A comparison of 3-D CT and 2-D plain radiograph measurements of the wrist in extra-articular malunited fractures of the distal radius

Two-dimensional (2-D) plain radiographs may be insufficient for the evaluation of distal radial malunion, as it is a three-dimensional (3-D) deformity. This study introduced a 3-D measuring method that outputs radial inclination, ulnar variance, palmar tilt and axial rotation. To this end, a standardized and clearly defined coordinate system was constructed that allowed 3-D measurements closely resembling the conventional 2-D method in 35 patients. Mean differences between 3-D and 2-D measurements in affected wrists were 1.8° for radial inclination, 0.8 mm for ulnar variance and 3.7° for palmar tilt. In addition, inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of all 3-D and 2-D measurements were good or excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient &gt;0.75), with 3-D reproducibility always better than 2-D. Axial rotation was present in all patients with a mean of 7.9° (SD 6.9). Although the differences between 2-D and 3-D measurements were small, 3-D evaluation enables the assessment of axial rotation and brings us closer to a routine 3-D evaluation of malunion.</p

Bony avulsion of the supraspinatus origin from the scapular spine

We describe a case of an avulsion of the scapular spine at the origin of the supraspinatus muscle, with successful conservative treatment. An isolated avulsion is rare, as most avulsions occur in combination with other (more severe) injuries such as fractures of the scapula body or neck, coracoid process, glenoid or humerus. These injuries are mostly seen in high-energy trauma cases and need their own specific treatment. One should therefore always rule out concurrent trauma before treating conservatively

Delirium risk screening and haloperidol prophylaxis program in hip fracture patients is a helpful tool in identifying high-risk patients, but does not reduce the incidence of delirium

Background: Delirium in patients with hip fractures lead to higher morbidity and mortality. Prevention in high-risk patients by prescribing low dose haloperidol is currently under investigation. Methods. This prospective cohort surveillance assessed hip fracture patients for risk of developing a delirium with the Risk Model for Delirium (RD) score. High-risk patients (score ≥5 points) were treated with a prophylactic low-dose of haloperidol according to hospital protocol. Primary outcome was delirium incidence. Secondary outcomes were differences between high- and low-risk patients in delirium, length of stay (LOS), return to pre-fracture living situation and mortality. Logistic regression analysis was performed with age, ASA-classification, known dementia, having a partner, type of fracture, institutional residence and psychotropic drug use as possible confounders. Results: 445 hip fracture patients aged 65 years and older were admitted from January 2008 to December 2009. The RD-score was completed in 378 patients, 173 (45.8%) high-risk patients were treated with prophylactic medication. Sensitivity was 71.6%, specificity 63.8% and the negative predictive value (NPV) of a score < 5 was 85.9%. Delirium incidence (27.0%) was not significantly different compared to 2007 (27.8%) 2006 (23.9%) and 2005 (29.0%) prior to implementation of the RD- protocol. Logistic regression analysis showed that high-risk patients did have a significant higher delirium incidence (42.2% vs. 14.1%, OR 4.1, CI 2.43-7.02). They were more likely to be residing at an alternative living situation after 3 months (62.3% vs. 17.0%, OR 6.57, CI 3.23-13.37) and less likely to be discharged from hospital before 10 days (34.9% vs. 55.9%, OR 1.63, CI 1.03-2.59). Significant independent risk factors for a delirium were a RD-score 5 (OR 4.13, CI 2.43-7.02), male gender (OR 1.93, CI 0.99-1.07) and age (OR 1.03, CI 0.99-1.07). Conclusions: Introducing the delirium prevention protocol did not reduce delirium incidence. The RD-score did identify patients with a high risk to develop a delirium. This high-risk group had a longer LOS and returned to pre-fracture living situation less often. The NPV of a score < 5 was high, as it should be for a screening instrument. Concluding, the RD-score is a useful tool to identify patients with poorer outcome

Risk factors for failure to return to the pre-fracture place of residence after hip fracture: a prospective longitudinal study of 444 patients

Introduction: Long-term place of residence after hip fracture is not often described in literature. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors, known at admission, for failure to return to the pre-fracture place of residence of hip fracture patients in the Wrst year after a hip fracture. Methods: This is a prospective longitudinal study of 444 consecutive admissions of hip fracture patients aged ≥65 years. Place of residence prior to admission, at discharge, after 3 and 12 months was registered. Patients admitted from a nursing home (n = 49) were excluded from statistical analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, using age, gender, presence of a partner, ASAscore, dementia, anaemia at admission, type of fracture, pre-fracture level of mobility and level of activities of daily living (ADL) as possible risk factors. Results: Two hundred eighty-nine patients lived in their own home, 31.8% returned at discharge, 72.9% at 3 months and 72.8% at 12 months. Age, absence of a partner, dementia, and a lower pre-fracture level of ADL or mobility were independent contributors to failure to return to their own home at discharge, 3 or 12 months. 106 patients lived in a residential home; 33.3% returned at discharge, 68.4% at 3 months and 64.4% at 12 months. Age was an independent contributor to failure to return to a residential home. Conclusions: Age, dementia and a lower pre-fracture level of ADL were the main signiWcant risk factors for failure to return to the pre-fracture residence. As the 3- and 12-month return-rates were similar, 3-month follow-up might be used as an endpoint in future research

