The evolution of radiological measurements and the association with clinician and patient reported outcome following distal radius fractures in non-osteoporotic patients:what is clinically relevant?

Introduction: Following distal radius fractures in young non-osteoporotic patients, clinical relevancy of outcome has been scarcely reported. Outcome can be put in perspective by using measurement errors of radiological measurements and Minimal Important Change when reporting on clinician and patient reported outcome. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical relevance of radiological measurements, clinician and patient reported outcomes following distal radius fractures in young non-osteoporotic patients.Methods: Retrospective cohort study. Non-osteoporotic patients following a distal radius fracture were selected. Radiographs of both wrists were obtained at baseline, 6 weeks and at follow-up. Active range of motion and grip strength measurements were obtained at the follow-up visit and 4 questionnaires were answered to assess pain, upper extremity functioning, and health status.Results: Seventy-three patients (32 women, 41 men) with a mean age of 33.5 (SD 9.2) years at the time of injury were included. Median follow up was 62 months (IQR 53.0-84.5). Several radiological measurements evolved statistically significantly over time, however none exceeded measurement errors. Flexion/extension difference of injured compared to uninjured wrist (mean difference 11.2°, t = -7.5, df = 72, p < 0.001), exceeded Minimal Important Change, while grip strength differences did not. When comparing patients with DRFs to healthy controls, only the differences on Patient Reported Wrist Evaluation subscales "pain", "function" and total scores exceeded minimal important change (8, 10 and 13 points, respectively). Multivariable regression analysis revealed statistically significant relationships between residual step-off and respectively diminished flexion/extension (B = -36.8, 95% CI -62; -11.1, p  =  0.006), diminished radial/ulnar deviation (B = -17.9, 95% CI -32.0; -3.9, p  =  0.013) and worse ShortForm-36 "mental component score" (B = -15.4, 95% CI -26.6; -4.2, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Radiological measurements following distal radius fractures seem to evolve over time, but differences were small and were probably not clinically relevant. Range of motion, in particular flexion/extension, was impaired to such extend that it was noticeable for a patient, whereas grip strength was not impaired. The Patient Reported Wrist Evaluation was clinically relevantly diminished. Residual articular incongruency seems to influence range of motion.Implications for rehabilitationReporting Minimal Important Change regarding clinician and patient reported outcome following distal radius fractures is of more clinical value than reporting on statistical significance.Following distal radius fractures, the changes in radiological measurements do not seem to reflect a clinical relevant change.Range of motion, in particular flexion/extension, should be measured following distal radius fractures, as this might be impaired in a clinically relevant way.Measuring grip strength is of less importance following distal radius fractures, because grip strength does not seem to be affected.Residual articular incongruency seems to influence range of motion and therefore should be reduced to a minimum when treating non-osteoporotic patients

Nonoperatively treated type A spinal fractures:mid-term versus long-term functional outcome

This study focuses on the mid-term (four years) and long-term (ten years) functional outcome of patients treated nonoperatively for a type A spinal fracture without primary neurological deficit. Functional outcome was measured using the visual analogue scale spine score (VAS) and the Roland–Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ). The 50 patients included were on average 41.2 years old at the time of injury. Four years post injury, a mean VAS score of 74.5 and a mean RMDQ score of 4.9 were found. Ten years after the accident, the mean VAS and RMDQ scores were 72.6 and 4.7, respectively (NS). No significant relationships were found between the difference scores of the VAS and RMDQ compared with age, gender, fracture sub-classification, and time between measurements. Three (6%) patients had a poor long-term outcome. None of the patients required surgery for late onset pain or progressive neurological deficit. Functional outcome after a nonoperatively treated type A spinal fracture is good, both four and ten years post injury. For the group as a whole, four years after the fracture a steady state exists in functional outcome, which does not change for ten years at least after the fracture

Proximal humeral fractures in children:Large remodeling capacity, conservative treatment

Proximal humeral fractures affect 1.5-3% of all childhood fractures. Usually, these fractures can be treated conservatively depending on age and fracture displacement. The proximal growth plate has a great potential for remodeling. The aim of this article is to clarify which degree of displacement can be accepted in case of non-operative treatment. A 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old boy presented at the ER after falling from a pony and a climbing frame, respectively. Both had a severely displaced proximal humeral fracture with 80-90 degrees angulation of the humeral head relative to the shaft. Both patients were treated conservatively and follow-up x-rays of the shoulder showed complete remodeling of the humeral head with full functional recovery of the shoulder. Due to the remodeling capacity the proximal humerus, severely displaced fractures in children can be treated nonoperatively in most cases. Unnecessary surgical interventions should be avoided

What is the long-term clinical outcome after fragility fractures of the pelvis? - A CT-based cross-sectional study

