M.H.J. Verhofstad

Functional Outcome and Patient Satisfaction after Displaced Intra-articular Calcaneal Fractures: A Comparison Among Open, Percutaneous, and Nonoperative Treatment

The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of patients with a displaced calcaneal fracture treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), percutaneous treatment, or nonoperative methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a level I trauma center of patients with a displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture treated from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2011. The patient-reported outcome measures included the Foot Function Index, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale, Short Form-36, the EQ-5D from the EuroQol Group, and a 10-point visual analog scale. Clinical data were collected from 169 patients, and questionnaires were obtained from 78 patients (18 nonoperatively, 27 ORIF, and 33 percutaneously). The late intervention rate was significantly greater in the percutaneous group (n = 18; 30%) than in the ORIF group (n = 6; 12%) or the nonoperative group (n = 8; 13%; p = .030). Significantly more disability was reported in the nonoperative group (median Foot Function Index score, 40 points) than in the ORIF group (median, 16 points; p = .010) or in the percutaneous group (median, 21 points; p = .034). In conclusion, the operatively treated patients (ORIF and percutaneous treatment) reported better functional outcome scores (Foot Function Index and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale) than did the nonoperatively treated patients.

Infection after fracture fixation: Current surgical and microbiological concepts.

One of the most challenging complications in trauma surgery is infection after fracture fixation (IAFF). IAFF may result in permanent functional loss or even amputation of the affected limb in patients who may otherwise be expected to achieve complete, uneventful healing. Over the past decades, the problem of implant related bone infections has garnered increasing attention both in the clinical as well as preclinical arenas; however this has primarily been focused upon prosthetic joint infection (PJI), rather than on IAFF. Although IAFF shares many similarities with PJI, there are numerous critical differences in many facets including prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Admittedly, extrapolating data from PJI research to IAFF has been of value to the trauma surgeon, but we should also be aware of the unique challenges posed by IAFF that may not be accounted for in the PJI literature. This review summarizes the clinical approaches towards the diagnosis and treatment of IAFF with an emphasis on the unique aspects of fracture care that distinguish IAFF from PJI. Finally, recent developments in anti-infective technologies that may be particularly suitable or applicable for trauma patients in the future will be briefly discussed.

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

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.

Low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for bone healing: a clinical practice guideline

Does low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) accelerate recovery in adults and children who have experienced bone fractures or osteotomy (cutting of a bone)? An expert panel rapidly produced these recommendations based on a linked systematic review triggered by a large multicentre randomised trial in adults with tibial fracture.

Fracture-related infection: A consensus on definition from an international expert group

Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a common and serious complication in trauma surgery. Accurately estimating the impact of this complication has been hampered by the lack of a clear definition. The absence of a working definition of FRI renders existing studies difficult to evaluate or compare. In order to address this issue, an expert group comprised of a number of scientific and medical organizations has been convened, with the support of the AO Foundation, in order to develop a consensus definition. The process that led to this proposed definition started with a systematic literature review, which revealed that the majority of randomized controlled trials in fracture care do not use a standardized definition of FRI. In response to this conclusion, an international survey on the need for and key components of a definition of FRI was distributed amongst all registered AOTrauma users. Approximately 90% of the more than 2000 surgeons who responded suggested that a definition of FRI is required. As a final step, a consensus meeting was held with an expert panel. The outcome of this process led to a consensus definition of FRI. Two levels of certainty around diagnostic features were defined. Criteria could be confirmatory (infection definitely present) or suggestive. Four confirmatory criteria were defined: Fistula, sinus or wound breakdown; Purulent drainage from the wound or presence of pus during surgery; Phenotypically indistinguishable pathogens identified by culture from at least two separate deep tissue/implant specimens; Presence of microorganisms in deep tissue taken during an operative intervention, as confirmed by histopathological examination. Furthermore, a list of suggestive criteria was defined. These require further investigations in order to look for confirmatory criteria. In the current paper, an overview is provided of the proposed definition and a rationale for each component and decision. The intention of establishing this definition of FRI was to offer clinicians the opportunity to standardize clinical reports and improve the quality of published literature. It is important to note that the proposed definition was not designed to guide treatment of FRI and should be validated by prospective data collection in the future.