Predicting discharge location of hip fracture patients; the new discharge of hip fracture patients score

Purpose This paper reports on the development and validity of a new instrument, called the discharge of hip fracture patients score (DHP), that predicts at admission the discharge location in patients living in their own home prior to hip fracture surgery. Methods A total of 310 patients aged 50 years and above were included. Risk factors for discharge to an alternative location (DAL) were analysed with a multivariable regression analysis taking the admission variables into account with different weights based on the estimates. The score ranged from 0-100 points. The cut-off point for DAL was calculated using a ROC analysis. Reliability of the DHP was evaluated. Results Risk factors for DAL were higher age, female gender, dementia, absence of a partner and a limited level of mobility. The cut-off point was set at 30 points, with a sensitivity of 83.8%, a specificity of 64.7% and positive predictive value of 79.2%. Conclusion The DHP is a valid, simple and short instrument to be used at admission to predict discharge location of hip fracture patients

Contralateral hip fractures and other osteoporosis-related fractures in hip fracture patients: Incidence and risk factors. An observational cohort study of 1,229 patients

Purpose: To report risk factors, 1-year and overall risk for a contralateral hip and other osteoporosis-related fractures in a hip fracture population. Methods: An observational study on 1,229 consecutive patients of 50 years and older, who sustained a hip fracture between January 2005 and June 2009. Fractures were scored retrospectively for 2005-2008 and prospectively for 2008-2009. Rates of a contralateral hip and other osteoporosis- related fractures were compared between patients with and without a history of a fracture. Previous fractures, gender, age and ASA classification were analysed as possible risk factors. Results: The absolute risk for a contralateral hip fracture was 13.8 %, for one or more osteoporosis-related fracture( s) 28.6 %. First-, second- and third-year risk for a second hip fracture was 2, 1 and 0 %. Median (IQR) interval between both hip fractures was 18.5 (26.6) months. One-year incidence of other fractures was 6 %. Only age was a risk factor for a contralateral hip fracture, hazard ratio (HR) 1.02 (1.006-1.042, p = 0.008). Patients with a history of a fracture (33.1 %) did not have a higher incidence of fractures during follow-up (16.7 %) than patients without fractures in their history (14 %). HR for a contralateral hip fracture for the fracture versus the non-fracture group was 1.29 (0.75-2.23, p = 0.360). Conclusion: The absolute risk of a contralateral hip fracture after a hip fracture is 13.8 %, the 1-year risk was 2 %, with a short interval between the 2 hip fractures. Age was a risk factor for sustaining a contralateral hip fracture; a fracture in history was not

Neck of Femur Fracture in a Patient with a Chronic Osteomyelitis of the Ipsilateral Foot

This case report describes a successful two-stage treatment in a 75-year-old male with a displaced neck of femur fracture, also suffering from an active chronic osteomyelitis of the ipsilateral calcaneus. In our case, a below-knee amputation was performed first, followed by total hip arthroplasty two weeks later. At 15-month follow-up, full recovery of the prefracture level of activities of daily living without significant impairment was obtained. Only a few cases of total hip arthroplasty in amputees have been published, but the indication for surgery was mainly traumatic or advanced osteoarthritis. Treating patients with this type of comorbidities is challenging; therapeutic dilemmas can be major. The management in cases like these requires a thorough evaluation and a clear surgical and medical treatment plan, preferably conducted by a multidisciplinary orthogeriatric team

Numerical study of multisoliton complexes in the damped driven nonlinear Schrodinger equation

Background and purpose — In the Netherlands about 40% of hip fractures are treated with a hemiarthroplasty (HA) or a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these procedures are claimed to have fewer complications than osteosynthesis (i.e., reoperation), complications still occur. Analyses of data from national registries with adequate completeness of revision surgery are important to establish guidelines to diminish the risk for revision. We identified risk factors for revision. Patients and methods — All patients older than 50 years of age with a hip fracture treated with arthroplasty by orthopedic surgeons and registered in the (national) Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) were included in the study. In this register, patient characteristics and surgical details were prospectively collected. Revision surgery and reasons for revision were evaluated. A proportional hazard ratio model for revision was created using competing risk analysis (with death as competing risk). Results — 1-year revision rate of HA was (cumulative incidence function [CIF] 1.6% (95% CI 1.4–1.8) and THA 2.4% (CI 2.0–2.7). Dislocation was the most common reason for revision in both groups (HA 29%, THA 41%). Male sex, age under 80 years, posterolateral approach, and uncemented stem fixation were risk factors for revision in both THA and HA. THA patients with ASA classification III/IV were revised more often, whereas revision in the HA cohort was performed more often in ASA I/II patients. Interpretation — After arthroplasty of hip fractures, both a posterolateral approach and an uncemented hip stem have higher risks for revision surgery compared with an anterolateral approach and an cemented stem