Effect of Percutaneous Posterior Pelvic Ring Reduction and Fixation on Patient-Reported Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess patient outcomes using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements Information System (PROMIS) scores after closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) of the posterior pelvic ring and determine whether quality of reduction affects the outcomes. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The study involved a Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: The study included 46 adult patients with operatively treated pelvic ring injuries (63% OTA/AO 61-B) who underwent CRPF between 2014 and 2018 at a single institution. INTERVENTION: The intervention involved closed reduction and percutaneous posterior pelvic ring fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome measurements were postoperative patient PROMIS scores, including physical function, pain interference, anxiety, and depression, and radiographic measurements of postoperative displacement and pelvic deformity. RESULTS: After CRPF, PROMIS scores of physical function, pain interference, and anxiety were significantly improved at the time of final follow-up when compared with the first postoperative visit. The amount of malreduction or pelvic deformity did not significantly affect outcome scores; however, results were limited by small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: CRPF of posterior pelvic ring injuries results in good functional and radiographic outcomes. Degree of malreduction may not affect outcomes as much as previously believed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Abusive fracture incidence over three decades at a level 1 pediatric trauma center.

Few studies have examined the incidence of abusive fractures in children. Only one study to date, from a single pediatric trauma center,has reported on the incidence of abusive fractures over time. That study showed a decrease in abusive fractures over a 24-year period. Our objective for this current study was to compare these published data with recent data from this same trauma center, allowing for a detailed comparison of the incidence of abusive fractures over a 30-year period. We included children <36months of age who presented to the emergency department of a level 1 pediatric trauma center (2007-2010) with≥1 fracture. Six experts from 3 different fields rated each case on the likelihood the fracture(s) was caused by abuse using an established 7- point scale, and a consensus rating was agreed upon for each case. The incidence of abusive fractures was calculated per 10,000 children <36months of age living in the geographic region and per 10,000 ED visits and was compared to previously published data for three prior time periods (1979-1983, 1991-1994, and 1999-2002) at the same pediatric trauma center. From 2007-2010, 551 children were identified, including 31 children who were rated as abused. The incidence of a child presenting with an abusive fracture in the county per year was 2.7/10,000 children <36months of age. The previous three time periods showed a countywide incidence of 3.2/10,000 (1979-1983), 1.7/10,000 (1991-1994), and 2.0/10,000 (1999-2002) (p for trend 0.34). The incidence per ED visit was 2.5/10,000 in the recent time period compared to 6.0/10,000 (1979-1983), 3.4/10,000 (1991-1994), and 2.5/10,000 (1999-2002) (p for trend <0.001). In this single institution review of fractures in children <36months of age, the incidence of abusive fractures has remained relatively constant over a 30-year period.

Inter-rater reliability of physical abuse determinations in young children with fractures.

As there is no "gold standard" in determining whether a fracture is caused by accident or abuse, agreement among medical providers is paramount. Using abstracted medical record data from 551 children <36months of age presenting to a pediatric emergency department, we examined the extent of agreement between specialists who evaluate children with fractures for suspected abuse. To simulate clinical scenarios, two pediatric orthopaedists and two child abuse pediatricians (CAPs) reviewed the full abstraction and imaging, whereas the two pediatric radiologists reviewed a brief history and imaging. Each physician independently rated each case using a 7-point ordinal scale designed to distinguish accidental from abusive injuries. For any discrepancy in independent ratings, the two specialists discussed the case and came to a joint rating. We analyzed 3 types of agreement: (1) within specialties using independent ratings, (2) between specialties using joint ratings, and (3) between clinicians (orthopaedists and CAPs) with more versus less experience. Agreement between pairs of raters was assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa. Orthopaedists (κ=0.78) and CAPs (κ=0.67) had substantial within-specialty agreement, while radiologists (κ=0.53) had moderate agreement. Orthopaedists and CAPs had almost perfect between-specialty agreement (κ=0.81), while agreement was much lower for orthopaedists and radiologists (κ=0.37) and CAPs and radiologists (κ=0.42). More-experienced clinicians had substantial between-specialty agreement (κ=0.80) versus less-experienced clinicians who had moderate agreement (κ=0.60). These findings suggest the level of clinical detail a physician receives and his/her experience in the field has an impact on the level of agreement when evaluating fractures in young children.