Large variation in use of patient-reported outcome measures: A survey of 188 foot and ankle surgeons

Background: There is an increasing interest in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, there is a large variety of PROMs and a lack of consensus regarding preference for their use. Aim of this study is to determine how often PROMS are used for foot and ankle disorders, for what purpose PROMs are used, and what the preferences of the foot and ankle surgeons are, when choosing a PROM to use.Methods: Members of the Ankleplatform Study Group-Science of Variation Collaborative were invited to participate in this survey by email. The online survey consisted of six questions on the use and preferences regarding foot and ankle PROMs.Results: 188 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 17% reported not to use PROMs, 72% stated to use PROMS for research, 39% routinely for patient care and 34% for registration or quality assessment. The respondents were familiar with 30 different outcome measures, of which 20 were PROMs. One of the excluded outcome measures, the AOFAS Hindfoot scale was most commonly reported as preferred outcome measure. FAOS and MOXFQ were the preferred PROMs, reported by 9.7% of the surgeons. Subsequently followed by the FFI (4.3%), the FAAM (3.7%) and the VAS-FA (3.7%).Conclusions: A large majority of the foot and ankle surgeons uses PROMs. The AOFAS hindfoot scale is mentioned as the most preferred outcome measure, while in fact this is not a PROM. Of the twenty different PROMs mentioned in this study, most reported were the FAOS and MOXFQ both supported by only 9.7% of the surgeons. For proper comparison between patients in clinical practice and research, consensus is needed on which easy-to-use PROM with adequate clinimetric properties should be used. Therefore more evidence in the field of clinimetrics of foot and ankle outcome measures is needed. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Foot and Ankle Society

Surgical site infection after wound closure with staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasty:a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study surgical site infection of wound closure using staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasties. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to search for randomized controlled trials that compared surgical site infection after wound closure using staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasties. The primary outcome was surgical site infection. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The relative risk and 95% confidence interval with a random-effects model were assessed. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in this study, including 2 studies with a low risk of bias, 4 studies having ‘some concerns’, and 2 studies with high risk of bias. Significant difference was not found in the risk of SSI for patients with staples (n = 557) versus sutures (n = 573) (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 0.94–3.08, I(2) = 16%). The results were similar after excluding the studies with a high risk of bias (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.91–3.07, I(2) = 32%). Analysis of studies with low risk of bias revealed a significantly higher risk of surgical site infection in patients with staples (n = 331) compared to sutures (n = 331) (RR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.20–5.44, I(2) = 0%). There was no difference between continuous and interrupted sutures (P > 0.05). In hip arthroplasty, stapling carried a significantly higher risk of surgical site infection than suturing (RR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.15–5.50, I(2) = 0%), but there was no significant difference in knee arthroplasty (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33–2.25, I(2) = 22%; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Stapling might carry a higher risk of surgical site infection than suturing in elective knee and hip arthroplasties, especially in hip arthroplasty. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42836-021-00110-7

Large variation in use of patient-reported outcome measures: A survey of 188 foot and ankle surgeons

There is an increasing interest in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, there is a large variety of PROMs and a lack of consensus regarding preference for their use. Aim of this study is to determine how often PROMS are used for foot and ankle disorders, for what purpose PROMs are used, and what the preferences of the foot and ankle surgeons are, when choosing a PROM to use. Members of the Ankleplatform Study Group-Science of Variation Collaborative were invited to participate in this survey by email. The online survey consisted of six questions on the use and preferences regarding foot and ankle PROMs. 188 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 17% reported not to use PROMs, 72% stated to use PROMS for research, 39% routinely for patient care and 34% for registration or quality assessment. The respondents were familiar with 30 different outcome measures, of which 20 were PROMs. One of the excluded outcome measures, the AOFAS Hindfoot scale was most commonly reported as preferred outcome measure. FAOS and MOXFQ were the preferred PROMs, reported by 9.7% of the surgeons. Subsequently followed by the FFI (4.3%), the FAAM (3.7%) and the VAS-FA (3.7%). A large majority of the foot and ankle surgeons uses PROMs. The AOFAS hindfoot scale is mentioned as the most preferred outcome measure, while in fact this is not a PROM. Of the twenty different PROMs mentioned in this study, most reported were the FAOS and MOXFQ both supported by only 9.7% of the surgeons. For proper comparison between patients in clinical practice and research, consensus is needed on which easy-to-use PROM with adequate clinimetric properties should be used. Therefore more evidence in the field of clinimetrics of foot and ankle outcome measures is neede

