Association of Patient-reported Outcomes with Clinical Outcomes after Distal Humerus Fracture Treatment

In this study, we assessed the patient-reported outcomes of distal humerus fracture treatment using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) or QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) scores and the association between patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 76 adult patients who sustained an acute distal humerus fracture between 2016 and 2018; 53 patients completed at least one patient-reported outcome measure used to assess physical function (PF) during their routine follow-up care (69.7% response rate). The average time to follow-up patient-reported outcome measure was 10.3 months. Patients completed the PROMIS PF 10a, PROMIS upper extremity (UE) 16a, and/or QuickDASH based on the treating institution/service. In addition, the PROMIS Global (Mental) subscale score was used as a measure of self-rated mental health. To assess clinical outcomes, we measured radiographic union, range of motion, and postoperative complications. Results: Most fractures were intra-articular (67.9%), and 84.9% were treated surgically. After treatment, 98.1% of fractures united radiographically. By the final follow-up, the average arc of motion was 18° to 122°. Average (±SD) PROMIS PF and UE scores were 41.7 ± 11.1 and 40.8 ± 12.4, respectively. The average QuickDASH score was 39.4 ± 26.5. The arc of flexion-extension and PROMIS Global (Mental) score were independently associated with PROMIS PF and PROMIS UE scores. Conclusions: We found that clinical factors (the arc of flexion-extension) and patient psychological factors (PROMIS Global [Mental] score) were independently associated with PROMIS measures of PF after distal humerus fracture treatment. These data can be used to contextualize patient outcomes and guide patient expectations

Surgical treatment of acute and chronic AC joint dislocations: Five-year experience with conventional and modified LARS fixation by a single surgeon

Background: Different surgical fixation methods are available for the treatment of acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations. The aim of this study was to present the results of five years of experience with the Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS) fixation technique by a single surgeon. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed. All patients treated for an AC joint dislocation with LARS fixation by the same surgeon between 2012 and 2016 (n = 20) were eligible for inclusion. All these dislocations were unstable injuries, Rockwood type-III or higher, requiring acute or chronic repair. The primary outcome was the QuickDASH score. Secondary outcomes were the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score, return to work, complications, and implant removal. Results: 17 patients (85%) were available for final follow-up. The median follow-up was 23 months (IQR; 17─34). The median QuickDASH score was 7 (IQR; 2-18), the median SSV was 90 (IQR; 80-90), and the median NRS pain score was 2 (IQR; 1-3). Patients returned to work after a median of 8 weeks (IQR; 6-12). There was no significant difference in functional outcome scores between acute and chronic repair, or between the conventional and modified LARS fixation groups. There were two major complications requiring revision surgery, one ruptured LARS ligament and one case of deep wound infection. Implant removal was performed in one patient. Conclusions: The LARS ligament fixation technique seems to be effective for the treatment of AC joint dislocations, resulting in good short- and mid-term patient-reported functional outcome. LARS fixation might also be an acceptable treatment option for active patients with symptomatic chronic AC dislocations. Level of evidence: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study, Treatment Study

Injury-related variation in patient-reported outcome after musculoskeletal trauma: a systematic review

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore injury-related characteristics that differentiate between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following traumatic musculoskeletal injury. Methods: We reviewed English-language articles in PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1995 to September 2018). We included studies that compared patient-reported outcomes of musculoskeletal trauma based on injury characteristics, and excluded studies related to development or validation of outcome tools without implementation, measurement, or comparison. Studies on patients with isolated neurotrauma or spine trauma were not included. Study level of evidence was assessed by 2 reviewers using the modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine rating system. Results: A total of 20 studies (21 articles) that reported on a total of 10,186 patients were included (4 were prospective cohort-studies, 8 were matched-control retrospective cohort-studies, and 8 were retrospective cohort-studies). Median minimum follow-up was 3 years (range 0.5–10 years). Injury-related factors associated with worse PROs were polytrauma or multiple injuries (10 studies), neurotrauma (11 studies), and high-energy injury mechanism (7 studies). Among all studies, 32 different outcome metrics were used (17 general health status metrics and 15 limb-specific metrics) making meta-analysis infeasible. Conclusions: Based on the included studies, we propose a framework where musculoskeletal injuries occur in one of 4 scenarios that is associated with a different context-dependent outcome: (1) polytrauma with neurotrauma, (2) polytrauma without neurotrauma, (3) high-energy monotrauma, and (4) low-energy monotrauma. Our results suggest that standardization of outcome instruments is needed to facilitate future meta-analyses that assess PROs in this population

