Interobserver reliability of classification and characterization of proximal humeral fractures: a comparison of two and three-dimensional CT

Interobserver reliability for the classification of proximal humeral fractures is limited. The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that interobserver reliability of the AO classification of proximal humeral fractures, the preferred treatment, and fracture characteristics is the same for two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) computed tomography (CT). Members of the Science of Variation Group--fully trained practicing orthopaedic and trauma surgeons from around the world--were randomized to evaluate radiographs and either 2-D CT or 3-D CT images of fifteen proximal humeral fractures via a web-based survey and respond to the following four questions: (1) Is the greater tuberosity displaced? (2) Is the humeral head split? (3) Is the arterial supply compromised? (4) Is the glenohumeral joint dislocated? They also classified the fracture according to the AO system and indicated their preferred treatment of the fracture (operative or nonoperative). Agreement among observers was assessed with use of the multirater kappa (κ) measure. Interobserver reliability of the AO classification, fracture characteristics, and preferred treatment generally ranged from "slight" to "fair." A few small but statistically significant differences were found. Observers randomized to the 2-D CT group had slightly but significantly better agreement on displacement of the greater tuberosity (κ = 0.35 compared with 0.30, p < 0.001) and on the AO classification (κ = 0.18 compared with 0.17, p = 0.018). A subgroup analysis of the AO classification results revealed that shoulder and elbow surgeons, orthopaedic trauma surgeons, and surgeons in the United States had slightly greater reliability on 2-D CT, whereas surgeons in practice for ten years or less and surgeons from other subspecialties had slightly greater reliability on 3-D CT. Proximal humeral fracture classifications may be helpful conceptually, but they have poor interobserver reliability even when 3-D rather than 2-D CT is utilized. This may contribute to the similarly poor interobserver reliability that was observed for selection of the treatment for proximal humeral fractures. The lack of a reliable classification confounds efforts to compare the outcomes of treatment methods among different clinical trials and reports

Perioperative management of external fixation in staged protocols: an international survey

Despite the frequent use of external fixation, various regimes of antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical technique and postoperative pin care exist and underline the lack of current evidence. The aim of the study was to assess the variability or consensus in perioperative protocols to prevent implant-associated infections for temporary external fixation in closed fractures of the extremities. A 26-question survey was sent to 170 members of the Traumaplatform. The survey included questions concerning demographics, level of training, type of training and perioperative protocols as: antibiotic prophylaxis, intraoperative management, disinfection and postoperative pin site care. All responses were statistically analysed, and intraoperative measures rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The responses of fifty orthopaedic trauma and general surgeons (response rate, 29.4%) were analysed. The level of experience was more than 5 years in 92% (n = 46) with up to 50 closed fractures of the extremities annually treated with external fixation in 80% (n = 40). Highest consensus could be identified in the following perioperative measures: preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis with a second-generation cephalosporin (86%, n = 43), changing gloves if manipulation of the external fixator is necessary during surgery (86%, n = 43; 4.12 points on the Likert scale), avoid overlapping of the pin sites with the definitive implant site (94%, n = 47; 4.12 points on the Likert scale) and soft tissue protection with a drill sleeve (83.6%, n = 41). Our survey could identify some general principles, which were rated as important by a majority of the respondents. Futures studies' focus should elucidate the role of perioperative antibiotics and different disinfection protocols on implant-associated infections after temporary external fixation in staged protocols. This study provides Level IV evidence according to Oxford centre for evidence-based medicin

Let’s Agree to Disagree on Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Distal Radius Fractures in Older People: Protocol for a Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study

BackgroundDistal radius fractures are the most frequently encountered fractures in Western societies, typically affecting patients aged 50 years and older. Although this is a common injury, the best treatment for these fractures in older patients is still under debate. ObjectiveThis prospective study aims to compare the outcome of operatively and nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures in the older population. Only patients with distal radius fractures for which equipoise regarding the optimal treatment exists will be included. MethodsThis prospective international multicenter observational cohort study will be designed as a natural experiment. Natural experiments are observational studies in which treatment allocation is determined by factors outside the control of the investigators but also (largely) independent of patient characteristics. Patients aged 65 years and older with an acute distal radius fracture will be considered for inclusion. Treatment allocation (operative vs nonoperative) will be based on the local preferences of the treating hospital either in Switzerland or the Netherlands. Hence, the process governing treatment allocation resembles that of randomization. Patients will be identified after treatment has been initiated. Based on the radiographs and baseline information of the patient, an expert panel of 6 certified trauma surgeons from 2 regions will provide their treatment recommendation. Only patients for whom the experts disagree on treatment recommendations will ultimately be included in the study (ie, for whom there is a clinical equipoise). For these patients, both operative and nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures are viable, and treatment choice is predominantly determined by personal or local preference. The primary outcome will be the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, the EQ questionnaire, pain, the living situation, range of motion, complications, and radiological outcomes. By including outcomes such as living situation and the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, which are not relevant for younger cohorts, valuable information to tailor treatment to the needs of the older population can be gained. According to the sample size collection, which was based on the minimal important clinical difference of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, 92 patients will have to be included, with at least 46 patients in each treatment group. ResultsEnrollment began in July 2023 and is expected to continue until summer 2024. The final follow-up will be 2 years after the last patient is included. ConclusionsAlthough many trials on this topic have previously been published, there remains an ongoing debate regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures in older patients. This observational study, which will use a fairly new methodological study design, will provide further information on treatment outcomes for older patients with distal radius fractures for which to date equipoise exists regarding the optimal treatment. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/5291

Mechanical evaluation of a new minimally invasive device for stabilization of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients A cadaver study

BACKGROUND: Treatment of proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients is challenging because of reduced bone quality. We determined the in vitro characteristics of a new implant developed to target the remaining bone stock, and compared it with an implant in clinical use. METHODS: Following osteotomy, left and right humeral pairs from cadavers were treated with either the Button-Fix or the Humerusblock fixation system. Implant stiffness was determined for three clinically relevant cases of load: axial compression, torsion, and varus bending. In addition, a cyclic varus-bending test was performed. RESULTS: We found higher stiffness values for the humeri treated with the ButtonFix system--with almost a doubling of the compression, torsion, and bending stiffness values. Under dynamic loading, the ButtonFix system had superior stiffness and less K-wire migration compared to the Humerusblock system. INTERPRETATION: When compared to the Humerusblock design, the ButtonFix system showed superior biomechanical properties, both static and dynamic. It offers a minimally invasive alternative for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures