The CAST study protocol:A cluster randomized trial assessing the effect of circumferential casting versus plaster splinting on fracture redisplacement in reduced distal radius fractures in adults

Background There is no consensus concerning the optimal casting technique for displaced distal radius fractures (DRFs) following closed reduction. This study evaluates whether a splint or a circumferential cast is most optimal to prevent fracture redisplacement in adult patients with a reduced DRF. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of both cast types will be calculated. Methods/design This multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial will compare initial immobilization with a circumferential below-elbow cast versus a below-elbow plaster splint in reduced DRFs. Randomization will take place on hospital-level (cluster, n = 10) with a cross-over point halfway the inclusion of the needed number of patients per hospital. Inclusion criteria comprise adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a primary displaced DRF which is treated conservatively after closed reduction. Multiple trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16), concomitant ulnar fractures (except styloid process fractures) and patients with concomitant injury on the ipsilateral arm or inability to complete study forms will be excluded. Primary study outcome is fracture redisplacement of the initial reduced DRF. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes assessed with the Disability Arm Shoulder Hand score (DASH) and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE), comfort of the cast, quality of life assessed with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, analgesics use, cost-effectiveness and (serious) adverse events occurence. In total, 560 patients will be included and followed for 1 year. The estimated time required for inclusion will be 18 months. Discussion The CAST study will provide evidence whether the type of cast immobilization is of influence on fracture redisplacement in distal radius fractures. Extensive follow-up during one year concerning radiographic, functional and patient reported outcomes will give a broad view on DRF recovery. Trial registration Registered in the Dutch Trial Registry on January 14th 2020. Registration number: NL8311

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

Demographics, fracture patterns and treatment strategies following wrist trauma

The objective of this study was to determine the percentage of radiographs which showed a fracture of the wrist. Secondary, the fracture characteristics and the received treatment were determined. Additionally, the percentage of operatively treated patients with a distal radius fracture was compared between the hospitals. A retrospective cohort study was performed in three Dutch hospitals in all consecutive adult patients with wrist trauma who presented at the ED. A fracture of the wrist was defined as a fracture of the distal one-third part of the radius, the distal one-third part of the ulna or any carpal bone. Fracture classification according to the AO/OTA classification, the amount of displaced fractures, and the received treatment were recorded. Out of 1740 patients with wrist trauma, 49% sustained one or more fractures of the wrist. The distal radius was most frequently fractured (61%). Almost half of the distal radius fractures was extra-articular (AO/OTA type A2-3) and 61% of fractures was displaced. Of all patients who sustained a distal radius fracture, 14% was treated operatively. Significantly more patients were treated operatively in the academic hospital in comparison to the teaching and non-teaching hospital.

Arthroscopic debridement does not enhance surgical treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures: a randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study was to determine the difference in functional outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with and without arthroscopic debridement in adults with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures. In this multicentre trial, 50 patients were randomized between ORIF with or without arthroscopic debridement. The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score. Secondary outcome measures were Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, pain scores, range of wrist motion, grip strength, and complications. Median PRWE was worse for the intervention group at 3 months and was equal for both groups at 12 months. The secondary outcome measures did not show consistent patterns of differences at different time-points of follow-up. We conclude that patients treated with additional arthroscopy to remove intra-articular hematoma and debris did not have better outcomes than those treated with ORIF alone. We therefore do not recommend arthroscopy for removal of hematoma and debris when surgically fixing distal radius fractures. Level of evidence:

Trauma surgery by general surgeons: Still an option for proximal femoral fractures?