Perioperative management of external fixation in staged protocols: an international survey

Despite the frequent use of external fixation, various regimes of antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical technique and postoperative pin care exist and underline the lack of current evidence. The aim of the study was to assess the variability or consensus in perioperative protocols to prevent implant-associated infections for temporary external fixation in closed fractures of the extremities. A 26-question survey was sent to 170 members of the Traumaplatform. The survey included questions concerning demographics, level of training, type of training and perioperative protocols as: antibiotic prophylaxis, intraoperative management, disinfection and postoperative pin site care. All responses were statistically analysed, and intraoperative measures rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The responses of fifty orthopaedic trauma and general surgeons (response rate, 29.4%) were analysed. The level of experience was more than 5 years in 92% (n = 46) with up to 50 closed fractures of the extremities annually treated with external fixation in 80% (n = 40). Highest consensus could be identified in the following perioperative measures: preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis with a second-generation cephalosporin (86%, n = 43), changing gloves if manipulation of the external fixator is necessary during surgery (86%, n = 43; 4.12 points on the Likert scale), avoid overlapping of the pin sites with the definitive implant site (94%, n = 47; 4.12 points on the Likert scale) and soft tissue protection with a drill sleeve (83.6%, n = 41). Our survey could identify some general principles, which were rated as important by a majority of the respondents. Futures studies' focus should elucidate the role of perioperative antibiotics and different disinfection protocols on implant-associated infections after temporary external fixation in staged protocols. This study provides Level IV evidence according to Oxford centre for evidence-based medicin

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging versus bone scintigraphy for clinically suspected scaphoid fractures in patients with negative plain radiographs

