19 research outputs found

    Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

    Get PDF
    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

    Amputation : Not a failure for severe lower extremity combat injury

    No full text
    Introduction The use of improvised explosive devices is a frequent method of insurgents to inflict harm on deployed military personnel. Consequently, lower extremity injuries make up the majority of combat related trauma. The wounding pattern of an explosion is not often encountered in a civilian population and can lead to substantial disability. It is therefore important to study the impact of these lower extremity injuries and their treatment (limb salvage versus amputation) on functional outcome and quality of life. Patients and methods All Dutch repatriated service members receiving treatment for wounds on the lower extremity sustained in the Afghan theater between august 2005 and August 2014, were invited to participate in this observational cohort study. We conducted a survey regarding their physical and mental health using the Short Form health survey 36, EuroQoL 6 dimensions and Lower Extremity Functional Scale questionnaires. Results were collated in a specifically designed electronic database combined with epidemiology and hospital statistics gathered from the archive of the Central Military Hospital. Statistical analyses were performed to identify differences between combat and non-combat related injuries and between limb salvage treatment and amputation. Results In comparison with non-battle injury patients, battle casualties were significantly younger of age, sustained more severe injuries, needed more frequent operations and clinical rehabilitation. Their long-term outcome scores in areas concerning well-being, social and cognitive functioning, were significantly lower. Regarding treatment, amputees experienced higher physical well-being and less pain compared to those treated with limb salvage surgery. Conclusion Sustaining a combat injury to the lower extremity can lead to partial or permanent dysfunction. However, wounded service members, amputees included, are able to achieve high levels of activity and participation in society, proving a remarkable resilience. These long-term results demonstrate that amputation is not a failure for casualty and surgeon, and strengthen a life before limb (damage control surgery) mindset in the initial phase. For future research, we recommend the use of adequate coding and injury scoring systems to predict outcome and give insight in the attributes that are supportive for the resilience that is needed to cope with a serious battle injury

    Amputation : Not a failure for severe lower extremity combat injury

    No full text
    Introduction The use of improvised explosive devices is a frequent method of insurgents to inflict harm on deployed military personnel. Consequently, lower extremity injuries make up the majority of combat related trauma. The wounding pattern of an explosion is not often encountered in a civilian population and can lead to substantial disability. It is therefore important to study the impact of these lower extremity injuries and their treatment (limb salvage versus amputation) on functional outcome and quality of life. Patients and methods All Dutch repatriated service members receiving treatment for wounds on the lower extremity sustained in the Afghan theater between august 2005 and August 2014, were invited to participate in this observational cohort study. We conducted a survey regarding their physical and mental health using the Short Form health survey 36, EuroQoL 6 dimensions and Lower Extremity Functional Scale questionnaires. Results were collated in a specifically designed electronic database combined with epidemiology and hospital statistics gathered from the archive of the Central Military Hospital. Statistical analyses were performed to identify differences between combat and non-combat related injuries and between limb salvage treatment and amputation. Results In comparison with non-battle injury patients, battle casualties were significantly younger of age, sustained more severe injuries, needed more frequent operations and clinical rehabilitation. Their long-term outcome scores in areas concerning well-being, social and cognitive functioning, were significantly lower. Regarding treatment, amputees experienced higher physical well-being and less pain compared to those treated with limb salvage surgery. Conclusion Sustaining a combat injury to the lower extremity can lead to partial or permanent dysfunction. However, wounded service members, amputees included, are able to achieve high levels of activity and participation in society, proving a remarkable resilience. These long-term results demonstrate that amputation is not a failure for casualty and surgeon, and strengthen a life before limb (damage control surgery) mindset in the initial phase. For future research, we recommend the use of adequate coding and injury scoring systems to predict outcome and give insight in the attributes that are supportive for the resilience that is needed to cope with a serious battle injury

    Routine Follow-Up Radiographs for Ankle Fractures Seldom Add Value to Clinical Decision-Making:A Retrospective, Observational Study

    Get PDF
    Currently, the routine use of radiographs for uncomplicated ankle fractures represents good clinical practice. However, radiographs are associated with waiting time, radiation exposure, and costs. Studies have suggested that radiographs seldom alter the treatment strategy if no clinical indication for the imaging study was present. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of routine radiographs on the treatment strategy during the follow-up period of ankle fractures. All patients aged >= 18 years, who had visited 1 of the participating clinics with an eligible ankle fracture in 2012 and with complete follow-up data were included. The data were retrospectively analyzed. The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and the number of, and indications for, the radiographs taken were collected from the medical records of the participating clinics. We assessed the changes in treatment strategy according to the radiographic findings. In 528 patients with an ankle fracture, 1174 radiographs were performed during the follow-up period. Of these radiographs, 936 (79.7%) were considered routine. Of the routine radiographs taken during the follow-up period, only 11 (1.2 %) resulted in changes to the treatment strategy. Although it is common practice to take radiographs routinely during the follow-up period for ankle fractures, the results from the present study suggest that routine radiographs seldom alter the treatment strategy. This limited clinical relevance should be weighed against the health care costs and radiation exposure associated with the use of routine radiographs. For a definitive recommendation, however, the results of our study should be confirmed by a prospective trial, which we are currently conducting. (C) 2018 by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. All rights reserved