Background: Recently, Rommens and Hoffman introduced a CT-based classification system for fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). Although fracture characteristics have been described, the relationship with clinical outcome is lacking. The purpose of this study was to get insight into the type of treatment and subsequent clinical outcome after all types of FFP. Methods: A cross-sectional cohort study was performed including all elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with a CT-diagnosed FFP, between 2007-2019 in two level 1 trauma centers. Data regarding treatment, mortality and clinical outcome was gathered from the electronic patient files. Patients were asked to complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) regarding physical functioning (SMFA) and quality of life (EQ-5D). Additionally, a standardized multidisciplinary treatment algorithm was constructed. Results: A total of 187 patients were diagnosed with an FFP of whom 117 patients were available for follow-up analysis and 58 patients responded. FFP type I was most common (60%), followed by type II (27%), type III (8%) and type IV (5%). Almost all injuries were treated non-operatively (98%). Mobility at six weeks ranged from 50% (type III) to 80% type II). Mortality at 1 year was respectively 16% (type I and II), 47% (type III) and 13% (type IV). Physical functioning (SMFA function index) ranged from 62 (type III and IV) to 69 (type II) and was significantly decreased (P=<0.001) compared to the age-matched general population. Quality of life was also significantly decreased, ranging from 0.26 (type III) to 0.69 (type IV). Conclusions: FFP type I and II are most common. Treatment is mainly non-operative, resulting in good mobility after six weeks, especially for patients with FFP type I and II. Mortality rates at one year were substantial in all patients. Physical functioning and quality of life was about 20-30% decreased compared to the general population

What Are the Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability of Gap and Stepoff Measurements in Acetabular Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Gap and stepoff values in the treatment of acetabular fractures are correlated with clinical outcomes. However, the interobserver and intraobserver variability of gap and stepoff measurements for all imaging modalities in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phase of treatment is unknown. Recently, a standardized CT-based measurement method was introduced, which provided the opportunity to assess the level of variability. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) In patients with acetabular fractures, what is the interobserver variability in the measurement of the fracture gaps and articular stepoffs determined by each observer to be the maximum one in the weightbearing dome, as measured on pre- and postoperative pelvic radiographs, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and pre- and postoperative CT scans? (2) What is the intraobserver variability in these measurements? METHODS: Sixty patients with a complete subset of pre-, intra- and postoperative high-quality images (CT slices of < 2 mm), representing a variety of fracture types with small and large gaps and/or stepoffs, were included. A total of 196 patients with nonoperative treatment (n = 117), inadequate available imaging (n = 60), skeletal immaturity (n = 16), bilateral fractures (n = 2) or a primary THA (n = 1) were excluded. The maximum gap and stepoff values in the weightbearing dome were digitally measured on pelvic radiographs and CT images by five independent observers. Observers were free to decide which gap and/or stepoff they considered the maximum and then measure these before and after surgery. The observers were two trauma surgeons with more than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, two trauma surgeons with less than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, and one surgical resident. Additionally, the final intraoperative fluoroscopy images were assessed for the presence of a gap or stepoff in the weightbearing dome. All observers used the same standardized measurement technique and each observer measured the first five patients together with the responsible researcher. For 10 randomly selected patients, all measurements were repeated by all observers, at least 2 weeks after the initial measurements. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for pelvic radiographs and CT images and the kappa value for intraoperative fluoroscopy measurements were calculated to determine the inter- and intraobserver variability. Interobserver variability was defined as the difference in the measurements between observers. Intraobserver variability was defined as the difference in repeated measurements by the same observer. RESULTS: Preoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap and stepoff) on radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff) on CT images. The observers agreed on the indication for surgery in 40% (gap) and 30% (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. For CT scans the observers agreed in 95% (gap) and 70% (stepoff) of images. Postoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap) and 0.2 (stepoff) on radiographs. The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable or not in 60% (gap) and 40% (stepoff). On CT images the ICC was 0.3 (gap) and 0.4 (stepoff). The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable in 35% (gap) and 38% (stepoff). The preoperative intraobserver ICC was 0.6 (gap and stepoff) on pelvic radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.6 (stepoff) for CT scans. Postoperatively, the intraobserver ICC was 0.7 (gap) and 0.1 (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. On CT the intraobserver ICC was 0.5 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff). There was no agreement between the observers on the presence of a gap or stepoff on intraoperative fluoroscopy images (kappa -0.1 to 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: We found an insufficient interobserver and intraobserver agreement on measuring gaps and stepoffs for supporting clinical decisions in acetabular fracture surgery. If observers cannot agree on the size of the gap and stepoff, it will be challenging to decide when to perform surgery and study the results of acetabular fracture surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study