Surgical treatment of Neer type II and type V lateral clavicular fractures: comparison of hook plate versus superior plate with lateral extension: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose: Different fixation methods are used for treatment of unstable lateral clavicle fractures (LCF). Definitive consensus and guidelines for the surgical fixation of LCF have not been established. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported functional outcome after open reduction and internal fixation with the clavicle hook plate (CHP) and the superior clavicle plate with lateral extension (SCPLE). Methods: A dual-center retrospective cohort study was performed. All patients operatively treated for unstable Neer type II and type V LCF between 2011 and 2016, with the CHP (n = 23) or SCPLE (n = 53), were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the QuickDASH score. Secondary outcomes were the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, complications, and implant removal. Results: A total of 67 patients (88%) were available for the final follow-up. There was a significant difference in bicortical lateral fragment size, 15 mm (± 4, range 6–21) in the CPH group compared to 20 mm (± 8, range 8–43) in the SCPLE group (p ≤ 0.001). There was no significant difference in median QuickDASH score (CHP; 0.00 [IQR 0.0–0.0], SCPLE; 0.00 [IQR 0.0–4.5]; p = 0.073) or other functional outcome scores (NRS at rest; p = 0.373, NRS during activity; p = 0.559). There was no significant difference in median QuickDASH score or other functional outcome scores between Neer type II and type V fractures. There was no significant difference in complication rate, CHP 11% and SCPLE 8% (relative risk 1.26; [95% CI 0.25–6.33; p = 0.777]). The implant removal rate was 100% in the CHP group compared to 42% in the SCPLE group (relative risk 2.40; [95% CI 1.72–3.35; p ≤ 0.001]). Conclusion: Both the CHP and SCPLE are effective fixation methods for the treatment of unstable LCF, resulting in excellent patient-reported functional outcome and similar complication rates. SCPLE fixation is an effective fixation method for the treatment of both Neer type II and type V LCF. The SCPLE has a lower implant removal rate. Therefore, if technically feasible, we recommend SCPLE fixation for the treatment of unstable LCF

Surgical treatment of Neer type II and type V lateral clavicular fractures : comparison of hook plate versus superior plate with lateral extension: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE: Different fixation methods are used for treatment of unstable lateral clavicle fractures (LCF). Definitive consensus and guidelines for the surgical fixation of LCF have not been established. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported functional outcome after open reduction and internal fixation with the clavicle hook plate (CHP) and the superior clavicle plate with lateral extension (SCPLE). METHODS: A dual-center retrospective cohort study was performed. All patients operatively treated for unstable Neer type II and type V LCF between 2011 and 2016, with the CHP (n = 23) or SCPLE (n = 53), were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the QuickDASH score. Secondary outcomes were the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, complications, and implant removal. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients (88%) were available for the final follow-up. There was a significant difference in bicortical lateral fragment size, 15 mm (± 4, range 6-21) in the CPH group compared to 20 mm (± 8, range 8-43) in the SCPLE group (p ≤ 0.001). There was no significant difference in median QuickDASH score (CHP; 0.00 [IQR 0.0-0.0], SCPLE; 0.00 [IQR 0.0-4.5]; p = 0.073) or other functional outcome scores (NRS at rest; p = 0.373, NRS during activity; p = 0.559). There was no significant difference in median QuickDASH score or other functional outcome scores between Neer type II and type V fractures. There was no significant difference in complication rate, CHP 11% and SCPLE 8% (relative risk 1.26; [95% CI 0.25-6.33; p = 0.777]). The implant removal rate was 100% in the CHP group compared to 42% in the SCPLE group (relative risk 2.40; [95% CI 1.72-3.35; p ≤ 0.001]). CONCLUSION: Both the CHP and SCPLE are effective fixation methods for the treatment of unstable LCF, resulting in excellent patient-reported functional outcome and similar complication rates. SCPLE fixation is an effective fixation method for the treatment of both Neer type II and type V LCF. The SCPLE has a lower implant removal rate. Therefore, if technically feasible, we recommend SCPLE fixation for the treatment of unstable LCF

In-house versus on-call trauma surgeon coverage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND A rapid trauma response is essential to provide optimal care for severely injured patients. However, it is currently unclear if the presence of an in-house trauma surgeon affects this response during call and influences outcomes. This study compares in-hospital mortality and process-related outcomes of trauma patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon. METHODS PubMed/Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched on the first of November 2020. All studies comparing patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon were considered eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis of mortality rates including all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score of ≥16) was performed. Random-effect models were used to pool mortality rates, reported as risk ratios. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Process-related outcomes were chosen as secondary outcome measures. RESULTS In total, 16 observational studies, combining 64,337 trauma patients, were included. The meta-analysis included 8 studies, comprising 7,490 severely injured patients. A significant reduction in mortality rate was found in patients treated in the 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon group compared with patients treated in the on-call trauma surgeon group (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.95; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). In 10 of 16 studies, at least 1 process-related outcome improved after the in-house trauma surgeon policy was implemented. CONCLUSION A 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon policy is associated with reduced mortality rates for severely injured patients treated at level I trauma centers. In addition, presence of an in-house trauma surgeon during call may improve process-related outcomes. This review recommends implementation of a 24/7 in-house attending trauma surgeon at level I trauma centers. However, the final decision on attendance policy might depend on center and region-specific conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III

Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures : systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: To compare re-rupture rate, complication rate, and functional outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; to compare re-rupture rate after early and late full weight bearing; to evaluate re-rupture rate after functional rehabilitation with early range of motion; and to compare effect estimates from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were last searched on 25 April 2018 for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was performed independently in pairs, by four reviewers, with the use of a predefined data extraction file. Outcomes were pooled using random effects models and presented as risk difference, risk ratio, or mean difference, with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: 29 studies were included-10 randomised controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The 10 trials included 944 (6%) patients, and the 19 observational studies included 14 918 (94%) patients. A significant reduction in re-ruptures was seen after operative treatment (2.3%) compared with nonoperative treatment (3.9%) (risk difference 1.6%; risk ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.60; P<0.001; I2=22%). Operative treatment resulted in a significantly higher complication rate than nonoperative treatment (4.9% v 1.6%; risk difference 3.3%; risk ratio 2.76, 1.84 to 4.13; P<0.001; I2=45%). The main difference in complication rate was attributable to the incidence of infection (2.8%) in the operative group. A similar reduction in re-rupture rate in favour of operative treatment was seen after both early and late full weight bearing. No significant difference in re-rupture rate was seen between operative and nonoperative treatment in studies that used accelerated functional rehabilitation with early range of motion (risk ratio 0.60, 0.26 to 1.37; P=0.23; I2=0%). No difference in effect estimates was seen between randomised controlled trials and observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures reduces the risk of re-rupture compared with nonoperative treatment. However, re-rupture rates are low and differences between treatment groups are small (risk difference 1.6%). Operative treatment results in a higher risk of other complications (risk difference 3.3%). The final decision on the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be based on patient specific factors and shared decision making. This review emphasises the potential benefits of adding high quality observational studies in meta-analyses for the evaluation of objective outcome measures after surgical treatment

Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives To compare re-rupture rate, complication rate, and functional outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; to compare re-rupture rate after early and late full weight bearing; to evaluate re-rupture rate after functional rehabilitation with early range of motion; and to compare effect estimates from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were last searched on 25 April 2018 for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures. Study selection criteria Randomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Data extraction Data extraction was performed independently in pairs, by four reviewers, with the use of a predefined data extraction file. Outcomes were pooled using random effects models and presented as risk difference, risk ratio, or mean difference, with 95% confidence interval. Results 29 studies were included - 10 randomised controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The 10 trials included 944 (6%) patients, and the 19 observational studies included 14 918 (94%) patients. A significant reduction in re-ruptures was seen after operative treatment (2.3%) compared with nonoperative treatment (3.9%) (risk difference 1.6%; risk ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.60; P<0.001; I 2 =22%). Operative treatment resulted in a significantly higher complication rate than nonoperative treatment (4.9% v 1.6%; risk difference 3.3%; risk ratio 2.76, 1.84 to 4.13; P<0.001; I 2 =45%). The main difference in complication rate was attributable to the incidence of infection (2.8%) in the operative group. A similar reduction in re-rupture rate in favour of operative treatment was seen after both early and late full weight bearing. No significant difference in re-rupture rate was seen between operative and nonoperative treatment in studies that used accelerated functional rehabilitation with early range of motion (risk ratio 0.60, 0.26 to 1.37; P=0.23; I 2 =0%). No difference in effect estimates was seen between randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures reduces the risk of re-rupture compared with nonoperative treatment. However, re-rupture rates are low and differences between treatment groups are small (risk difference 1.6%). Operative treatment results in a higher risk of other complications (risk difference 3.3%). The final decision on the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be based on patient specific factors and shared decision making. This review emphasises the potential benefits of adding high quality observational studies in meta-analyses for the evaluation of objective outcome measures after surgical treatment

Operative versus nonoperative treatment of proximal humeral fractures : a systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials

Background: There is no consensus on the choice of treatment for displaced proximal humeral fractures in older patients (aged > 65 years). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were (1) to compare operative with nonoperative management of displaced proximal humeral fractures and (2) to compare effect estimates obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: The databases of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched on September 5, 2017, for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of proximal humeral fractures; both RCTs and observational studies were included. The criteria of the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies, a validated instrument for methodologic quality assessment, were used to assess study quality. The primary outcome measure was physical function as measured by the absolute Constant-Murley score after operative or nonoperative treatment. Secondary outcome measures were major reinterventions, nonunion, and avascular necrosis. Results: We included 22 studies, comprising 7 RCTs and 15 observational studies, resulting in 1743 patients in total: 910 treated operatively and 833 nonoperatively. The average age was 68.3 years, and 75% of patients were women. There was no difference in functional outcome between operative and nonoperative treatment, with a mean difference of –0.87 (95% confidence interval, –5.13 to 3.38; P =.69; I2 = 69%). Major reinterventions occurred more often in the operative group. Pooled effects of RCTs were similar to pooled effects of observational studies for all outcome measures. Conclusions: We recommend nonoperative treatment for the average elderly patient (aged > 65 years) with a displaced proximal humeral fracture. Pooled effects of observational studies were similar to those of RCTs, and including observational studies led to more generalizable conclusions