Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Jeroen de Haan is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Jeroen de Haan.


Cephalalgia | 1995

Is Familial Hemiplegic Migraine a Hereditary form of Basilar Migraine

Jeroen de Haan; Gm Terwindt; Ra Ophoff; Pljm Bos; Rr Frants; Ferrari

We studied aura symptoms in 83 patients from 6 unrelated families suffering from familial hemiplegic migraine. Fifty-five of the patients reported symptoms that allowed us to categorize them as basilar migraine (BM) patients, in accordance with the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria. In a control group of 33 patients suffering from migraine with aura and 33 patients suffering from migraine without aura, 9 patients complained of vertigo, and only one patient of diplopia during one of her attacks. None of these control patients fulfilled the IHS criteria for BM We suggest that familial hemiplegic migraine and BM may share certain pathophysiologic mechanisms, which may consist of a (genetically determined) disturbance of basilar artery blood flow.


BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | 2010

Functional treatment versus plaster for simple elbow dislocations (FuncSiE): a randomized trial

Jeroen de Haan; Dennis den Hartog; Wim E. Tuinebreijer; Gijs I. T. Iordens; Roelf S. Breederveld; Maarten W. G. A. Bronkhorst; Milko M. M. Bruijninckx; Mark R. de Vries; Boudewijn J. Dwars; Denise Eygendaal; Robert Haverlag; Sven Meylaerts; Jan-Willem R. Mulder; Kees J. Ponsen; W. Herbert Roerdink; Gert R. Roukema; Inger B. Schipper; Michel A. Schouten; Jan Bernard Sintenie; Senail Sivro; Johan G. H. van den Brand; Hub G. W. M. van der Meulen; Tom P. H. van Thiel; Arie B. van Vugt; Egbert J. M. M. Verleisdonk; Jos P. A. M. Vroemen; Marco Waleboer; W. Jaap Willems; Suzanne Polinder; Peter Patka

BackgroundElbow dislocations can be classified as simple or complex. Simple dislocations are characterized by the absence of fractures, while complex dislocations are associated with fractures. After reduction of a simple dislocation, treatment options include immobilization in a static plaster for different periods of time or so-called functional treatment. Functional treatment is characterized by early active motion within the limits of pain with or without the use of a sling or hinged brace. Theoretically, functional treatment should prevent stiffness without introducing increased joint instability. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial is to compare early functional treatment versus plaster immobilization following simple dislocations of the elbow.Methods/DesignThe design of the study will be a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 100 patients who have sustained a simple elbow dislocation. After reduction of the dislocation, patients are randomized between a pressure bandage for 5-7 days and early functional treatment or a plaster in 90 degrees flexion, neutral position for pro-supination for a period of three weeks. In the functional group, treatment is started with early active motion within the limits of pain. Function, pain, and radiographic recovery will be evaluated at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. The secondary outcome measures are the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, Oxford elbow score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow joint at both sides, rate of secondary interventions and complication rates in both groups (secondary dislocation, instability, relaxation), health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), radiographic appearance of the elbow joint (degenerative changes and heterotopic ossifications), costs, and cost-effectiveness.DiscussionThe successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a functional treatment for the management of simple elbow dislocations.Trial RegistrationThe trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR2025).


BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | 2011

A hinged external fixator for complex elbow dislocations: A multicenter prospective cohort study

Niels W. L. Schep; Jeroen de Haan; Gijs I. T. Iordens; Wim E. Tuinebreijer; Maarten W. G. A. Bronkhorst; Mark R. de Vries; J. Carel Goslings; S. John Ham; Steven J. Rhemrev; Gert R. Roukema; Inger B. Schipper; Jan Bernard Sintenie; Hub G. W. M. van der Meulen; Tom P. H. van Thiel; Arie B. van Vugt; Egbert J. M. M. Verleisdonk; Jos P. A. M. Vroemen; Philippe Wittich; Peter Patka; Esther M.M. Van Lieshout; Dennis den Hartog

