Plate fixation of clavicle fractures:comparison between early and delayed surgery

Background: The optimal treatment strategy for clavicle fractures remains a topic of debate. We evaluated our step-wise treatment protocol for patients with clavicle fractures to determine our success rate of conservative treatment. In addition, we evaluated the incidence of complications after clavicle plate fixation in patients undergoing acute surgery vs. delayed surgery. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis in which we registered all patients aged 14 years or older with a clavicle fracture between January 2010 and May 2018 and at least 6 weeks' follow-up. Patients who underwent surgery were included from a prospectively maintained database. Functional outcomes were measured by Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Constant-Murley scores 6 weeks after surgery. Results: Conservative treatment was successful in 1627 of 1748 patients (93%). Primary fixation was performed in 73 patients (61%) and delayed fixation in 48 (39%). In 8 patients (6.6%), radiologic widening of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint was present after surgery, suggestive of AC injury. The incidence of complications was significantly higher among patients who underwent delayed fixation vs. those who underwent primary fixation: 15 of 48 patients (31.3%) vs. 9 of 73 patients (12.3%). Conclusion: Most patients with clavicle fractures have an excellent outcome using conservative management. Acute surgery can be performed in high-demand patients, resulting in high performance scores. Delayed surgery is associated with a higher risk of complications, although the outcome is generally good. Associated AC joint dislocation found on postoperative radiographs does not influence outcomes. Shared decision making is key, and patients should be well aware of the potential risks and benefits of surgery

Displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle: non-operative treatment versus plate fixation (Sleutel-TRIAL). A multicentre randomised controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 96826.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The traditional view that the vast majority of midshaft clavicular fractures heal with good functional outcomes following non-operative treatment may be no longer valid for all midshaft clavicular fractures. Recent studies have presented a relatively high incidence of non-union and identified speciic limitations of the shoulder function in subgroups of patients with these injuries. AIM: A prospective, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted in 21 hospitals in the Netherlands, comparing fracture consolidation and shoulder function after either non-operative treatment with a sling or a plate fixation. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 350 patients will be included, between 18 and 60 years of age, with a dislocated midshaft clavicular fracture. The primary outcome is the incidence of non-union, which will be determined with standardised X-rays (Antero-Posterior and 30 degrees caudocephalad view). Secondary outcome will be the functional outcome, measured using the Constant Score. Strength of the shoulder muscles will be measured with a handheld dynamometer (MicroFET2). Furthermore, the health-related Quality of Life score (ShortForm-36) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Outcome Measure will be monitored as subjective parameters. Data on complications, bone union, cosmetic aspects and use of painkillers will be collected with follow-up questionnaires. The follow-up time will be two years. All patients will be monitored at regular intervals over the subsequent twelve months (two and six weeks, three months and one year). After two years an interview by telephone and a written survey will be performed to evaluate the two-year functional and mechanical outcomes. All data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, using univariate and multivariate analyses. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide level-1 evidence for the comparison of consolidation and functional outcome between two standardised treatment options for dislocated midshaft clavicular fractures. The gathered data may support the development of a clinical guideline for treatment of clavicular fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register NTR2399

Necrotising fasciitis as atypical presentation of infection with emerging Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W (MenW) clonal complex 11, the Netherlands, March 2017

In March 2017, a patient with necrotising fasciitis caused by Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W (MenW) clonal complex 11 was diagnosed in the Netherlands. Unusual and severe presentations of MenW infections are common in the current European epidemic. In the Netherlands, the incidence of MenW infections increased 10-fold, from an average of 0.03 per 100,000 population in 2002-2014 to 0.29 in 2016. Awareness of atypical presentations enables timely adequate treatment and public health actio

Anteroinferior versus superior plating of clavicular fractures

Background: Open reduction and plate fixation has gained recognition as an effective treatment for certain types of clavicular fractures. However, 88% of cases report some implant-related problems. To determine the optimal plate position, the aim of the present study was to compare implant-related irritation and proportion of plate removal in patients with clavicular fractures undergoing plate fixation by an anteroinferior or superior approach. Methods: Retrospectively collected data of 39 patients who underwent anteroinferior plating for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures were compared with prospectively collected data of 60 patients who were treated with superior plate fixation as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Electronic medical records were reviewed for reports of complications, in particular, implant-related irritation and implant removal during follow-up. In addition, all patients were contacted in June 2014 to obtain additional information. The primary outcome parameter was implant-related irritation. Results: Univariate and multivariate regression analysis showed plate position was not significantly associated with implant-related irritation. Higher rates of asymptomatic patients with the plate still in place were observed in the anteroinferior group (46% vs 22%, P = .01). Almost an equal percentage of implant removals was seen in both groups because of implant irritation (36% vs 37%, P = .938). Conclusions: The present study found the surgical approach of clavicular plating was not associated with implant-related irritation. Future studies are needed to determine whether there is an optimal approach for clavicle plating

Accuracy of Prehospital Triage in Selecting Severely Injured Trauma Patients

A major component of trauma care is adequate prehospital triage. To optimize the prehospital triage system, it is essential to gain insight in the quality of prehospital triage of the entire trauma system. To prospectively evaluate the quality of the field triage system to identify severely injured adult trauma patients. Prehospital and hospital data of all adult trauma patients during 2012 to 2014 transported with the highest priority by emergency medical services professionals to 10 hospitals in Central Netherlands were prospectively collected. Prehospital data collected by the emergency medical services professionals were matched to hospital data collected in the trauma registry. An Injury Severity Score of 16 or more was used to determine severe injury. The quality and diagnostic accuracy of the field triage protocol and compliance of emergency medical services professionals to the protocol. A total of 4950 trauma patients were evaluated of which 436 (8.8%) patients were severely injured. The undertriage rate based on actual destination facility was 21.6% (95% CI, 18.0-25.7) with an overtriage rate of 30.6% (95% CI, 29.3-32.0). Analysis of the protocol itself, regardless of destination facility, resulted in an undertriage of 63.8% (95% CI, 59.2-68.1) and overtriage of 7.4% (95% CI, 6.7-8.2). The compliance to the field triage trauma protocol was 73% for patients with a level 1 indication. More than 20% of the patients with severe injuries were not transported to a level I trauma center. These patients are at risk for preventable morbidity and mortality. This finding indicates the need for improvement of the prehospital triage protoco