Effect of the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit implementation on mortality, length of hospital stay and time until surgery in elderly hip fracture patients; a multi-center cohort study

Background: In 2040 the estimated number of people with a hip fracture in the Netherlands will be about 24,000. The medical care for this group of patients is complicated and challenging. Multidisciplinary approaches aim to improve clinical outcome. Quality indicators that gain insight in the treatment and outcome of hip fracture patients may help to optimize and monit

Patterns of injury and outcomes in the elderly patient with rib fractures: a multicenter observational study

Background: High rates of pneumonia and death have been reported among elderly patients with rib fractures. This study aims to identify patterns of injury and risk factors for pneumonia and death in elderly patients with rib fractures. Methods: A retrospective multicenter observational study was performed using data registered in the national trauma registry between 2008 and 2015 in the South West Netherlands Trauma region. Data regarding demographics, mechanism of injury, pulmonary and cardiovascular history, pattern of extra-thoracic and intrathoracic injuries, ICU admission, length of stay, and morbidity and mortality following admission were collected. Results: Eight hundred eighty-four patients were included. Median age was 76 years (P25–P75 70–83). 235 patients (26.6%) were 81 years or older. Moderate or worse extra-thoracic injuries were present in 456 patients (51.6%), of whom 146 (16.6%) had severe head injuries and 45 (5.1%) severe spinal injuries. Median ISS was 9 (P25–P75 5–18). The rate of pneumonia was 10% (n = 84). Ten percent of patients (n = 88) died. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality included age (OR 3.4; p = 0.003), presence of COPD (OR 1.3; p = 0.01), presence of cardiac disease (OR 2.6; p = 0.003), severe or worse head (OR 3.5; p < 0.001), abdominal (OR 6.8; p = 0.004) and spinal injury (OR 4.6; p = 0.011) by AIS, number of rib fractures (OR 2.6; p = 0.03), and need for chest tube drainage (OR 2.1; p = 0.021). Conclusions: Pneumonia and death occur in about 10% of elderly patients with rib fractures. Apart from the severity of thoracic injuries, the presence and severity of extra-thoracic injuries and cardiopulmonary comorbidities are associated with poor outcome

Early mobilisation versus plaster immobilisation of simple elbow dislocations: Results of the FuncSiE multicentre randomised clinical trial

Background/aim To compare outcome of early mobilisation and plaster immobilisation in patients with a simple elbow dislocation. We hypothesised that early mobilisation would result in earlier functional recovery. Methods From August 2009 to September 2012, 100 adult patients with a simple elbow dislocation were enrolled in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to early mobilisation (n=48) or 3 weeks plaster immobilisation (n=52). Primary outcome measure was the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick-DASH) score. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Elbow Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Index, pain, range of motion, complications and activity resumption. Patients were followed for 1 year. Results Quick-DASH scores at 1 year were 4.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 7.1) points in the early mobilisation group versus 4.2 (95% CI 1.2 to 7.2) in the plaster immobilisation group. At 6 weeks, early mobilised patients reported less disability (Quick-DASH 12 (95% CI 9 to 15) points vs 19 (95% CI 16 to 22); p<0.05) and had a larger arc of flexion and extension (121° (95% CI 115° to 127°) vs 102° (95% CI 96° to 108°); p<0.05). Patients returned to work sooner after early mobilisation (10 vs 18 days; p=0.020). Complications occurred in 12 patients; this was unrelated to treatment. No recurrent dislocations occurred. Conclusions Early active mobilisation is a safe and effective treatment for simple elbow dislocations. Patients recovered faster and returned to work earlier without increasing the complication rate. No evidence was found supporting treatment benefit at 1 year

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)

Functional treatment versus plaster for simple elbow dislocations (FuncSiE): a randomized trial

Background. Elbow dislocations can be classified as simple or complex. Simple dislocations are characterized by the absence of fractures, while complex dislocations are associated with fractures. After reduction of a simple dislocation, treatment options include immobilization in a static plaster for different periods of time or so-called functional treatment. Functional treatment is characterized by early active motion within the limits of pain with or without the use of a sling or hinged brace. Theoretically, functional treatment should prevent stiffness without introducing increased joint instability. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial is to compare early functional treatment versus plaster immobilization following simple dislocations of the elbow. Methods/Design. The design of the study will be a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 100 patients who have sustained a simple elbow dislocation. After reduction of the dislocation, patients are randomized between a pressure bandage for 5-7 days and early functional treatment or a plaster in 90 degrees flexion, neutral position for pro-supination for a period of three weeks. In the functional group, treatment is started with early active motion within the limits of pain. Function, pain, and radiographic recovery will be evaluated at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. The secondary outcome measures are the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, Oxford elbow score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow joint at both sides, rate of secondary interventions and complication rates in both groups (secondary dislocation, instability, relaxation), health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), radiographic appearance of the elbow joint (degenerative changes and heterotopic ossifications), costs, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion. The successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a functional treatment for the management of simple elbow dislocations. Trial Registration. The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR2025)

Epidemiology of injuries, treatment (costs) and outcome in burn patients admitted to a hospital with or without dedicated burn centre (Burn-Pro)

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria have been implemented for optimal triaging of burn patients. Admission to a burn centre is indicated for patients with severe burns or with specific characteristics like older age or comorbidities. Patients not meeting these criteria can also be treated in a hospital without burn centre. Limited information is available about the organisation of care and referral of these patients. The aims of this study are to determine the burn injury characteristics, treatment (costs), quality of life and scar quality of burn patients admitted to a hospital without dedicated burn centre. These data will subsequently be compared with data from patients with<10% total bodysurface area (TBSA) burned who are admitted (or secondarily referred) to a burn centre. If admissions were in agreement with the EMSB, referral criteria will also be determined. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre, prospective, observational study (cohort study), the following two groups of patients will be followed: 1) all patients (no age limit) admitted with burn-related injuries to a hospital without a dedicated burn centre in the Southwest Netherlands or Brabant Trauma Region and 2) all patients (no age limit) with<10% TBSA burned who are primarily admitted (or secondarily referred) to the burn centre of Maasstad Hospital. Data on the burn injury characteristics (primary outcome), EMSB compliance, treatment, treatment costs and outcome will be collected from the patients' medical files. At 3 weeks and at 3, 6 and 12 months after trauma, patients will be asked to complete the quality of life questionnaire (EuroQoL-5D), and the patient-reported part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). At those time visits, the coordinating investigator or research assistant will complete the observer-reported part of the POSAS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been exempted by the medical r

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