Rib Fracture Fixation Restores Inspiratory Volume and Peak Flow in a Full Thorax Human Cadaveric Breathing Model

Background: Multiple rib fractures cause significant pain and potential for chest wall instability. Despite an emerging trend of surgical management of flail chest injuries, there are no studies examining the effect of rib fracture fixation on respiratory function. Objectives: Using a novel full thorax human cadaveric breathing model, we sought to explore the effect of flail chest injury and subsequent rib fracture fixation on respiratory outcomes. Patients and Methods: We used five fresh human cadavers to generate negative breathing models in the left thorax to mimic physiologic respiration. Inspiratory volumes and peak flows were measured using a flow meter for all three chest wall states: intact chest, left-sided flail chest (segmental fractures of ribs 3 - 7), and post-fracture open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the chest wall with a pre-contoured rib specific plate fixation system. Results: A wide variation in the mean inspiratory volumes and peak flows were measured between specimens; however, the effect of a flail chest wall and the subsequent internal fixation of the unstable rib fractures was consistent across all samples. Compared to the intact chest wall, the inspiratory volume decreased by 40 ± 19% in the flail chest model (P = 0.04). Open reduction and internal fixation of the flail chest returned the inspiratory volume to 130 ± 71% of the intact chest volumes (P = 0.68). A similar 35 ± 19% decrease in peak flows was seen in the flail chest (P = 0.007) and this returned to 125 ± 71% of the intact chest following ORIF (P = 0.62). Conclusions: Negative pressure inspiration is significantly impaired by an unstable chest wall. Restoring mechanical stability of the fractured ribs improves respiratory outcomes similar to baseline values

Are large clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma justified?

© 2018 The Author(s). 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

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

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