Bone Graft (Substitutes) in Distal Radius Fractures

Available level-I and level-II evidence has not demonstrated significant advantage from the use of bone grafts or bone graft substitutes to justify routine use in comminuted distal radius fractures in elderly for purpose of improved functional or clinical outcomes. All available evidence regarding the use of bone grafts or bone graft substitutes for treatment of comminuted distal radius fractures however is targeted at elderly patients. There is no available level I, II or III evidence regarding the use of bone grafts or bone graft substitutes for comminuted distal radius fractures or distal radius fractures with significant bone loss in younger patients. Due to the fact that bone graft substitutes may improve anatomical outcomes in selected populations, the use of bone graft substitutes for distal radius fractures in younger patients with significant metaphyseal bone loss could be considered. However, the use of autologous bone grafts is accompanied by a clinically important number of complications due to the harvesting from the donor site. This should be considered when treating a patient with comminuted distal radius fracture with significant metaphyseal bone loss, especially as satisfactory alternatives are available

What Is the Diagnostic Performance of Conventional Radiographs and Clinical Reassessment Compared With HR-pQCT Scaphoid Fracture Diagnosis?

BACKGROUND: Conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment are considered guides in managing clinically suspected scaphoid fractures. This is a unique study as it assessed the value of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment in a cohort of patients, all of whom underwent additional imaging, regardless of the outcome of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the diagnostic performance of conventional radiographs in patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture compared with high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT)? (2) What is the diagnostic performance of clinical reassessment in patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture compared with HR-pQCT? (3) What is the diagnostic performance of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment combined compared with HR-pQCT? METHODS: Between December 2017 and October 2018, 162 patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture presented to the emergency department (ED). Forty-six patients were excluded and another 25 were not willing or able to participate, which resulted in 91 included patients. All patients underwent conventional radiography in the ED and clinical reassessment 7 to 14 days later, together with CT and HR-pQCT. The diagnostic performance characteristics and accuracy of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment were compared with those of HR-pQCT for the diagnosis of fractures since this was proven to be superior to CT scaphoid fracture detection. The cohort included 45 men and 46 women with a median (IQR) age of 52 years (29 to 67). Twenty-four patients with a median age of 44 years (35 to 65) were diagnosed with a scaphoid fracture on HR-pQCT. RESULTS: When compared with HR-pQCT, conventional radiographs alone had a sensitivity of 67% (95% CI 45% to 84%), specificity of 85% (95% CI 74% to 93%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 62% (95% CI 46% to 75%), negative predictive value (NPV) of 88% (95% CI 80% to 93%), and a positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 4.5 (95% CI 2.4 to 8.5) and 0.4 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.7), respectively. Compared with HR-pQCT, clinical reassessment alone resulted in a sensitivity of 58% (95% CI 37% to 78%), specificity of 42% (95% CI 30% to 54%), PPV of 26% (95% CI 19% to 35%), NPV of 74% (95% CI 62% to 83%), as well as a positive and negative LR of 1.0 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.5) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.7), respectively. Combining clinical examination with conventional radiography produced a sensitivity of 50% (95% CI 29% to 71%), specificity of 91% (95% CI 82% to 97%), PPV of 67% (95% CI 46% to 83%), NPV of 84% (95% CI 77% to 88%), as well as a positive and negative LR of 5.6 (95% CI 2.4 to 13.2) and 0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.8), respectively. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of conventional radiographs (80% compared with HR-pQCT) and clinical reassessment (46% compared with HR-pQCT) indicate that the value of clinical reassessment is limited in diagnosing scaphoid fractures and cannot be considered directive in managing scaphoid fractures. The combination of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment does not increase the accuracy of these diagnostic tests compared with the accuracy of conventional radiographs alone and is therefore also limited in diagnosing scaphoid fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used