The impact of trauma-center care on mortality and function following pelvic ring and acetabular injuries

ABSTRACT Background: Lower mortality and improved physical function following major polytrauma have been associated with treatment at level-1 trauma centers (TC) compared with that at non-trauma centers (NTC). This study investigates the impact of TC care on outcomes after pelvic and acetabular injuries. Methods: Mortality and quality of life-related measures were compared among patients treated in 18 hospitals with level-1 trauma centers and 51 hospitals without trauma centers in 14 U.S. states. Complete data were obtained on 829 adult trauma patients (18-84 years old) with at least one pelvic ring or acetabular injury (OTA 61 or 62). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for observable confounding. Results: After adjustment for case mix, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower at TC versus NTC (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.47), as was death by 90 days (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.47), and one year (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.76) for patients with more severe acetabular injuries (OTA 62-B or 62-C). Patients with combined pelvic ring and acetabular injuries treated at TC had lower mortality by 90 days (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.82) and one year (RR 0.30 95% CI 0.14-0.68). Care at TC was also associated with mortality risk reduction for those with unstable pelvic ring injuries (OTA 61-B or 61-C) at one year (RR 0.21, 95%CI 0.06-0.76). Seventy-eight percent of included subjects discharged alive was available for interview at twelve months. Average absolute differences in SF-36 physical functioning and Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment at one year were 11.4 (95%CI 5.3 – 17.4) and 13.2 (1.7 – 24.7) respectively, indicating statistically and clinically significant improved outcomes with TC treatment for more severe acetabular injuries. Conclusions: Mortality is reduced for patients with unstable pelvic and severe acetabular injuries when care is provided in a TC compared to NTC. Moreover, those with severe acetabular fractures experience improved physical function at one year. Patients with these injuries represent a well-defined subset of trauma patients that should be preferentially triaged or transferred to a Level-1 trauma center

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Locked Plating vs. Nailing for Proximal Tibia Fractures: A Multicenter RCT

OBJECTIVES: The main two forms of treatment for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures are intramedullary nailing and locked lateral plating. The goal of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to determine whether there are significant differences in outcomes between these forms of treatment. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Sixteen academic trauma centersPatients/Participants: 108 patients were enrolled. 99 patients were followed for 12 months. 52 patients were randomized to intramedullary nailing (IMN) and 47 patients were randomized to locked lateral plating (LLP). INTERVENTION: Intramedullary nailing or lateral locked plating. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Functional scoring including SMFA, Bother Index, EQ-5DIndex and EQ-5DVAS. Secondary measures included alignment, operative time, range of motion, union rate, pain, walking ability, ability to manage stairs, need for ambulatory aid and number and complications. RESULTS: Functional testing demonstrated no difference between the groups, but both groups were still significantly affected 12 months post injury. Similarly, there was no difference in terms of time of surgery, alignment, nonunion, pain, walking ability, ability to manage stairs, need for ambulatory support or complications. CONCLUSIONS: Both intramedullary nailing and locked lateral plating provide for similar outcomes following these fractures. Patients continue to improve over the course of the year following injury but remain impaired even one year later

Is the timing of fixation associated with fracture-related infection among tibial plateau fracture patients with compartment syndrome? A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 729 patients.

BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fractures with an ipsilateral compartment syndrome are a clinical challenge with limited guidance regarding the best time to perform open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) relative to fasciotomy wound closure. This study aimed to determine if the risk of fracture-related infection (FRI) differs based on the timing of tibial plateau ORIF relative to closure of ipsilateral fasciotomy wounds. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified patients with tibial plateau fractures and an ipsilateral compartment syndrome treated with 4-compartment fasciotomy at 22 US trauma centers from 2009 to 2019. The primary outcome measure was FRI requiring operative debridement after ORIF. The ORIF timing relative to fasciotomy closure was categorized as ORIF before, at the same time as, or after fasciotomy closure. Bayesian hierarchical regression models with a neutral prior were used to determine the association between timing of ORIF and infection. The posterior probability of treatment benefit for ORIF was also determined for the three timings of ORIF relative to fasciotomy closure. RESULTS: Of the 729 patients who underwent ORIF of their tibial plateau fracture, 143 (19.6%) subsequently developed a FRI requiring operative treatment. Patients sustaining infections were: 21.0% of those with ORIF before (43 of 205), 15.9% at the same time as (37 of 232), and 21.6% after fasciotomy wound closure (63 of 292). ORIF at the same time as fasciotomy closure demonstrated a 91% probability of being superior to before closure (RR, 0.75; 95% CrI, 0.38 to 1.10). ORIF after fasciotomy closure had a lower likelihood (45%) of a superior outcome than before closure (RR, 1.02; 95% CrI; 0.64 to 1.39). CONCLUSION: Data from this multicenter cohort confirms previous reports of a high FRI risk in patients with a tibial plateau fracture and ipsilateral compartment syndrome. Our results suggest that ORIF at the time of fasciotomy closure has the highest probability of treatment benefit, but that infection was common with all three timings of ORIF in this difficult clinical situation

Is the timing of fixation associated with fracture-related infection among tibial plateau fracture patients with compartment syndrome? A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 729 patients.

BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fractures with an ipsilateral compartment syndrome are a clinical challenge with limited guidance regarding the best time to perform open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) relative to fasciotomy wound closure. This study aimed to determine if the risk of fracture-related infection (FRI) differs based on the timing of tibial plateau ORIF relative to closure of ipsilateral fasciotomy wounds. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified patients with tibial plateau fractures and an ipsilateral compartment syndrome treated with 4-compartment fasciotomy at 22 US trauma centers from 2009 to 2019. The primary outcome measure was FRI requiring operative debridement after ORIF. The ORIF timing relative to fasciotomy closure was categorized as ORIF before, at the same time as, or after fasciotomy closure. Bayesian hierarchical regression models with a neutral prior were used to determine the association between timing of ORIF and infection. The posterior probability of treatment benefit for ORIF was also determined for the three timings of ORIF relative to fasciotomy closure. RESULTS: Of the 729 patients who underwent ORIF of their tibial plateau fracture, 143 (19.6%) subsequently developed a FRI requiring operative treatment. Patients sustaining infections were: 21.0% of those with ORIF before (43 of 205), 15.9% at the same time as (37 of 232), and 21.6% after fasciotomy wound closure (63 of 292). ORIF at the same time as fasciotomy closure demonstrated a 91% probability of being superior to before closure (RR, 0.75; 95% CrI, 0.38 to 1.10). ORIF after fasciotomy closure had a lower likelihood (45%) of a superior outcome than before closure (RR, 1.02; 95% CrI; 0.64 to 1.39). CONCLUSION: Data from this multicenter cohort confirms previous reports of a high FRI risk in patients with a tibial plateau fracture and ipsilateral compartment syndrome. Our results suggest that ORIF at the time of fasciotomy closure has the highest probability of treatment benefit, but that infection was common with all three timings of ORIF in this difficult clinical situation

Building a Clinical Research Network in Trauma Orthopaedics: The Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC)

OBJECTIVESLessons learned from battle have been fundamental to advancing the care of injuries that occur in civilian life. Equally important is the need to further refine these advances in civilian practice, so they are available during future conflicts. The Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) was established to address these needs.METHODSMETRC is a network of 22 core level I civilian trauma centers and 4 core military treatment centers-with the ability to expand patient recruitment to more than 30 additional satellite trauma centers for the purpose of conducting multicenter research studies relevant to the treatment and outcomes of orthopaedic trauma sustained in the military. Early measures of success of the Consortium pertain to building of an infrastructure to support the network, managing the regulatory process, and enrolling and following patients in multiple studies.RESULTSMETRC has been successful in maintaining the engagement of several leading, high volume, level I trauma centers that form the core of METRC; together they operatively manage 15,432 major fractures annually. METRC is currently funded to conduct 18 prospective studies that address 6 priority areas. The design and implementation of these studies are managed through a single coordinating center. As of December 1, 2015, a total of 4560 participants have been enrolled.CONCLUSIONSSuccess of METRC to date confirms the potential for civilian and military trauma centers to collaborate on critical research issues and leverage the strength that comes from engaging patients and providers from across multiple centers