Introduction Surgery for proximal femoral fractures in the Netherlands is performed by trauma surgeons, general surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to assess whether there is a difference in outcome for patients with proximal femoral fractures operated by trauma surgeons versus general surgeons. Secondly, the relation between hospital and surgeon volume and postoperative complications was explored. Methods Patients of 18 years and older were included if operated for a proximal femoral fracture by a trauma surgeon or a general surgeon in two academic, eight teaching and two non-teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from January 2010 until December 2013. The combined endpoint was defined as reoperation or surgical site infection. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for patient and fracture characteristics and hospital and surgeon volume. Categories for hospital volume were >170/year (high volume), 96–170/year (medium volume) and <96/year (low volume). Results In 4552 included patients 2382 (52.3%) had surgery by a trauma surgeon. Postoperative complications occurred in 276 (11.6%) patients operated by a trauma surgeon and in 258 (11.9%) operated by a general surgeon (p = 0.751). When considering confounders in a multivariate analysis, surgery by trauma surgeons was associated with less postoperative complications (OR 0.746; 95%CI 0.580–0.958; p = 0.022). Surgery in high volume hospitals was also associated with less complications (OR 0.997; 95%CI 0.995–0.999; p = 0.012). Surgeon volume was not associated with complications (OR 1.008; 95%CI 0.997–1.018; p = 0.175). Conclusion Surgery by trauma surgeons and high hospital volume are associated with less reoperations and surgical site infections for patients with proximal femoral fractures

Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in pediatric trauma patients

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: This review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and the Canadian C-spine rule in a pediatric population evaluated for CSI following blunt trauma

Development and validation of the paediatric elbow trauma (PET) rules as a decision rule for radiography in traumatic elbow injuries: a study protocol

Background Traumatic elbow injuries in children occur frequently and are among the most common traumatic injuries seen in the emergency department (ED) and in general practice. The use of a validated decision rule to enhance selective radiography in paediatric patients with possible elbow fractures may reduce unnecessary exposure to radiation in children. Method and analysis This study is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study. An expert panel of orthopaedic elbow surgeons, paediatric orthopaedic surgeons and trauma surgeons will initially determine clinical parameters that provide a possible predictive value for elbow fractures. Four hundred children between the ages of 2 and 17 years visiting the ED with pain following elbow trauma will then be included. The clinical parameters will be collected via patient history and physical examination. Elbow radiographs will be obtained in all patients to identify fractures. The data will be processed in a multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine which clinical parameters predict the presence of an elbow fracture. Only the clinical parameters that predict a fracture will be used to formulate the new decision rule: the paediatric elbow trauma (PET) rules. Internal validation of the prediction model will take place after inclusion is complete and by means of a bootstrap analysis on the acquired data. A calculation will be made to determine how many radiographs can potentially be reduced by applying the PET rules and a cost analysis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination The study will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. The Medical Research Ethics Committees United stated on 16 May 2022 that The Medical Research Involving Human Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and an official approval by the committee is not required, reference number; project W22.086

The CAST study protocol: a cluster randomized trial assessing the effect of circumferential casting versus plaster splinting on fracture redisplacement in reduced distal radius fractures in adults

Background: There is no consensus concerning the optimal casting technique for displaced distal radius fractures (DRFs) following closed reduction. This study evaluates whether a splint or a circumferential cast is most optimal to prevent fracture redisplacement in adult patients with a reduced DRF. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of both cast types will be calculated. Methods/design: This multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial will compare initial immobilization with a circumferential below-elbow cast versus a below-elbow plaster splint in reduced DRFs. Randomization will take place on hospital-level (cluster, n = 10) with a cross-over point halfway the inclusion of the needed number of patients per hospital. Inclusion criteria comprise adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a primary displaced DRF which is treated conservatively after closed reduction. Multiple trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16), concomitant ulnar fractures (except styloid process fractures) and patients with concomitant injury on the ipsilateral arm or inability to complete study forms will be excluded. Primary study outcome is fracture redisplacement of the initial reduced DRF. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes assessed with the Disability Arm Shoulder Hand score (DASH) and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE), comfort of the cast, quality of life assessed with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, analgesics use, cost-effectiveness and (serious) adverse events occurence. In total, 560 patients will be included and followed for 1 year. The estimated time required for inclusion will be 18 months. Discussion: The CAST study will provide evidence whether the type of cast immobilization is of influence on fracture redisplacement in distal radius fractures. Extensive follow-up during one year concerning radiographic, functional and patient reported outcomes will give a broad view on DRF recovery. Trial registration: Registered in the Dutch Trial Registry on January 14th 2020. Registration number: NL8311

Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial)

Background: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. Methods: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. Discussion: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/828