Michiel Verhofstad

Operative treatment of dislocated midshaft clavicular fractures: plate or intramedullary nail fixation? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Over the past decades, the operative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures has increased. The aim of this study was to compare short and midterm results of open reduction and plate fixation with those of intramedullary nailing for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. METHODS A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was performed in four different hospitals. The study included 120 patients, eighteen to sixty-five years of age, treated with either open reduction and plate fixation (n = 58) or intramedullary nailing (n = 62). Preoperative and postoperative shoulder function scores and complications were documented until one year postoperatively. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS No significant differences in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) or Constant-Murley score (3.0 and 96.0 points for the plate group and 5.6 and 95.5 points for the nailing group) were noted between the two surgical interventions at six months postoperatively. Until six months after the surgery, the plate-fixation group experienced less disability than the nailing group as indicated by the area under the curve of the DASH scores for this time period (p = 0.02). The mean numbers of complications per patient, irrespective of their severity, were similar between the plate-fixation (0.67) and nailing (0.74) groups (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS The patients in the plate-fixation group recovered faster than the patients in the intramedullary nailing group, but the groups had similar results at six months postoperatively and the time of final follow-up. The rate of complications requiring revision surgery was low. Implant-related complications occurred frequently and could often be treated by implant removal.

The Surgical Anatomy of the Infrapatellar Branch of the Saphenous Nerve in Relation to Incisions for Anteromedial Knee Surgery

BACKGROUND Iatrogenic injury to the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve is a common complication of surgical approaches to the anteromedial side of the knee. A detailed description of the relative anatomic course of the nerve is important to define clinical guidelines and minimize iatrogenic damage during anterior knee surgery. METHODS In twenty embalmed knees, the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve was dissected. With use of a computer-assisted surgical anatomy mapping tool, safe and risk zones, as well as the location-dependent direction of the nerve, were calculated. RESULTS The location of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve is highly variable, and no definite safe zone could be identified. The infrapatellar branch runs in neither a purely horizontal nor a vertical course. The course of the branch is location-dependent. Medially, it runs a nearly vertical course; medial to the patellar tendon, it has a -45° distal-lateral course; and on the patella and patellar tendon, it runs a close to horizontal-lateral course. Three low risk zones for iatrogenic nerve injury were identified: one is on the medial side of the knee, at the level of the tibial tuberosity, where a -45° oblique incision is least prone to damage the nerves, and two zones are located medial to the patellar apex (cranial and caudal), where close to horizontal incisions are least prone to damage the nerves. CONCLUSIONS The infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve is at risk for iatrogenic damage in anteromedial knee surgery, especially when longitudinal incisions are made. There are three low risk zones for a safer anterior approach to the knee. The direction of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve is location-dependent. To minimize iatrogenic damage to the nerve, the direction of incisions should be parallel to the direction of the nerve when technically possible. CLINICAL RELEVANCE These findings suggest that iatrogenic damage of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve can be minimized in anteromedial knee surgery when both the location and the location-dependent direction of the nerve are considered when making the skin incision.

Accuracy of different survival prediction models in a trauma population

There is growing demand for a simple accurate scoring model to evaluate the quality of trauma care. This study compared different trauma survival prediction models with regard to their performance in different trauma populations.

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature.

IntroductionThe aim of this review was to collect and summarize published data on the indications for implant removal after fracture healing, since these are not well defined and guidelines hardly exist.MethodsA literature search was performed.ResultsThough there are several presumed benefits of implant removal, such as functional improvement and pain relief, the surgical procedure can be very challenging and may lead to complications or even worsening of the complaints. Research has focused on the safety of metal implants (e.g., risk of corrosion, allergy, and carcinogenesis). For these reasons, implants have been removed routinely for decades. Along with the introduction of titanium alloy implants, the need for implant removal became a subject of debate in view of potential (dis)advantages since, in general, implants made of titanium alloys are more difficult to remove. Currently, the main indications for removal from both the upper and lower extremity are mostly ‘relative’ and patient-driven, such as pain, prominent material, or simply the request for removal. True medical indications like infection or intra-articular material are minor reasons.ConclusionThis review illustrates the great variety of view points in the literature, with large differences in opinions and practices about the indications for implant removal after fracture healing. Since some studies have described asymptomatic patients developing complaints after removal, the general advice nowadays is to remove implants after fracture healing only in symptomatic patients and after a proper informed consent. Well-designed prospective studies on this subject are urgently needed in order to form guidelines based on scientific evidence.

