Outcomes Following Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Distal Humerus Fracture: Does Handedness Matter?

Introduction: No studies have assessed the relationship between extremity dominance and distal humerus fractures. This study sought to compare post-operative outcomes between patients with distal humerus fractures treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of their non-dominant vs dominant arm. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who sustained a distal humerus fracture treated with ORIF at one hospital between 2011-2015 was performed. Data collection included demographics, hand dominance, injury information, and surgical management. Post-operative outcomes included complications, time to fracture union, painful hardware, removal of hardware, Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI), and range of motion. Results: Of the 69 patients, 40 (58.0%) underwent ORIF of a distal humerus fracture on their non-dominant arm and 29 (42.0%) on their dominant arm. Groups did not differ with respect to demographics, injury information, or surgical management. Mean overall follow up was 14.1 ± 10.5 months with no difference in follow up or time to fracture union between groups. The non-dominant cohort experienced a higher proportion of post-operative complications (P = 0.048), painful hardware (P = 0.018), and removal of hardware (P = 0.002). At latest follow up, the non-dominant cohort had lower MEPI scores (86.4 vs 94.7, P = 0.037) but no difference in arc of motion (104.3° vs 112.5°, P = 0.314). Discussion: Patients who sustain a distal humerus fracture of their non-dominant arm treated surgically experience more post-operative complications and have worse functional recovery. Physicians should emphasize the importance of therapy and maintaining arm movement, especially with the non-dominant arm

Orthopedic in-training examination question metrics and resident test performance

First administered in November 1963, the orthopedic in-training examination (OITE) is now distributed to more than 4000 residents in over 20 countries and has become important for evaluation of resident fund of knowledge. Several studies have assessed the effect of didactic programs on resident performance, but only recently has it become possible to assess detailed testtaking metrics such as time spent per question. Here, we report the first assessment of resident OITE performance utilizing this full electronic dataset from two large academic institutions. Full 2015 OITE score reports for all orthopedic surgery residents at two institutions were anonymized and compiled. For every question answered by each resident, the resident year, question content or domain, question result (correct or incorrect), and answer speed were recorded. Data were then analyzed to determine whether resident year, result, or domain affected answer speed and whether performance in each subspecialty domain varied based on resident year in training. Data was available for 46 residents and 12,650 questions. Mean answer speed for questions answered correctly, 54.0±48.1 s, was significantly faster than for questions answered incorrectly, 72.2±61.2 s (P<0.00001). When considering both correct and incorrect answers, PGY-1s were slower than all other years (P<0.02). Residents spent a mean of nearly 80 seconds on foot and ankle and shoulder and elbow questions, compared to only 40 seconds on basic science questions (P<0.05). In education, faster answer speed for questions is often considered a sign of mastery of the material and more confidence in the answer. Though faster answer speed was strongly associated with correct answers, this study demonstrates that answer speed is not reliably associated with resident year. While answer speed varies between domains, it is likely that the majority of this variation is due to question type as opposed to confidence. Nevertheless, it is possible that in domains with more tiered experience such as shoulder, answer speed correlates strongly with resident year and percentage correct

Admitting Service Affects Cost and Length of Stay of Hip Fracture Patients

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of the admitting service on cost of care for hip fracture patients by comparing the cost difference between patients admitted to the medicine service versus those admitted to a surgical service. Methods: A 2-year cohort of patients 55 years or older who were admitted to a single level 1 trauma center with an operative hip fracture were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, admitting service, complications, and hospital length of stay were recorded for each patient. Cost of hospitalization, discharge disposition, and 30-day readmissions were collected. Patients who were admitted to the medicine service (medicine cohort) were compared to those admitted to a surgery service (surgery cohort). Multivariate regression models controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores were used to evaluate hospitalization costs with a P value of <.05 as significant. Results: Two hundred twenty-five hip fracture patients were included; 143 (63.6%) patients were admitted to a surgical service, while 82 (36.4%) were admitted to the medicine service. Patients admitted to medicine service had greater CCI and ASA scores, longer lengths of stay, and more complications than those patients admitted to surgery service. Linear regression model controlling for age, CCI, ASA score, and time to surgery demonstrates that patients admitted to a surgical service will have 2.0-day (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.561-3.503; P = .007) shorter admissions with a US$4215 reduction in cost (95$314-US$8116; P = .034) compared to patients admitted to the medicine service. Discussions: In our urban safety net hospital, hip fracture patients admitted to medicine service had longer lengths of stay and higher total hospitalization costs than patients who were admitted to surgery service. Conclusions: This study highlights that the admitting service should be an area of focus for hospitals when developing programs to provide effective and cost-conscious care to hip fracture patients

Does Use of Oral Anticoagulants at the Time of Admission Affect Outcomes Following Hip Fracture

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare hospital quality outcomes in patients over the age of 60 undergoing fixation of hip fracture based on their anticoagulation status. Materials and Methods: Patients aged 60 and older with isolated hip fracture injuries treated operatively at 1 academic medical center between October 2014 and September 2016 were analyzed. Patients on the following medications were included in the anticoagulation cohort: warfarin, clopidogrel, aspirin 325 mg, rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, and dipyridamole/aspirin. We compared outcome measures including time to surgery, length of stay (LOS), transfusion rate, blood loss, procedure time, complication rate, need for intensive care unit (ICU)/step-down unit (SDU) care, discharge disposition, and cost of admission. Outcomes were controlled for age, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and anesthesia type. Results: A total of 479 hip fracture patients met the inclusion criteria, with 367 (76.6%) patients in the nonanticoagulated cohort and 112 (23.4%) patients in the anticoagulated cohort. The mean LOS and time to surgery were longer in the anticoagulated cohort (8.3 vs 7.3 days, P = .033 and 1.9 vs 1.6 days, P = .010); however, after controlling for age, CCI, and anesthesia type, these differences were no longer significant. Surgical outcomes were equivalent with similar procedure times, blood loss, and need for transfusion. The mean number of complications developed and inpatient mortality rate in the 2 cohorts were similar; however, more patients in the anticoagulated cohort required ICU/SDU-level care (odds ratio = 2.364, P = .001, controlled for age, CCI, and anesthesia). There was increased utilization of post-acute care in the anticoagulated cohort, with only 10.7% of patients discharged home compared to 19.9% of the nonanticoagulated group ( P = .026). Lastly, there was no difference in cost of care. Conclusion: This study highlights that anticoagulation status alone does not independently put patients at increased risk with respect to LOS, surgical outcomes, and cost of hospitalization