight the discordance between radiographic determinations and clinician assessments of fracture healing and stress the need for clinical data to be incorporated in research studies evaluating fracture healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Evaluating healthcare resource utilization and outcomes for surgical hip dislocation and hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement.

PURPOSE: Surgical hip dislocation (SHD) and hip arthroscopy are surgical methods used to correct deformity associated with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Though both of these approaches appear to benefit patients, no studies exist comparing healthcare resource utilization of the two surgical approaches. This systematic review examines the literature and the records of two surgeons to evaluate the resource utilization associated with treating symptomatic FAI via these two methods. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed were searched for relevant articles. The articles were systematically screened, and data was abstracted in duplicate. To further supplement resource utilization data, a retrospective chart review of two surgeon's patient data (one using SHD and another using an arthroscopic approach) was completed. Experts in pharmacy, physiotherapy, radiology, anaesthesia, physiatry and the local hospital finance department were also consulted. RESULTS: There were 52 studies included with a total of 460 patients (535 hips) and 3886 patients (4147 hips) who underwent SHD and arthroscopic surgery for FAI, respectively. Regardless of approach, most patients treated for symptomatic FAI improved across various outcomes measures with low complication rates. Surgical time across all approaches was similar, averaging 118 ± 2 min. On a per patient basis, hip arthroscopy ($10,976) uses approximately 41 % of the resources of SHD ($24,379). CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in outcomes for FAI treated with SHD or arthroscopy. However, with regard to healthcare resource utilization based on the OHIP healthcare system, hip arthroscopy uses substantially less resources than SHD within the first post-operative year. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review of Level IV Studies, Level IV.

No benefit to surgical fixation of flail chest injuries compared with modern comprehensive management: results of a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Chest wall trauma is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recent technological advances and scientific publications have created a renewed interest in surgical fixation of flail chest. However, definitive data supporting surgical fixation are lacking, and its virtues have not been evaluated against modern, comprehensive management protocols. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing rib fracture fixation with rib-specific locking plates at 2 regional trauma centres between July 2010 and August 2012 were matched to historical controls with similar injury patterns and severity who were managed nonoperatively with modern, multidisciplinary protocols. We compared short- and long-term outcomes between these cohorts. RESULTS: Our patient cohorts were well matched for age, sex, injury severity scores and abbreviated injury scores. The nonoperatively managed group had significantly better outcomes than the surgical group in terms of ventilator days (3.1 v. 6.1, p = 0.012), length of stay in the intensive care unit (3.7 v. 7.4 d, p = 0.009), total hospital length of stay (16.0 v. 21.9 d, p = 0.044) and rates of pneumonia (22% v. 63%, p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes, such as chest pain or dyspnea. CONCLUSION: Although considerable enthusiasm surrounds surgical fixation of flail chest injuries, our analysis does not immediately validate its universal implementation, but rather encourages the use of modern, multidisciplinary, nonoperative strategies. The role of rib fracture fixation in the modern era of chest wall trauma management should ultimately be defined by prospective, randomized trials.

CONTEXTE: Les traumatismes à la paroi thoracique sont une cause courante de morbidité et de mortalité. Dernièrement, des avancées technologiques et des articles scientifiques ont ravivé l'intérêt à l'égard du traitement chirurgical du volet costal. Les données fiables appuyant la fixation chirurgicale sont toutefois rares, et les avantages de cette technique n'ont pas été comparés à ceux de protocoles de prise en charge complets et modernes. MÉTHODES: Nous avons jumelé des patients consécutifs admis dans 2 centres régionaux de traumatologie entre juillet 2010 et août 2012 pour une fixation d'une fracture des côtes à l'aide de plaques verrouillées avec un groupe témoin rétrospectif présentant des blessures de type et de gravité semblables, toutefois pris en charge selon des protocoles multidisciplinaires modernes ne nécessitant aucune intervention chirurgicale. Nous avons ensuite comparé les issues à court et à long terme dans ces cohortes. RÉSULTATS: Les cohortes étaient bien appariées sur le plan de l'âge, du sexe et des indices de gravité des blessures. Les résultats des patients n'ayant pas subi d'intervention chirurgicale étaient significativement meilleurs que ceux de l'autre groupe en ce qui concerne le nombre de jours sous ventilation assistée (3,1 c. 6,1; p = 0,012), la durée du séjour aux soins intensifs (3,7 c. 7,4 jours; p = 0,009), la durée totale du séjour à l'hôpital (16,0 c. 21,9 jours; p = 0,044) et le taux de pneumonie (22 % c. 63 %; p = 0,004). Aucune différence significative n'a été observée en ce qui concerne les répercussions à long terme telles que les douleurs thoraciques ou la dyspnée. CONCLUSION: Si la fixation chirurgicale des blessures au volet costal suscite un grand enthousiasme, les résultats de notre analyse n'appuient pas le recours systématique à cette intervention, mais encouragent plutôt l'utilisation de stratégies modernes multidisciplinaires sans intervention chirurgicale. En conclusion, le rôle de la fixation des fractures des côtes dans la prise en charge moderne des traumatismes à la paroi thoracique devrait être défini dans le cadre d'études prospectives randomisées.