Trends in incidence rate, health care consumption, and costs for patients admitted with a humeral fracture in The Netherlands between 1986 and 2012

INTRODUCTION This study aimed to examine long-term population-based trends in the incidence rate of patients with a humeral fracture admitted to a hospital in the Netherlands from 1986 to 2012 and to give a detailed overview of the health care consumption and productivity loss with associated costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS Age and gender-standardised incidence rates of hospital admissions for patients with a proximal, shaft, or distal humeral fracture were calculated for each year (1986-2012). Injury cases, length of hospital stay (LOS), trauma mechanism, and operation rate were extracted from the National Medical Registration. An incidence-based cost model was applied to calculate costs for direct health care and lost productivity in 2012. RESULTS Between 1986 and 2012 112,910 patients were admitted for a humeral fracture. The incidence rate increased from 17.8 in 1986 to 40.0 per 100,000 person years in 2012. Incidence rates of proximal fractures increased the most, especially in elderly women. Operation rates decreased in patients aged 70 years or older. The mean LOS decreased from nine days in 1997 to five days in 2012. The cumulative LOS of all patients in 2012 was 28,880 days of which 73% were caused by women and 81% were caused by patients aged 50 years or older. Cumulative medical costs in 2012 were M€55.4, of which M€43.4 was spent on women. Costs increased with age. Costs for hospital care contributed most to the overall costs per case until 70 years of age. From 70 years onwards, the main cost determinants were hospital care, rehabilitation/nursing care, and home care. Cumulative costs due to lost productivity were M€23.5 in 2012. Costs per case increased with age in all anatomic regions. CONCLUSIONS The crude number of patients admitted for a humeral fracture increased 124% in 27 years, and was associated with age and gender. Proximal fractures in elderly women accounted most significantly for this increase and most of the costs. The main cost determinants were hospital care and productivity loss.

Definition of infection after fracture fixation: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate current practice.

INTRODUCTION One of the most challenging musculoskeletal complications in modern trauma surgery is infection after fracture fixation (IAFF). Although infections are clinically obvious in many cases, a clear definition of the term IAFF is crucial, not only for the evaluation of published research data but also for the establishment of uniform treatment concepts. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the definitions used in the scientific literature to describe infectious complications after internal fixation of fractures. The hypothesis of this study was that the majority of fracture-related literature do not define IAFF. MATERIAL AND METHODS A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Medline (OvidSP), PubMed publisher and Web-of-Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fracture fixation. Data were collected on the definition of infectious complications after fracture fixation used in each study. Study selection was accomplished through two phases. During the first phase, titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and the full texts of relevant articles were obtained. During the second phase, full-text articles were reviewed. All definitions were literally extracted and collected in a database. Then, a classification was designed to rate the quality of the description of IAFF. RESULTS A total of 100 RCTs were identified in the search. Of 100 studies, only two (2%) cited a validated definition to describe IAFF. In 28 (28%) RCTs, the authors used a self-designed definition. In the other 70 RCTs, (70%) there was no description of a definition in the Methods section, although all of the articles described infections as an outcome parameter in the Results section. CONCLUSION This systematic review shows that IAFF is not defined in a large majority of the fracture-related literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study conducted with the objective to explore this important issue. The lack of a consensus definition remains a problem in current orthopedic trauma research and treatment and this void should be addressed in the near future.

Prevalence and mortality of abdominal compartment syndrome in severely injured patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) in severely injured patients is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Many efforts have been made to improve outcome of patients with ACS. A treatment algorithm for ACS patients was introduced on January 1, 2005 by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and mortality rate of ACS among severely injured patients before and after January 1, 2005 using a systematic literature review. METHOD Databases of Embase, Medline (OvidSP), Web of Science, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PubMed publisher, and Google Scholar were searched for terms related to severely injured patients and ACS. Original studies reporting ACS in trauma patients were considered eligible. Data on study design, population, definitions, prevalence, and mortality rates were extracted. Pooled prevalence and mortality of ACS among severely injured patients were calculated for both time periods using inversed variance weighting assuming a random effects model. Tests for heterogeneity were applied. RESULTS A total of 80 publications were included. Prevalence of studies that finished enrolling patients before January 1, 2005 ranged from 0.5% to 36.4% and 0.0% to 28.0% in studies after that date. For severely injured patients admitted to the ICU, this range was 0.5% to 1.3% before 2005 and 0% in one publication in the second time period. For patients with visceral injuries, ACS prevalence ranged 1.0% to 20.0%; one study in the second time period reported 11.1%. The prevalence among severely injured patients who underwent trauma laparotomy ranged from 0.9% to 36.4% in the first time period. Two studies after January 1, 2005 reported ACS prevalence of 2.3% and 13.2%, respectively. The mortality rate in both time periods ranged between 0.0% and 100.0%. CONCLUSION The overall prevalence of ACS ranged from 0.0% to 36.4%. Future studies are needed to measure the effect of improved trauma care and effectiveness of the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome Consensus Statements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

Noncompliance with guidelines on proton pump inhibitor prescription as gastroprotection in hospitalized surgical patients who are prescribed NSAIDs

Background and aims As NSAIDs can cause serious upper gastrointestinal harm, guidelines have been established for the prescribing of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in high-risk patients using NSAIDs. Studies examining guideline compliance in surgical patients are scarce. Therefore, a retrospective cross-sectional database study was carried out aimed at determining the proportion of noncompliance with the Dutch guideline and determining the association of several factors with this noncompliance. Materials and methods Hospital admissions of patients on surgical wards of Erasmus University Medical Center between 1 January 2013 and 1 August 2014 were included in which an NSAID was newly prescribed. Preadmission PPI use was excluded. The main outcome was the proportion of noncompliance with the guideline. As a secondary outcome, the association of several potential risk factors with noncompliance was assessed. The proportion of guideline noncompliance was calculated as the percentage of all included surgical ward admissions. For the secondary analysis, univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were carried out. Results A total of 409 admissions were included. The proportion of admissions in which guideline noncompliance was present was 46.6%, mostly because of incorrectly added PPIs. Coxib use [adjusted odds ratio 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.12–0.44)], polypharmacy (the use of five or more drugs) [2.18 (1.27–3.76)], and the surgical wards orthopedics [22.32 (5.38–92.55)], plastic surgery [10.82 (2.51–46.59)], trauma surgery [5.78 (1.47–22.70)], and transplant/vascular surgery [4.45 (1.10–18.00)] were statistically significantly associated with noncompliance. Conclusion Noncompliance with the guideline on NSAID use and gastroprotection is present in almost half of surgical hospital admissions and mainly involves overprescribing.

Clinical outcome of implant removal after fracture healing. Design of a prospective multicentre clinical cohort study

BackgroundThe clinical results of removal of metal implants after fracture healing are unknown and the question whether to remove or to leave them in is part of discussion worldwide. We present the design of a prospective clinical multicentre cohort study to determine the main indications for and expectations of implant removal, the influence on complaints, the incidence of surgery related complications and the socio-economic consequences of implant removal.Methods/DesignIn a prospective multicentre clinical cohort study at least 200 patients with a healed fracture after osteosynthesis with a metal implant are included for analyzing the outcome after removal. Six hospitals in the Netherlands are participating. Special questionnaires are designed. The follow up after surgery will be at least six months. The primary endpoint is the incidence of surgery related complications. Secondary endpoints are the influence of removal on preoperative symptoms and complaints and the socio-economic consequences.DiscussionBy performing this study we hope to find profound arguments to remove or not to remove metal implants after fracture healing that can help to develop clear guidelines for daily practice.Trial registrationNTR1297, http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1297