Implant removal after internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture: Effects on physical functioning

Objectives: The effect of implant removal after internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture on physical functioning was analyzed. Characteristics of patients who had their implant removed were studied, as it is currently unknown from which type of patients implants are removed and what effect removal has on function. Design: Secondary cohort study alongside a randomized controlled trial. Setting: Multicenter study in 14 hospitals. Patients and Intervention: Patients who had their implant removed after internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture are compared with patients who did not. Main outcome measurements: Patient characteristics and quality of life (Short Form 12, Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index) were compared. Matched pairs were selected based on patient/fracture characteristics and prefracture physical functioning. Results: Of 162 patients, 37 (23%) had their implant removed. These patients were younger (median age: 67 vs. 72 years, P 0.024) and more often independently ambulatory prefracture (100% vs. 84%, P 0.008) than patients who did not. They more often had evident implant back-out on x-rays (54% vs. 34%, P 0.035), possibly related to a higher rate of Pauwels 3 fractures (41% vs. 22%, P 0.032). In time, quality of life improved more in implant removal patients [+2 vs. -4 points, Short Form 12 (physical component), P 0.024; +9 vs. 0 points, Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index, P 0.019]. Conclusions: Implant removal after internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture positively influenced quality of life. Implant removal patients were younger and more often independently ambulatory prefracture, more often had a Pauwels 3 fracture, and an evident implant back-out. Implant removal should be considered liberally for these patients if pain persists or functional recovery is unsatisfactory. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Percutaneous treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures

Background. The outcome after displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures is influenced by the condition of the surrounding soft tissues. To avoid secondary soft tissue complications after surgical treatment, several less-invasive procedures for reduction and fixation have been introduced. The percutaneous technique according to Forgon and Zadravecz is suitable for all types of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures and was therefore introduced in our clinic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the lon

Functional Outcome After Successful Internal Fixation Versus Salvage Arthroplasty of Patients With a Femoral Neck Fracture

Objectives: To determine patient independency, health-related and disease-specific quality of life (QOL), gait pattern, and muscle strength in patients after salvage arthroplasty for failed internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture. Design: Secondary cohort study to a randomized controlled trial. Setting: Multicenter trial in the Netherlands, including 14 academic and nonacademic hospitals. Patients: Patients after salvage arthroplasty for failed internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture were studied. A comparison was made with patients who healed uneventfully after internal fixation. Intervention: None (observatory study). Main Outcome Measurements: Patient characteristics, SF-12, and Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis index scores were collected. Gait parameters were measured using plantar pressure measurement. Maximum isometric forces of the hip muscles were measured using a handheld dynamome

Adherence to a femoral neck fracture treatment guideline

Purpose: In 2007 the Dutch Surgical Society published a clinical practice guideline for the treatment of hip fracture patients, based on the best available international evidence at that time. We investigated to what extent treatment of femoral neck fracture patients in the Netherlands corresponded with these guidelines, and determined differences in patient characteristics between the treatment groups. Methods: All femoral neck fracture patients treated in 14 hospitals between February 2008 and August 2009 were included. Patient characteristics, X-rays, and treatment data were collected retrospectively. Results: From a total of 1,250 patients 59 % had been treated with arthroplasty, 39 % with internal fixation, and 2 % with a non-operative treatment. While 74 % of the treatment choices complied with the guideline, 12 % did not. In 14 % adherence could not be determined from the available data. Arthroplasty was preferred over internal fixation in elderly patients with severe comorbidity, pre-fracture osteoporosis and a displaced fracture, who were ambulatory with aids pre-fracture (odds ratio, OR 2.2-58.1). Sliding hip screws were preferred over cancellous screws in displaced fractures (OR 1.9). Conclusions: Overall guideline adherence was good. Most deviations concerned treatment of elderly patients with a displaced fracture and implant use in internal fixation. Additional data on these issues, preferably at a higher scientific level of evidence, is needed in order to improve the guideline and to reinforce a more uniform treatment of these patients

Cumulative incidence and treatment of non-simultaneous bilateral femoral neck fractures in a cohort of one thousand two hundred and fifty patients

Purpose In the Netherlands, over 20,000 patients sustain a hip fracture yearly. A first hip fracture is a risk factor for a second,

Clinical Outcome Scoring of Intra-articular Calcaneal Fractures

Outcome reporting of intra-articular calcaneal fractures is inconsistent. This study aimed to identify the most cited outcome scores in the literature and to analyze their reliability and validity. A systematic literature search identified 34 different outcome scores. The most cited outcome score was the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score, followed by the Maryland Foot Score (MFS) and the Creighton-Nebraska score (CN). Reliability (internal consistency) and validity (content, construct, and criterion) were determined for the 3 outcome scoring systems. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha, reliability) was similar for the Maryland Foot Score (α = 0.82) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot score (α = 0.78), but lower for the Creighton-Nebraska (α = 0.61). Floor and ceiling effects were good for all 3 scores. The individual items within these outcome scores showing best content validity were pain, return to work, subtalar range of motion, walking distance, ankle range of motion, and gait abnormalities or limping. Construct validity was good for all individual items except sagittal motion, stability at physical exam, and shoe size. The 3 outcome scores showed high correlation with patient satisfaction as measured with a visual analog scale (VAS, criterion validity) and indication for an arthrodesis. In conclusion, pending consensus, we would recommend choosing between the widely accepted, reliable and valid AOFAS hindfoot and the Maryland Foot Score as the scoring systems of choice. Level of Clinical Evidence: 2

Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience

Contains fulltext : 110505.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, whereas most Canadian and US sites have local study coordinators and receive per patient payment. This study was aimed to assess how these different trial management strategies affected trial performance. METHODS: Details related to obtaining ethics approval, time to trial start-up, inclusion, and percentage completed follow-ups were collected for each trial site and compared. Pre-trial screening data were compared with actual inclusion rates. RESULTS: Median trial start-up ranged from 41 days (P25-P75 10-139) in the Netherlands to 232 days (P25-P75 98-423) in Canada (p = 0.027). The inclusion rate was highest in the Netherlands; median 1.03 patients (P25-P75 0.43-2.21) per site per month, representing 34.4% of the total eligible population. It was lowest in Canada; 0.14 inclusions (P25-P75 0.00-0.28), representing 3.9% of eligible patients (p < 0.001). The percentage completed follow-ups was 83% for Canadian and Dutch sites and 70% for US sites (p = 0.217). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, a central financed trial coordinator to manage all trial related tasks in participating sites resulted in better trial progression and a similar follow-up. It is therefore a suitable alternative for appointing these tasks to local research assistants. The central coordinator approach can enable smaller regional hospitals to participate in multicenter randomized controlled trials. Circumstances such as available budget, sample size, and geographical area should however be taken into account when choosing a management strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00761813

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

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