No evidence for the effectiveness of bracing in patients with thoracolumbar fractures

Background and purpose The use of braces is widespread in patients with thoracolumbar fractures. The effectiveness of bracing, however, is controversial. We sought evidence for the effect of bracing in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar fractures based on outcome and length of hospital stay (LOS). Furthermore, we evaluated the incidence of complications of bracing. Methods An electronic search strategy with extensive MeSH headings was used in various databases to identify studies that compared bracing and non-bracing therapies. Two reviewers independently selected systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and observational studies, and both assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data. Results No systematic reviews or RCTs were found. 7 retrospective studies were included. None of these studies showed an effect of bracing. Because of poor methodological quality, no best-evidence synthesis could be performed. One observational study was selected in which a complication of bracing was reported. Interpretation In the present literature, there is no evidence for the effectiveness of bracing in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. The lack of high-quality studies prevents relevant conclusions from being draw

The Transmural Trauma Care Model can be implemented well but some barriers and facilitators should be considered during implementation: a mixed methods study

Questions: What is the reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity of the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM)? What are the barriers and facilitators associated with the implementation of the TTCM? Design: Mixed-methods process evaluation with quantitative evaluation of the extent to which the TTCM was implemented as intended and qualitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators to its implementation. Participants: Focus group participants included trauma patients, trauma surgeons, hospital-based physiotherapists and primary care network physiotherapists. Outcome measures: Implementation was assessed with reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. Data analysis: A framework method was used to analyse the focus groups and the ‘constellation approach’ was used to categorise barriers and facilitators into three categories: structure, culture and practice. Results: The TTCM's reach was 81%, its dose delivered was 99% and 100%, and its dose received was 95% and 96% for the multidisciplinary TTCM consultation hours at the outpatient clinic for trauma patients and the primary care network physiotherapists, respectively. Various fidelity scores ranged from 66 to 93%. Numerous barriers and facilitators associated with the implementation of the TTCM were identified and categorised. Conclusion: This process evaluation showed that the TTCM was largely implemented as intended. Furthermore, various facilitators and barriers were identified that need to be considered when implementing the TTCM more widely. Differences were found among stakeholders but they were generally of the opinion that if the barriers were overcome, the quality of care and patient satisfaction were likely to improve significantly after implementing the TTCM. Registration: NTR5474

The Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) for the rehabilitation of trauma patients is effective in improving patient related outcome measures:A non-randomized controlled trial

Background: The Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) is a refined post-clinical rehabilitation approach, in which a multidisciplinary hospital-based team guides a network of primary care physical therapists in the treatment of trauma patients. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the TTCM compared to regular care. Methods: A controlled-before-And-After study was performed in a level 1 trauma center. The TTCM includes four elements: 1) a multidisciplinary team at the outpatient clinic, 2) coordination and individual goal setting for each patient by this team, 3) a network of primary care physical therapists, 4) E-health support for transmural communication. Intervention group patients were prospectively followed (3, 6 and 9 months). The control group consisted of 4 clusters of patients who either had their first consultation at the outpatient clinic 0, 3, 6 or 9 months ago. Outcomes included generic-and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), pain, functional status, patient satisfaction, and perceived recovery. Between-group comparisons were made using linear regression analyses. The recovery pattern of intervention group patients was identified using longitudinal data analysis methods. Results: A total of 83 participants were included in the intervention group. In the control group, 202 participants were included (68 in the baseline cluster, 26 in the 3-month cluster, 51 in the 6-month cluster, 57 in the 9-month cluster). Between-group differences were statistically significant in favor of the intervention group for disease-specific HR-QOL at 9 months, pain at 6 and 9 months, functional status at 6 and 9 months, patient satisfaction at 3, 6 and 9 months, and perceived recovery at 6 months. No significant differences were found between groups for generic HR-QOL at any time point. Generic HR-QOL, disease-specific HR-QOL, pain, and functional status significantly improved in a linear fashion among intervention group patients during the nine-month follow-up period. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that the TTCM is effective in improving patient related outcome measures, such as disease-specific HR-QOL, pain and functional status. A multicenter, and ideally randomized controlled trial, is required to confirm these results. Trial registration: The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NTR5474). Registered 12 October 2015. Retrospectively registered

The Transmural Trauma Care Model can be implemented well but some barriers and facilitators should be considered during implementation: a mixed methods study

Questions: What is the reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity of the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM)? What are the barriers and facilitators associated with the implementation of the TTCM? Design: Mixed-methods process evaluation with quantitative evaluation of the extent to which the TTCM was implemented as intended and qualitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators to its implementation. Participants: Focus group participants included trauma patients, trauma surgeons, hospital-based physiotherapists and primary care network physiotherapists. Outcome measures: Implementation was assessed with reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. Data analysis: A framework method was used to analyse the focus groups and the ‘constellation approach’ was used to categorise barriers and facilitators into three categories: structure, culture and practice. Results: The TTCM's reach was 81%, its dose delivered was 99% and 100%, and its dose received was 95% and 96% for the multidisciplinary TTCM consultation hours at the outpatient clinic for trauma patients and the primary care network physiotherapists, respectively. Various fidelity scores ranged from 66 to 93%. Numerous barriers and facilitators associated with the implementation of the TTCM were identified and categorised. Conclusion: This process evaluation showed that the TTCM was largely implemented as intended. Furthermore, various facilitators and barriers were identified that need to be considered when implementing the TTCM more widely. Differences were found among stakeholders but they were generally of the opinion that if the barriers were overcome, the quality of care and patient satisfaction were likely to improve significantly after implementing the TTCM. Registration: NTR5474

Cost-Effectiveness of the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) for the Rehabilitation of Trauma Patients

Objectives To assess the societal cost-effectiveness of the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM), a multidisciplinary transmural rehabilitation model for trauma patients, compared with regular care.Methods The economic evaluation was performed alongside a before-and-after study, with a convenience control group measured only afterward, and a 9-month follow-up. Control group patients received regular care and were measured before implementation of the TTCM. Intervention group patients received the TTCM and were measured after its implementation. The primary outcome was generic health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Secondary outcomes included disease-specific HR-QOL, pain, functional status, and perceived recovery.Results Eighty-three trauma patients were included in the intervention group and fifty-seven in the control group. Total societal costs were lower in the intervention group than in the control group, but not statistically significantly so (EUR-267; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], EUR-4,175-3011). At 9 months, there was no statistically significant between-group differences in generic HR-QOL (0.05;95 percent CI, -0.02-0.12) and perceived recovery (0.09;95 percent CI, -0.09-0.28). However, mean between-group differences were statistically significantly in favor of the intervention group for disease-specific HR-QOL (-8.2;95 percent CI, -15.0 - 1.4), pain (-0.84;95CI, -1.42 - 0.26), and functional status (-20.1;95 percent CI, -29.6 - 10.7). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that if decision makers are not willing to pay anything per unit of effect gained, the TTCM has a 0.54-0.58 probability of being cost-effective compared with regular care. For all outcomes, this probability increased with increasing values of willingness-to-pay.Conclusions The TTCM may be cost-effective compared with regular care, depending on the decision-makers willingness to pay and the probability of cost-effectiveness that they perceive as acceptable