Quality of life in severely injured patients depends on psychosocial factors rather than on severity or type of injury.

BACKGROUND Former studies have demonstrated that health-related quality of life is decreased in severely injured patients. However, in those studies patients were asked about their functioning and not about their (dis)contentment concerning their functioning. Little is known about how severely injured patients experience their quality of life (QOL). The objective of this cross-sectional study was to measure this subjective QOL of severely injured patients after their rehabilitation phase and to examine which accident- and patient-related factors affect the QOL of these patients. METHODS Patients of 18 years or older with an injury severity score (ISS) above 15 were included 15-53 months after their accident. Comorbidity before the accident, accident and sociodemographic characteristics, and QOL were obtained from the trauma registry and questionnaires. The WHOQOL-BREF was used to measure QOL. A reference group of the Dutch general population was used for comparison. RESULTS The participation rate was 61% (n=173). Compared with the reference data, severely injured patients experienced a significantly worse QOL in all domains except social relations. The QOL scores were significantly decreased in all domains for patients with intracranial injury in combination with other injuries. Patients with a severe intracranial injury (AIS>3) only reported significantly impaired QOL in the general and physical domains. Patients who resumed working or lived with others had significantly higher scores in all domains of QOL than patients who did not work anymore or were living alone. Significantly lower QOL scores were obtained from patients with comorbidity before the accident and from patients with longer durations of intensive care unit (ICU) treatment or hospitalisation. Gender, accident characteristics and time since the accident did not appear to be important for experienced QOL. CONCLUSIONS The experience of impaired QOL appears to depend on living alone, inability to return to work and pre-accidental comorbidity rather than on the injured body area or the severity of the injury. Duration of hospital or ICU stay is important to subsequent QOL, even if ISS or body region is not.

Implant removal of osteosynthesis: the Dutch practice. Results of a survey

BackgroundThe aim of this survey study was to evaluate the current opinion and practice of trauma and orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands in the removal of implants after fracture healing.MethodsA web-based questionnaire consisting of 44 items was sent to all active members of the Dutch Trauma Society and Dutch Orthopaedic Trauma Society to determine their habits and opinions about implant removal.ResultsThough implant removal is not routinely done in the Netherlands, 89% of the Dutch surgeons agreed that implant removal is a good option in case of pain or functional deficits. Also infection of the implant or bone is one of the main reasons for removing the implant (> 90%), while making money was a motivation for only 1% of the respondents. In case of younger patients (< 40 years of age) only 34% of the surgeons agreed that metal implants should always be removed in this category. Orthopaedic surgeons are more conservative and differ in their opinion about this subject compared to general trauma surgeons (p = 0.002). Though the far majority removes elastic nails in children (95%).Most of the participants (56%) did not agree that leaving implants in is associated with an increased risk of fractures, infections, allergy or malignancy. Yet in case of the risk of fractures, residents all agreed to this statement (100%) whereas staff specialists disagreed for 71% (p < 0.001). According to 62% of the surgeons titanium plates are more difficult to remove than stainless steel, but 47% did not consider them safer to leave in situ compared to stainless steel. The most mentioned postoperative complications were wound infection (37%), unpleasant scarring (24%) and postoperative hemorraghe (19%).ConclusionThis survey indicates that there is no general opinion about implant removal after fracture healing with a lack of policy guidelines in the Netherlands. In case of symptomatic patients a majority of the surgeons removes the implant, but this is not standard practice for every surgeon.

Rationale and design of the plate or pin (pop) study for dislocated midshaft clavicular fractures: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundTo describe the rationale and design of a future study comparing results of plate fixation and Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) with a Titanium Elastic Nail (TEN) for adults with a dislocated midshaft clavicular fracture.Methods/DesignProspective randomized multicenter clinical trial in two level 1 and one level 2 trauma centers. 120 patients between 18 and 65 years of age will be included. They are randomized to either plate fixation or ESIN with a TEN with a one year follow-up. Sixty patients will be treated with plate fixation and 60 patients will be treated with ESIN. Primary outcome parameter is the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score after 6 months. Secondary outcome parameters are Constant Shoulder Score, complications, experienced pain, radiologic consolidation and cosmetics after both procedures.DiscussionProspective randomized studies comparing operative techniques for treatment of dislocated midshaft clavicular fracture are lacking. By studying shoulder function, complications, quality of life, radiographic union, cosmetics as well as experienced pain, a complete efficacy assessment of both procedures will be performed.Trial registrationThe POP study is registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR NTR2438).

