Aftercare Following Syndesmotic Screw Placement: A Systematic Review

For ankle fractures, in general, several studies have been published on immobilization (e.g., cast or boot) versus early motion after surgical treatment. However, no studies have been performed to determine the best aftercare strategy for surgically treated patients with ankle fractures with concomitant acute distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries. The aim of the present review was to compare the functional outcomes of ankle fractures with syndesmotic injury treated with a cast or boot versus early motion. We performed a systematic review using the electronic databases from January 1, 2000 to September 1, 2012 of the Cochrane Library, PubMed MEDLINE®, EMbase, and Google Scholar. The included studies were those in which ankle fractures with acute distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries had been treated with 1 or more syndesmotic screws, with a mean follow-up period of at least 12 months and at least 25 patients included. The functional outcomes, measured using the American Orthopaedic Foot Ankle Society Hindfoot scale, Olerud-Molander Ankle Scale, and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, were compared. A total of 9 studies were identified with a total of 531 patients. The number of included patients ranged from 28 to 93. The mean follow-up period was 12 to 101 months. Of the 9 studies, 3 used an early motion protocol (195 patients) and 6 (336 patients) a protocol of immobilization for at least 6 weeks. For the American Orthopaedic Foot Ankle Society Hindfoot scale, the mean scores for immobilization were 86 to 91 points and for early motion, 84 to 89. For the Olerud-Molander Ankle Scale, the scores for immobilization were 47 to 90 and for early motion, 46 to 82 points. The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment score for immobilization was 11 and for early motion ranged from 12 to 27 points. No apparent differences could be detected in the published data considering the functional outcomes between immobilization versus an early motion protocol in ankle fractures with acute distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries treated with a syndesmotic screw. However, level 1 and 2 studies on this subject are lacking

The impact of the Trauma Triage App on pre-hospital trauma triage: design and protocol of the stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized TESLA trial

Abstract Background Field triage of trauma patients is crucial to get the right patient to the right hospital within a particular time frame. Minimization of undertriage, overtriage, and interhospital transfer rates could substantially reduce mortality rates, life-long disabilities, and costs. Identification of patients in need of specialized trauma care is predominantly based on the judgment of Emergency Medical Services professionals and a pre-hospital triage protocol. The Trauma Triage App is a smartphone application that includes a prediction model to aid Emergency Medical Services professionals in the identification of patients in need of specialized trauma care. The aim of this trial is to assess the impact of this new digital approach to field triage on the primary endpoint undertriage. Methods The Trauma triage using Supervised Learning Algorithms (TESLA) trial is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial with eight clusters defined as Emergency Medical Services regions. These clusters are an integral part of five inclusive trauma regions. Injured patients, evaluated on-scene by an Emergency Medical Services professional, suspected of moderate to severe injuries, will be assessed for eligibility. This unidirectional crossover trial will start with a baseline period in which the default pre-hospital triage protocol is used, after which all clusters gradually implement the Trauma Triage App as an add-on to the existing triage protocol. The primary endpoint is undertriage on patient and cluster level and is defined as the transportation of a severely injured patient (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16) to a lower-level trauma center. Secondary endpoints include overtriage, hospital resource use, and a cost-utility analysis. Discussion The TESLA trial will assess the impact of the Trauma Triage App in clinical practice. This novel approach to field triage will give new and previously undiscovered insights into several isolated components of the diagnostic strategy to get the right trauma patient to the right hospital. The stepped-wedge design allows for within and between cluster comparisons. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR7243. Registered 30 May 2018, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7038

HUMeral Shaft Fractures: MEasuring Recovery after Operative versus Non-operative Treatment (HUMMER): A multicenter comparative observational study

Background: Fractures of the humeral shaft are associated with a profound temporary (and in the elderly sometimes even permanent) impairment of independence and quality of life. These fractures can be treated operatively or non-operatively, but the optimal tailored treatment is an unresolved problem. As no high-quality comparative randomized or observational studies are available, a recent Cochrane review concluded there is no evidence of sufficient scientific quality available to inform the decision to operate or not. Since randomized controlled trials for this injury have shown feasibility issues, this study is designed to provide the best achievable evidence to answer this unresolved problem. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate functional recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment in adult patients who sustained a humeral shaft fracture. Secondary aims include the effect of treatment on pain, complications, generic health-related quality of life, time to resumption of activities of daily living and work, and cost-effectiveness. The main hypothesis is that operative treatment will result in faster recovery. Methods/design. The design of the study will be a multicenter prospective observational study of 400 patients who have sustained a humeral shaft fracture, AO type 12A or 12B. Treatment decision (i.e., operative or non-operative) will be left to the discretion of the treating surgeon. Critical elements of treatment will be registered and outcome will be monitored at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. Secondary outcome measures are the Constant score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow and shoulder joint at both sides, radiographic healing, rate of complications and (secondary) interventions, health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), time to resumption of ADL/work, and cost-effectiveness. Data will be analyzed using univariate and multivariable analyses (including mixed effects regression analysis). The cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. Discussion. Successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of operative versus non-operative treatment of patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Trial registration. The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3617)

Reliability and Reproducibility of the OTA/AO Classification for Humeral Shaft Fractures

Objectives: This study aimed to determine interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the OTA/AO classification for humeral shaft fractures, and to evaluate differences between fracture types, fracture groups, and surgical specializations. Methods: Thirty observers (25 orthopaedic trauma surgeons and 5 general orthopaedic surgeons) independently classified 90 humeral shaft fractures according to the OTA/AO classification. Patients of 16 years and older were included. Periprosthetic, recurrent, and pathological fractures were excluded. Radiographs were provided in random order, and observers were blinded to clinical information. To determine intraobserver agreement, radiographs were reviewed again after 2 months in a different random order. Agreement was assessed using kappa statistics. Results: Interobserver agreement for the 3 fracture types was moderate (κ = 0.60; 0.59-0.61). It was substantial for type A (κ = 0.77; 0.70-0.84) and moderate for type B (κ = 0.52; 0.46-0.58) and type C fractures (κ = 0.46; 0.42-0.50). Interobserver agreement for the 9 fracture groups was moderate (κ = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.48-0.48). Orthopaedic trauma surgeons had better overall agreement for fracture types, and general orthopaedic surgeons had better overall agreement for fracture groups. Observers classified 64% of fractures identically in both rounds. Intraobserver agreement was substantial for the 3 types (κ = 0.80; 0.77-0.81) and 9 groups (κ = 0.80; 0.77-0.82). Intraobserver agreement showed no differences between surgical disciplines. Conclusions: The OTA/AO classification for humeral shaft fractures has a moderate interobserver and substantial intraobserver agreement for fracture types and groups