16 research outputs found

    Ankle Fracture Classification: An Innovative System for Describing Ankle Fractures

    No full text
    A good classification system is important for clinical handoffs, research, and clinical treatment guidelines. A reliable classification system shows good interobserver and intraobserver agreement. This study analyzed the interobserver and intraobserver agreement of a descriptive system for ankle fractures and the Lauge-Hansen classification. Three groups of observers (experts, semiexperts, and novices) scored a total of 20 ankle radiographs. All ankle radiographs were classified according to the Lauge-Hansen and Danis-Weber classifications. The ankle fractures were subsequently reviewed in a descriptive manner for the following features: number of affected malleoli, type of fracture of the lateral and medial malleolus, and congruence of the ankle joint. After 2 weeks, the same set of radiographs were reviewed. For interobserver and intraobserver variability, the separate groups were used for analysis, and the Fleiss (multirater) κ values were calculated. The interobserver agreement for the Lauge-Hansen classification was moderate for the experts, fair for semiexperts, and slight for novices (κ = 0.45, κ = 0.37, and κ = 0.16). All factors of the descriptive system had better interobserver agreement than the Lauge-Hansen classification, except for the agreement on the type of fracture of the lateral malleolus. The intraobserver agreement of the Lauge-Hansen classification was substantial for the experts, moderate for the semiexperts, and fair for the novice observers (κ = 0.70, κ = 0.49, and κ = 0.26). The intraobserver agreement was better for all factors of the descriptive system compared with the Lauge-Hansen classification. The descriptive system presented in this study shows less variability between observers than the Lauge-Hansen classification. This system has clinical implications and is easy to use for clinicians with mixed levels of experience. It has the potential to improve clinical and research handoffs and overcome the limitations of current classification systems

    Ankle Fracture Classification : An Innovative System for Describing Ankle Fractures

    No full text
    A good classification system is important for clinical handoffs, research, and clinical treatment guidelines. A reliable classification system shows good interobserver and intraobserver agreement. This study analyzed the interobserver and intraobserver agreement of a descriptive system for ankle fractures and the Lauge-Hansen classification. Three groups of observers (experts, semiexperts, and novices) scored a total of 20 ankle radiographs. All ankle radiographs were classified according to the Lauge-Hansen and Danis-Weber classifications. The ankle fractures were subsequently reviewed in a descriptive manner for the following features: number of affected malleoli, type of fracture of the lateral and medial malleolus, and congruence of the ankle joint. After 2 weeks, the same set of radiographs were reviewed. For interobserver and intraobserver variability, the separate groups were used for analysis, and the Fleiss (multirater) κ values were calculated. The interobserver agreement for the Lauge-Hansen classification was moderate for the experts, fair for semiexperts, and slight for novices (κ = 0.45, κ = 0.37, and κ = 0.16). All factors of the descriptive system had better interobserver agreement than the Lauge-Hansen classification, except for the agreement on the type of fracture of the lateral malleolus. The intraobserver agreement of the Lauge-Hansen classification was substantial for the experts, moderate for the semiexperts, and fair for the novice observers (κ = 0.70, κ = 0.49, and κ = 0.26). The intraobserver agreement was better for all factors of the descriptive system compared with the Lauge-Hansen classification. The descriptive system presented in this study shows less variability between observers than the Lauge-Hansen classification. This system has clinical implications and is easy to use for clinicians with mixed levels of experience. It has the potential to improve clinical and research handoffs and overcome the limitations of current classification systems

    Differences in Classification Between Mono- and Polytrauma and Low- and High-Energy Trauma Patients With an Ankle Fracture : A Retrospective Cohort Study