In clinically suspected scaphoid fractures, early diagnosis reduces the risk of non-union and minimises loss in productivity resulting from unnecessary cast immobilisation. Since initial radiographs do not exclude the possibility of a fracture, additional imaging is needed. Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are widely used to establish a definitive diagnosis, but there is uncertainty about the most appropriate method. The primary aim of this study is to identify the most suitable diagnostic imaging strategy for identifying clinically suspected fractures of the scaphoid bone in patients with normal radiographs. Therefore we looked at the diagnostic performance characteristics of the most used imaging modalities for this purpose: computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy. In July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. In September 2012, we searched MEDION, ARIF, Current Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, conference proceedings and reference lists of all articles. We included all prospective or retrospective studies involving a consecutive series of patients of all ages that evaluated the accuracy of BS, CT or MRI, or any combination of these, for diagnosing suspected scaphoid fractures. We considered the use of one or two index tests or six-week follow-up radiographs as adequate reference standards. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports of potentially eligible studies. The same authors extracted data from full-text reports and assessed methodological quality using the QUADAS checklist. For each index test, estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study were plotted in ROC space; and forest plots were constructed for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We performed meta-analyses using the HSROC model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We included 11 studies that looked at diagnostic accuracy of one or two index tests: four studies (277 suspected fractures) looked at CT, five studies (221 suspected fractures) looked at MRI and six studies (543 suspected fractures) looked at BS. Four of the studies made direct comparisons: two studies compared CT and MRI, one study compared CT and BS, and one study compared MRI and BS. Overall, the studies were of moderate to good quality, but relevant clinical information during evaluation of CT, MRI or BS was mostly unclear or unavailable.As few studies made direct comparisons between tests with the same participants, our results are based on data from indirect comparisons, which means that these results are more susceptible to bias due to confounding. Nonetheless, the direct comparisons showed similar patterns of differences in sensitivity and specificity as for the pooled indirect comparisons.Summary sensitivity and specificity of CT were 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.92) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.00); for MRI, these were 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.97) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.00); for BS, these were 0.99 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.00) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94). Indirect comparisons suggest that diagnostic accuracy of BS was significantly higher than CT and MRI; and CT and MRI have comparable diagnostic accuracy. The low prevalence of a true fracture among suspected fractures (median = 20%) means the lower specificity for BS is problematic. For example, in a cohort of 1000 patients, 112 will be over-treated when BS is used for diagnosis. If CT is used, only 8 will receive unnecessary treatment. In terms of missed fractures, BS will miss 2 fractures and CT will miss 56 fractures. Although quality of the included studies is moderate to good, findings are based on only 11 studies and the confidence intervals for the summary estimates are wide for all three tests. Well-designed direct comparison studies including CT, MRI and BS could give valuable additional information.Bone scintigraphy is statistically the best diagnostic modality to establish a definitive diagnosis in clinically suspected fractures when radiographs appear normal. However, physicians must keep in mind that BS is more invasive than the other modalities, with safety issues due to level of radiation exposure, as well as diagnostic delay of at least 72 hours. The number of overtreated patients is substantially lower with CT and MRI.Prior to performing comparative studies, there is a need to raise the initially detected prevalence of true fractures in order to reduce the effect of the relatively low specificity in daily practice. This can be achieved by improving clinical evaluation and initial radiographical assessmen

Detecting scaphoid fractures in wrist injury: a clinical decision rule

Introduction: The aim of this study was to develop and validate an easy to use clinical decision rule, applicable in the ED that limits the number of unnecessary cast immobilizations and diagnostic follow-up in suspected scaphoid injury, without increasing the risk of missing fractures. Methods: A prospective multicenter study was conducted that consisted of three components: (1) derivation of a clinical prediction model for detecting scaphoid fractures in adult patients following wrist trauma; (2) internal validation of the model; (3) design of a clinical decision rule. The predictors used were: sex, age, swelling of the anatomic snuffbox, tenderness in the anatomic snuffbox, scaphoid tubercle tenderness, painful ulnar deviation and painful axial thumb compression. The outcome measure was the presence of a scaphoid fracture, diagnosed on either initial radiographs or during re-evaluation after 1–2 weeks or on additional imaging (radiographs/MRI/CT). After multivariate logistic regression analysis and bootstrapping, the regression coefficient for each significant predictor was calculated. The effect of the rule was determined by calculating the number of missed scaphoid fractures and reduction of suspected fractures that required a cast. Results: A consecutive series of 893 patients with acute wrist injury was included. Sixty-eight patients (7.6%) were diagnosed with a scaphoid fracture. The final prediction rule incorporated sex, swelling of the anatomic snuffbox, tenderness in the anatomic snuffbox, painful ulnar deviation and painful axial thumb compression. Internal validation of the prediction rule showed a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 20%. Using this rule, a 15% reduction in unnecessary immobilization and imaging could be achieved with a 50% decreased risk of missing a fracture compared with current clinical practice. Conclusions: This dataset provided a simple clinical decision rule for scaphoid fractures following acute wrist injury that limits unnecessary immobilization and imaging with a decreased risk of missing a fracture compared to current clinical practice. Clinical prediction rule: 1/(1 + EXP (−(0.649662618 × if man) + (0.51353467826 × if swelling anatomic snuffbox) + (−0.79038263985 × if painful palpation anatomic snuffbox) + (0.57681198857 × if painful ulnar deviation) + (0.66499549728 × if painful thumb compression)−1.685). Trial registration: Trial register NTR 2544, www.trialregister.nl