    Quality of life and clinical outcomes of operatively treated patients with flail chest injuries: A multicentre prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Most studies about rib fractures focus on mortality and morbidity. Literature is scarce on long term and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Therefore, we report QoL and long-term outcomes after rib fixation in flail chest patients. Methods: A prospective cohort study of clinical flail chest patients admitted to six level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands and Switzerland between January 2018 and March 2021. Outcomes included in-hospital outcomes and long-term outcomes, such as QoL measurements 12 months after hospitalization using the EuroQoL five dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Results: Sixty-one operatively treated flail chest patients were included. Median hospital length of stay was 15 days and intensive care length of stay was 8 days. Sixteen (26%) patients developed pneumonia and two (3%) died. One year after hospitalization the mean EQ5D score was 0.78. Complication rates were low and included hemothorax (6%) pleural effusion (5%) and two revisions of the implant (3%). Implant related irritation was commonly reported by patients (n = 15, 25%). Conclusions: Rib fixation for flail chest injuries can be considered a safe procedure and with low mortality rates. Future studies should focus on quality of life rather than solely short-term outcomes. Trial registration: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017 and the Swiss Ethics Committees Registration Number 2019-00668

    The impact of a multimodal intervention on emergency department crowding and patient flow

    Get PDF
    Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the impact of a multimodal intervention on emergency department (ED) crowding and patient flow in a Dutch level 1 trauma center. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we compare ED crowding and patient flow between a 9-month pre-intervention period and a 9-month intervention period, during peak hours and overall (24/7). The multimodal intervention included (1) adding an emergency nurse practitioner (ENP) and (2) five medical specialists during peak hours to the 24/7 available emergency physicians (EPs), (3) a Lean programme to improve radiology turnaround times, and (4) extending the admission offices' openings hours. Crowding is measured with the modified National ED OverCrowding Score (mNEDOCS). Furthermore, radiology turnaround times, patients' length of stay (LOS), proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS) by a medical provider, and unscheduled representations are assessed. Results: The number of ED visits were grossly similar in the two periods during peak hours (15,558 ED visits in the pre-intervention period and 15,550 in the intervention period) and overall (31,891 ED visits in the pre-intervention period vs. 32,121 in the intervention period). During peak hours, ED crowding fell from 18.6% (pre-intervention period) to 3.5% (intervention period), radiology turnaround times decreased from an average of 91 min (interquartile range 45-256 min) to 50 min (IQR 30-106 min., p < 0.001) and LOS reduced with 13 min per patient from 167 to 154 min (p < 0.001). For surgery, neurology and cardiology patients, LOS reduced significantly (with 17 min, 25 min, and 8 min. respectively), while not changing for internal medicine patients. Overall, crowding, radiology turnaround times and LOS also decreased. Less patients LWBS in the intervention period (270 patients vs. 348 patients, p < 0.001) and less patients represented unscheduled within 1 week after the initial ED visit: 864 (2.7%) in the pre-intervention period vs. 645 (2.0%) patients in the intervention period, p < 0.001. Conclusions: In this hospital, a multimodal intervention successfully reduces crowding, radiology turnaround times, patients' LOS, number of patients LWBS and the number of unscheduled return visits, suggesting improved ED processes. Further research is required on total costs of care and long-term effects

    Weight bearing or non-weight bearing after surgically fixed ankle fractures, the WOW! Study: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background The optimal post-operative care regimen after surgically fixed Lauge Hansen supination exorotation injuries remains to be established. This study compares whether unprotected weight bearing as tolerated is superior to protected weight bearing and unprotected non-weight bearing in terms of functional outcome and safety. Methods/Design The WOW! Study is a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Patients between 18 and 65 years of age with a Lauge Hansen supination exorotation type 2, 3 or 4 ankle fractures requiring surgical treatment are eligible for inclusion. An expert panel validates the classification and inclusion eligibility. After surgery, patients are randomized to either the 1) unprotected non-weight-bearing, 2) protected weight-bearing, or 3) unprotected weight-bearing group. The primary outcome measure is ankle-specific disability measured by the Olerud-Molander ankle score. Secondary outcomes are 1) quality of life (e.g., return to work and resumption of sport), 2) complications, 3) range of motion, 4) calf wasting, and 5) maximum pressure load after 3 months and 1 year. Discussion This trial is designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of unprotected weight bearing with two commonly used post-operative treatment regimens after internal fixation of specified, intrinsically stable but displaced ankle fractures. An expert panel has been established to evaluate every potential subject, which ensures that every patient is strictly screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and that there is a clear indication for surgical fixation. Keywords: Ankle, Ankle fracture, Lauge Hansen, Post-operative care regimen, Weight bearin

    Non-operative vs. operative treatment for multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: a multicenter prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    Background Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. Methods We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. Results In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8-9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI - 0.2-0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. Conclusions We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures
    corecore