Are patients willing to pay for total shoulder arthroplasty? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is a common treatment to decrease pain and improve shoulder function in patients with severe osteoarthritis (OA). In Canada, patients requiring this procedure often wait a year or more. Our objective was to determine patient preferences related to accessing TSA, specifically comparing out-of-pocket payments for treatment, travel time to hospital, the surgeon's level of experience and wait times. METHODS: We administered a discrete choice experiment among patients with endstage shoulder OA currently waiting for TSA. Respondents were presented with 14 different choice sets, each with 3 options, and they were asked to choose their preferred scenario. A conditional logit regression model was used to estimate the relative preference and willingness to pay for each attribute. RESULTS: Sixty-two respondents completed the questionnaire. Three of the 4 attributes significantly influenced treatment preferences. Respondents had a strong preference for an experienced surgeon (mean 0.89 ± standard error [SE] 0.11), while reductions in travel time (-0.07 ± 0.04) or wait time (-0.04 ± 0.01) were of less importance. Respondents were found to be strongly averse (-1.44 ± 0.18) to surgical treatment by a less experienced surgeon and to paying out-of-pocket for their surgical treatment (-0.56 ± 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that patients waiting for TSA to treat severe shoulder OA have minimal willingness to pay for a reduction in wait time or travel time for surgery, yet will pay higher amounts for treatment by an experienced surgeon.

CONTEXTE: L'arthroplastie totale de l'épaule est un traitement courant visant à atténuer la douleur et à augmenter la fonction de l'épaule chez les patients atteints d'arthrose grave. Au Canada, l'attente est souvent d'un an ou plus pour cette intervention. Notre objectif était de cerner les préférences des patients concernant l'accès à l'arthroplastie, particulièrement en ce qui a trait aux déboursés personnels pour le traitement, à la durée du trajet vers l'hôpital, à l'expérience du chirurgien et au temps d'attente. MÉTHODES: Nous avons mené une expérience avec choix discrets auprès de patients atteints d'arthrose de l'épaule au stade terminal actuellement en attente d'une arthroplastie totale. Les répondants ont reçu 14 ensembles de choix différents, comportant chacun 3 options, et devaient choisir leur scénario préféré. Nous avons utilisé un modèle de régression logit conditionnelle pour estimer la préférence relative et la disposition à payer pour chaque caractéristique. RÉSULTATS: En tout, 62 répondants ont rempli le questionnaire. Trois des 4 caractéristiques ont significativement influencé les préférences de traitement. Les répondants avaient une forte préférence pour un chirurgien expérimenté (moyenne de 0,89 ± écart-type de 0,11), alors que la réduction de la durée du trajet (­0,07 ± 0,04) ou du temps d'attente (­0,04 ± 0,01) était moins importante. Les répondants se sont révélés très réfractaires (­1,44 ± 0,18) à se faire opérer par un chirurgien peu expérimenté et à payer de leur poche leur traitement chirurgical (­0,56 ± 0,05). CONCLUSION: Nos résultats semblent indiquer que les patients en attente d'une arthroplastie totale de l'épaule pour traiter une arthrose grave sont très peu disposés à payer pour réduire le temps d'attente ou la durée du trajet, mais qu'ils sont prêts à desserrer les cordons de leur bourse pour être opérés par un chirurgien chevronné.