Guesstimation of posterior malleolar fractures on lateral plain radiographs

Accurate assessment of articular involvement of the posterior malleolar fracture fragments in ankle fractures is essential, as this is the leading argument for internal fixation. The purpose of this study is to assess diagnostic accuracy of measurements on plain lateral radiographs. Quantification of three-dimensional computed tomography (Q-3D-CT) was used as a reference standard for true articular involvement (mm(2)) of posterior malleolar fractures. One-hundred Orthopaedic Trauma surgeons were willing to review 31 trimalleolar ankle fractures to estimate size of posterior malleolus and answer: (1) what is the involved articular surface of the posterior malleolar fracture as a percentage of the tibial plafond? and (2) would you fix the posterior malleolus? The average posterior malleolar fragment involved 13.5% (SD 10.8) of the tibial plafond articular surface, as quantified using Q-3D-CT. The average involvement of articular surface of the posterior malleolar fragment, as estimated by 100 observers on plain radiographs was 24.4% (SD 10.0). The factor 1.8 overestimation of articular involvement was statistically significant (p <0.001). Diagnostic accuracy of measurements on plain lateral radiographs was 22%. Interobserver agreement (ICC) was 0.61. Agreement on operative fixation, showed an ICC of 0.54 (Haraguchi type I=0.76, Haraguchi type II=0.40, Haraguchi type III=0.25). Diagnostic accuracy of measurements on plain lateral radiographs to assess articular involvement of posterior malleolar fractures is poor. There is a tendency to misjudge posteromedial involvement (Haraguchi type II

What Are the Applications and Limitations of Artificial Intelligence for Fracture Detection and Classification in Orthopaedic Trauma Imaging?: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Artificial-intelligence algorithms derive rules and patterns from large amounts of data to calculate the probabilities of various outcomes using new sets of similar data. In medicine, artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied primarily to image-recognition diagnostic tasks and evaluating the probabilities of particular outcomes after treatment. However, the performance and limitations of AI in the automated detection and classification of fractures has not been examined comprehensively. QUESTION/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked (1) What is the proportion of correctly detected or classified fractures and the area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUC) curve of AI fracture detection and classification models? (2) What is the performance of AI in this setting compared with the performance of human examiners? METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from the start of each respective database until September 6, 2018, using terms related to "fracture", "artificial intelligence", and "detection, prediction, or evaluation." Of 1221 identified studies, we retained 10 studies: eight studies involved fracture detection (ankle, hand, hip, spine, wrist, and ulna), one addressed fracture classification (diaphyseal femur), and one addressed both fracture detection and classification (proximal humerus). We registered the review before data collection (PROSPERO: CRD42018110167) and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). We reported the range of the accuracy and AUC for the performance of the predicted fracture detection and/or classification task. An AUC of 1.0 would indicate perfect prediction, whereas 0.5 would indicate a prediction is no better than a flip-of-a-coin. We conducted quality assessment using a seven-item checklist based on a modified methodologic index for nonrandomized studies instrument (MINORS). RESULTS: For fracture detection, the AUC in five studies reflected near perfect prediction (range, 0.95-1.0), and the accuracy in seven studies ranged from 83% to 98%. For fracture classification, the AUC was 0.94 in one study, and the accuracy in two studies ranged from 77% to 90%. In two studies AI outperformed human examiners for detecting and classifying hip and proximal humerus fractures, and one study showed equivalent performance for detecting wrist, hand and ankle fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary experience with fracture detection and classification using AI shows promising performance. AI may enhance processing and communicating probabilistic tasks in medicine, including orthopaedic surgery. At present, inadequate reference standard assignments to train and test AI is the biggest hurdle before integration into clinical workflow. The next step will be to apply AI to more challenging diagnostic and therapeutic scenarios when there is absence of certitude. Future studies should also seek to address legal regulation and better determine feasibility of implementation in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study