    No full text
    Although fracture type and treatment options for ankle fractures are well defined, the differences between mono- and polytrauma patients and low- and high-energy trauma have not been addressed. The aim of the present study was to compare the fracture type and trauma mechanism between mono- and polytrauma and low- and high-energy trauma patients with an ankle fracture. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study. Fractures were classified according to the Lauge-Hansen classification and a descriptive classification. High-energy trauma (HET) was defined using triage criteria. All other patients were classified as having experienced low-energy trauma (LET). The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the injury severity score (ISS). Monotrauma patients were defined as patients with an ISS of 4 to 11 with an isolated ankle fracture or an ankle fracture with a minor contusion or laceration. Polytrauma patients were defined as patients with an ISS of ≥16 with ≥2 body regions involved. Patients with an ISS from 12 to 15 were excluded. A total of 96 patients were eligible for analysis. Of the 96 patients, 62 had experienced monotrauma and 34 had experienced polytrauma. A significant difference was found between the mono- and polytrauma patients in the Lauge-Hansen classification (p < .001). Monotrauma patients had a high incidence of an isolated supination external rotation injury. Supination adduction and pronation abduction injuries were more often observed in polytrauma patients. The same pattern was observed for ankle fractures after HET compared with LET (p < .001), because all pronation abduction and supination adduction injuries were observed after a HET mechanism. The results of the present study indicate that polytrauma patients sustain different types of ankle fractures than patients with an isolated ankle fracture. This difference likely results from the high-energy transfer associated with polytrauma, because pronation abduction and supination adduction injuries were only observed after HET

    Differences in Classification Between Mono- and Polytrauma and Low- and High-Energy Trauma Patients With an Ankle Fracture : A Retrospective Cohort Study

    No full text
    Although fracture type and treatment options for ankle fractures are well defined, the differences between mono- and polytrauma patients and low- and high-energy trauma have not been addressed. The aim of the present study was to compare the fracture type and trauma mechanism between mono- and polytrauma and low- and high-energy trauma patients with an ankle fracture. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study. Fractures were classified according to the Lauge-Hansen classification and a descriptive classification. High-energy trauma (HET) was defined using triage criteria. All other patients were classified as having experienced low-energy trauma (LET). The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the injury severity score (ISS). Monotrauma patients were defined as patients with an ISS of 4 to 11 with an isolated ankle fracture or an ankle fracture with a minor contusion or laceration. Polytrauma patients were defined as patients with an ISS of ≥16 with ≥2 body regions involved. Patients with an ISS from 12 to 15 were excluded. A total of 96 patients were eligible for analysis. Of the 96 patients, 62 had experienced monotrauma and 34 had experienced polytrauma. A significant difference was found between the mono- and polytrauma patients in the Lauge-Hansen classification (p < .001). Monotrauma patients had a high incidence of an isolated supination external rotation injury. Supination adduction and pronation abduction injuries were more often observed in polytrauma patients. The same pattern was observed for ankle fractures after HET compared with LET (p < .001), because all pronation abduction and supination adduction injuries were observed after a HET mechanism. The results of the present study indicate that polytrauma patients sustain different types of ankle fractures than patients with an isolated ankle fracture. This difference likely results from the high-energy transfer associated with polytrauma, because pronation abduction and supination adduction injuries were only observed after HET

    Weight-bearing and mobilization in the postoperative care of ankle fractures : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies

    No full text
    Purpose: To determine the effectiveness and safety of interventions used for rehabilitation after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using both randomized trials and cohort studies. The effect of mobilization, weight-bearing, and unprotected weight-bearing as tolerated on postoperative recovery was compared using the Olerud Molander score, return to work/daily activities, and the rate of complications. Results: A total of 25 articles were included. Ankle exercises resulted in earlier return to work and/or daily activities compared to immobilization (mean difference (MD) -20.76 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) -40.02 to -1.50). There was no difference in the rate of complications between exercises and immobilization (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.60 to 2.45) or between early and late weight-bearing (RR 1.26; 95%CI 0.56 to 2.85). Interpretation: Results of this meta-analysis show that following ankle surgery, 1) active exercises accelerate return to work and daily activities compared to immobilization, 2) early weight-bearing tends to accelerate return to work and daily activities compared to late weight-bearing. Active exercises in combination with immediate weight-bearing may be a safe option

    Effect of mobilization; return to work/daily activities.

    No full text
    <p>The mean difference (SD) on the return to work/daily activities is shown between the ankle exercises groups and the immobilization groups.</p

    Effect of weight-bearing; return to work/daily activities.

    No full text
    <p>The mean difference (SD) on the return to work/daily activites is shown between the early weight-bearing groups and the late weight-bearing groups.</p
    corecore