BackgroundElbow dislocations can be classified as simple or complex. Simple dislocations are characterized by the absence of fractures, while complex dislocations are associated with fractures of the radial head, olecranon, or coronoid process. The majority of patients with these complex dislocations are treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), or arthroplasty in case of a non-reconstructable radial head fracture. If the elbow joint remains unstable after fracture fixation, a hinged elbow fixator can be applied. The fixator provides stability to the elbow joint, and allows for early mobilization. The latter may be important for preventing stiffness of the joint. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of early mobilization with a hinged external elbow fixator on clinical outcome in patients with complex elbow dislocations with residual instability following fracture fixation.Methods/DesignThe design of the study will be a multicenter prospective cohort study of 30 patients who have sustained a complex elbow dislocation and are treated with a hinged elbow fixator following fracture fixation because of residual instability. Early active motion exercises within the limits of pain will be started immediately after surgery under supervision of a physical therapist. Outcome will be evaluated at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome is the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. The secondary outcome measures are the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, Oxford Elbow Score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow joint at both sides, radiographic healing of the fractures and formation of periarticular ossifications, rate of secondary interventions and complications, and health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36).DiscussionThe outcome of this study will yield quantitative data on the functional outcome in patients with a complex elbow dislocation and who are treated with ORIF and additional stabilization with a hinged elbow fixator.Trial RegistrationThe trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1996).


The Open Orthopaedics Journal | 2010

Dislocation of the Elbow: A Retrospective Multicentre Study of 86 Patients

Jeroen de Haan; N.W.L. Schep; Imme Zengerink; Jesse M. van Buijtenen; Wim E. Tuinebreijer; Dennis den Hartog

The objective of this retrospective multicentre cohort study was to prospectively assess the long-term functional outcomes of simple and complex elbow dislocations. We analysed the hospital and outpatient records of 86 patients between 01.03.1999 and 25.02.2009 with an elbow dislocation. After a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, all patients were re-examined at the outpatient clinic for measurement of different outcomes. The mean range of motion was ROM 135.5°. The Mayo elbow performance index (MEPI) scored an average of 91.9 (87.5% of the patients were rated excellent or good). The average Quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (Quick- DASH) score was 9.7, the sports/music score 11.5 and work score 6.1. The Oxford function score was 75.7, Oxford pain score 75.2 and Oxford social-psychological score 73.9. Elbow dislocation is a mild disease and generally, the outcome is excellent. Functional results might improve with early active movements.


British Journal of Sports Medicine | 2017

Early mobilisation versus plaster immobilisation of simple elbow dislocations: results of the FuncSiE multicentre randomised clinical trial

Gijs I. T. Iordens; Esther M.M. Van Lieshout; N.W.L. Schep; Jeroen de Haan; Wim E. Tuinebreijer; Denise Eygendaal; Ed F. van Beeck; Peter Patka; M.H.J. Verhofstad; Dennis den Hartog

Background/aim To compare outcome of early mobilisation and plaster immobilisation in patients with a simple elbow dislocation. We hypothesised that early mobilisation would result in earlier functional recovery. Methods From August 2009 to September 2012, 100 adult patients with a simple elbow dislocation were enrolled in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to early mobilisation (n=48) or 3 weeks plaster immobilisation (n=52). Primary outcome measure was the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick-DASH) score. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Elbow Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Index, pain, range of motion, complications and activity resumption. Patients were followed for 1 year. Results Quick-DASH scores at 1 year were 4.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 7.1) points in the early mobilisation group versus 4.2 (95% CI 1.2 to 7.2) in the plaster immobilisation group. At 6 weeks, early mobilised patients reported less disability (Quick-DASH 12 (95% CI 9 to 15) points vs 19 (95% CI 16 to 22); p<0.05) and had a larger arc of flexion and extension (121° (95% CI 115° to 127°) vs 102° (95% CI 96° to 108°); p<0.05). Patients returned to work sooner after early mobilisation (10 vs 18 days; p=0.020). Complications occurred in 12 patients; this was unrelated to treatment. No recurrent dislocations occurred. Conclusions Early active mobilisation is a safe and effective treatment for simple elbow dislocations. Patients recovered faster and returned to work earlier without increasing the complication rate. No evidence was found supporting treatment benefit at 1 year. Trial registration number NTR 2025.