Prediction models for complications in trauma patients.

Because the death rate among the total trauma population is low, other performance indicators in addition to the classical dependent variable mortality are required to assess the overall quality of trauma care. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model for the occurrence of complications that can be used to adjust a measure of quality of trauma care for case mix.

Operative treatment of patients with pertrochanteric femoral fractures outside working hours is not associated with a higher incidence of complications or higher mortality

This retrospective cohort study was conducted to investigate whether operative treatment of patients with a pertrochanteric femoral fracture outside working hours is associated with an increased risk of complications and higher mortality. During the study period 165 patients were operated on outside working hours and 123 were operated on during working hours (08.00 to 17.00). There was no difference in the rate of early complications (outside working hours 33% versus working hours 33%, p = 0.91) or total complications during follow-up (outside working hours 40% versus working hours 41%, p = 0.91). Both in-hospital mortality (outside working hours 12% versus working hours 11%, p = 0.97) and mortality after one year (outside working hours 29% versus working hours 27%, p = 0.67) were comparable. Adjustment for possible confounders by multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed no increased risk of complications when patients were operated on outside working hours. On the basis of these data, there is no medical reason to postpone operative reduction and fixation in patients with a proximal femoral fracture until working hours.

High Irritation and Removal Rates After Plate or Nail Fixation in Patients With Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures

BackgroundStudies comparing plate with intramedullary nail fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures show faster recovery in the plate group and implant-related complications in both groups after short-term followup (6 or 12 months). Knowledge of disability, complications, and removal rates beyond the first postoperative year will help surgeons in making a decision regarding optimal implant choice. However, comparative studies with followup beyond the first year or two are scarce.Questions/purposesWe asked: (1) Does plate fixation or intramedullary nail fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures result in less disability? (2) Which type of fixation, plate or intramedullary, is more frequently associated with implant-related irritation and implant removal? (3) Is plate or intramedullary fixation associated with postoperative complications beyond the first postoperative year?MethodsBetween January 2011 and August 2012, patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were enrolled and randomized to plate or intramedullary nail fixation. A total of 58 patients with plate and 62 patients with intramedullary nails initially were enrolled. Minimum followup was 30 months (mean, 39 months; range, 30–51 months). Two patients (3%) with plate fixation and two patients (3%) with intramedullary nails were lost to followup. The QuickDASH was obtained at final followup and compared between patients who had plate fixation and those who had intramedullary nail fixation. Postoperative complications measured include infection, implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, and refracture after implant removal. Indications for implant removal included implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, patient’s wish, or surgeon’s preference.ResultsBetween patients with plate versus intramedullary nail fixation, there were no differences in QuickDASH scores (plate, 1.8 ± 3.6; intramedullary nail, 1.8 ± 7.2; mean difference, −0.7; 95% CI, −2.2 to 2.04; p = 0.95). The proportion of patients having implant-related irritation was not different (39 of 56 [70%] versus 41 of 62 [66%]; relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82–1.35; p = 0.683). Intramedullary fixation was associated with a higher likelihood of implant removal (51 of 62 [82%] versus 28 of 56 [50%]; relative risk, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.24–2.19; p < 0.001). Among the removed implants more plates than intramedullary nails were removed after the 1-year followup (12 of 28 [43%] versus six of 51 [12%]; p = 0.002). There were no infections, implant breakage, nonunions, or refractures between the 1-year and final followup in either group.ConclusionsAfter a mean followup of 39 months, disability scores were excellent. Major complications did not occur after the 1-year followup. A frequent and bothersome problem after both surgical treatments is implant-related irritation, resulting in high rates of implant removal, after 1 year. Future research could focus on analyzing risk factors for implant irritation or removal.Level of EvidenceLevel II, therapeutic study.