The Open Orthopaedics Journal | 2010

Complex and Unstable Simple Elbow Dislocations: A Review and Quantitative Analysis of Individual Patient Data

Jeroen de Haan; N.W.L. Schep; Wim E. Tuinebreijer; Dennis den Hartog

Objective: The primary objective of this review of the literature with quantitative analysis of individual patient data was to identify the results of available treatments for complex elbow dislocations and unstable simple elbow dislocations. The secondary objective was to compare the results of patients with complex elbow dislocations and unstable elbow joints after repositioning of simple elbow dislocations, which were treated with an external fixator versus without an external fixator. Search Strategy: Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included individual patient data of patients with complex elbow dislocations and unstable simple elbow dislocations. Data Analysis: The different outcome measures (MEPI, Broberg and Morrey, ASES, DASH, ROM, arthritis grading) are presented with mean and confidence intervals. Main Results: The outcome measures show an acceptable range of motion with good functional scores of the different questionnaires and a low mean arthritis score. Thus, treatment of complex elbow dislocations with ORIF led to a moderate to good result. Treatment of unstable simple elbow dislocations with repair of the collateral ligaments with or without the combination of an external fixator is also a good option. The physician-rated (MEPI, Broberg and Morrey), patient-rated (DASH) and physician- and patient-rated (ASES) questionnaires showed good intercorrelations.


Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | 2017

Reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the Disablities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Constant-Murley scores in patients with a humeral shaft fracture

Kiran C. Mahabier; Dennis den Hartog; Nina Theyskens; M.H.J. Verhofstad; Esther M.M. Van Lieshout; P. Koen Bos; Maarten W. G. A. Bronkhorst; Milko M. M. Bruijninckx; Jeroen de Haan; P Ted Den Hoed; Martin G. Eversdijk; J. Carel Goslings; Robert Haverlag; Martin J. Heetveld; Albert J.H. Kerver; Karel A. Kolkman; Peter A. Leenhouts; Sven Meylaerts; Ron Onstenk; Martijn Poeze; Rudolf W. Poolman; Bas J. Punt; Ewan D. Ritchie; W. Herbert Roerdink; Gert R. Roukema; Jan Bernard Sintenie; Nicolaj M. R. Soesman; Maarten van der Elst; Frank H.W.M. Van der Heijden; Frits M. van der Linden

BACKGROUND The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley scores are commonly used instruments. The DASH is patient-reported, and the Constant-Murley combines a clinician-reported and a patient-reported part. For patients with a humeral shaft fracture, their validity, reliability, responsiveness, and minimal important change (MIC) have not been published. This study evaluated the measurement properties of these instruments in patients who sustained a humeral shaft fracture. METHODS The DASH and Constant-Murley instruments were completed 5 times until 1 year after trauma. Pain score, Short Form 36, and EuroQol-5D were completed for comparison. Internal consistency was determined by the Cronbach α. Construct and longitudinal validity were evaluated by assessing hypotheses about expected Spearman rank correlations in scores and change scores, respectively, between patient-reported outcome measures (sub)scales. The smallest detectable change (SDC) was calculated. The MIC was determined using an anchor-based approach. The presence of floor and ceiling effects was determined. RESULTS A total of 140 patients were included. Internal consistency was sufficient for DASH (Cronbach α = 0.96) but was insufficient for Constant-Murley (α = 0.61). Construct and longitudinal validity were sufficient for both patient-reported outcome measures (>75% of correlations hypothesized correctly). The MIC and SDC were 6.7 (95% confidence interval, 5.0-15.8) and 19.0 (standard error of measurement, 6.9), respectively, for DASH and 6.1 (95% CI -6.8 to 17.4) and 17.7 (standard error of measurement, 6.4), respectively, for Constant-Murley. CONCLUSIONS The DASH and Constant-Murley are valid instruments for evaluating outcome in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Reliability was only shown for the DASH, making this the preferred instrument. The observed MIC and SDC values provide a basis for sample size calculations for future research.


Patient Related Outcome Measures | 2011

Rasch analysis of the Dutch version of the Oxford elbow score

Jeroen de Haan; N.W.L. Schep; Wim E. Tuinebreijer; Peter Patka; Dennis den Hartog

Background: The Oxford elbow score (OES) is a patient-rated, 12-item questionnaire that measures quality of life in relation to elbow disorders. This English questionnaire has been proven to be a reliable and valid instrument. Recently, the OES has been translated into Dutch and examined for its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in a group of Dutch patients with elbow pathology. The aim of this study was to analyze the Dutch version of the OES (OES-DV) in combination with Rasch analysis or the one-parameter item response theory to examine the structure of the questionnaire. Methods: The OES-DV was administered to 103 patients (68 female, 35 male). The mean age of the patients was 44.3 ± 14.7 (range 15–75) years. Rasch analysis was performed using the Winsteps® Rasch Measurement Version 3.70.1.1 and a rating scale parameterization. Results: The person separation index, which is a measure of person reliability, was excellent (2.30). All the items of the OES had a reasonable mean square infit or outfit value between 0.6 and 1.7. The threshold of items were ordered, so the categories can function as intended. Principal component analysis of the residuals partly confirmed the multidimensionality of the English version of the OES. The OES distinguished 3.4 strata, which indicates that about three ranges can be differentiated. Conclusion: Rasch analysis of the OES-DV showed that the data fit to the stringent Rasch model. The multidimensionality of the English version of the OES was partly confirmed, and the four items of the function and three items of the pain domain were recognized as separate domains. The category rating scale of the OES-DV works well. The OES can distinguish 3.4 strata. This conclusion can only be applied to elbow dislocations, which were the largest group of patients studied.


The Open Orthopaedics Journal | 2010

Primary Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Conservative Treatment for Comminuted Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Systematic Literature Review~!2009-10-19~!2009-12-15~!2010-02-17~!

Dennis den Hartog; Jeroen de Haan; N.W.L. Schep; Wim E. Tuinebreijer

The objective was to identify whether arthroplasty or conservative treatment is the best available treatment for three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures by analyzing the outcome measure of the Constant score. We conducted an electronic search. The systematic review included 33 studies encompassing 1096 patients with three- or four-part proximal humeral fractures that used the Constant score as outcome measure. The mean Constant score in the conservative group was 66.5 and in the arthroplasty group was 55.5. The difference could be attributed to selection bias, unreliable classification of the fractures and inter-observer differences in the assessment of the Constant score.


The Open Orthopaedics Journal | 2010

Complex and Unstable Simple Elbow Dislocations: A Review and Quantitative Analysis of Individual Patient Data~!2009-10-23~!2009-12-20~!2010-02-17~!

Jeroen de Haan; N.W.L. Schep; Wim E. Tuinebreijer; Dennis den Hartog

Objective: The primary objective of this review of the literature with quantitative analysis of individual patient data was to identify the results of available treatments for complex elbow dislocations and unstable simple elbow dislocations. The secondary objective was to compare the results of patients with complex elbow dislocations and unstable elbow joints after repositioning of simple elbow dislocations, which were treated with an external fixator versus without an external fixator. Search Strategy: Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included individual patient data of patients with complex elbow dislocations and unstable simple elbow dislocations. Data Analysis: The different outcome measures (MEPI, Broberg and Morrey, ASES, DASH, ROM, arthritis grading) are presented with mean and confidence intervals. Main Results: The outcome measures show an acceptable range of motion with good functional scores of the different questionnaires and a low mean arthritis score. Thus, treatment of complex elbow dislocations with ORIF led to a moderate to good result. Treatment of unstable simple elbow dislocations with repair of the collateral ligaments with or without the combination of an external fixator is also a good option. The physician-rated (MEPI, Broberg and Morrey), patient-rated (DASH) and physician- and patient-rated (ASES) questionnaires showed good intercorrelations. Arthritis classification by x-ray is only fairly correlated with range of motion. Elbow dislocations are mainly on the non-dominant side.

Collaboration


Dive into the Jeroen de Haan's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Dennis den Hartog

Erasmus University Rotterdam

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Wim E. Tuinebreijer

Erasmus University Rotterdam

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

N.W.L. Schep

Academic Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Peter Patka

Erasmus University Rotterdam

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Gijs I. T. Iordens

Erasmus University Rotterdam

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Maarten W. G. A. Bronkhorst

MESA+ Institute for Nanotechnology

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

M.H.J. Verhofstad

Erasmus University Rotterdam

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge