New possibilities: the LockDown device for distal clavicle fractures.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The majority of distal clavicle fractures are displaced fractures and constitute a treatment challenge because they have a 30% chance of delayed union or nonunion. Although several options for surgical reconstruction have been described, in patients with a comminuted and/or small distal fragment, these reconstructive options have proved to be prone to failure. Moreover, secondary surgery for removal is necessary in most cases. We hypothesized that the LockDown device, a braided synthetic ligament device, combined with resection of the distal fracture fragment is a suitable alternative in specified patients with distal clavicle fractures. METHODS: Eleven patients with distal clavicle fractures were treated with distal fracture resection and the LockDown procedure. All patients underwent regular follow-up with data collection; additionally, 7 were assessed at 1-year follow-up according to the study protocol. On the basis of radiography, these patients had a clear coracoclavicular ligament disruption and subsequent cranial dislocation of the medial fragment. Regular follow-up was performed at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Control radiographs were taken at 3 and 6 months. Furthermore, the 7 enrolled patients were assessed at 1 year, when the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, Constant shoulder score, Nottingham Clavicle Score, and range of motion were recorded. Residual pain was ascertained by a visual analog scale score. RESULTS: In total, 11 patients were treated with distal clavicle resection and the LockDown procedure. Eight patients underwent surgery within 3 weeks after presentation at the emergency department. The other 3 patients were operated on after a trial of conservative treatment (due to persisting pain and delayed union). None of the patients had postoperative complications. At 3 months, 9 of the 11 patients had made a full recovery. DISCUSSION: All 11 patients had good short-term clinical outcomes. None showed acromioclavicular instability. Furthermore, secondary surgery was avoided, and hardware complications did not occur. In low-demand patients or patients with a high risk of nonunion, this technique may be a favorable alternative to other known techniques.

The Floating Acromion: A Rare and Previously Unreported Injury Possibly Requiring Surgical Stabilization.

Acromion fractures are increasingly seen as a postoperative complication following reversed shoulder arthroplasty. However, traumatic fractures of the acromion, usually caused by direct trauma, are rare. Therefore, the current literature lacks standardized clinical guidelines regarding the surgical treatment of these kinds of fractures. We present a traumatic acromion fracture and concomitant distal clavicle fracture, resulting in a so-called "floating acromion." A fifty-four-year-old female patient was presented at the Emergency Department following a fall from the stairs. She complained of severe pain in the left shoulder. Radiographic evaluation of the left shoulder revealed an acromion fracture and concomitant distal clavicle fracture. Initially, since there was no dislocation, this "floating acromion" was treated conservatively. However, after 4 weeks, no improvement in pain was seen and a control CT scan revealed no callus formation. Considering the possibility that this could be a biomechanically unstable injury, together with the persistent severe pain, it was decided to proceed with surgical treatment. A lateral clavicle plate was used to stabilize the acromion fracture. Postoperatively, the patient was provided with a sling. She was regularly seen at the outpatient clinic. After two weeks of circumduction exercises, she was allowed to build up active movement under the supervision of a shoulder physiotherapist. Nevertheless, she developed a frozen shoulder. However, our patient fully recovered with complete restoration of shoulder function. Therefore, for operative management of acromion fractures, we suggest the use of a lateral clavicle plate which fits remarkably well on the lateral spine and acromion.

Nadroparin or fondaparinux versus no thromboprophylaxis in patients immobilised in a below-knee plaster cast (PROTECT): A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The immobilisation of the lower leg is associated with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, thromboprophylaxis in patients with a below-knee plaster cast remains controversial. We examined the efficacy and safety of nadroparin and fondaparinux to ascertain the need for thromboprophylaxis in these patients. METHODS: PROTECT was a randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre study that enrolled adults with an ankle or foot fracture who required immobilisation for a minimum of four weeks. The patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to a control group (no thromboprophylaxis) or to one of the intervention groups: daily subcutaneous self-injection of either nadroparin (2850 IE anti-Xa=0.3ml) or fondaparinux (2.5mg=0.5ml). A venous duplex sonography was performed after the removal of the cast or earlier if thrombosis was suspected. The primary outcome was the relative risk of developing DVT in the control group compared with that in both intervention groups. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00881088. RESULTS: Between April 2009 and December 2015, 467 patients were enrolled and assigned to either the nadroparin group (n=154), the fondaparinux group (n=157), or the control group (n=156). A total of 273 patients (92, 92, and 94 patients, respectively) were analysed. The incidence of DVT in the nadroparin group was 2/92 (2.2%) compared with 11/94 (11.7%) in the control group, with a relative risk of 5.4 (95% CI 1.2-23.6; p=0.011). The incidence of DVT in the fondaparinux group was 1/92 (1.1%), yielding a relative risk of 10.8 (95% CI 1.4-80.7; p=0.003) compared with that in the control group. No major complications occurred in any group. CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis with nadroparin or fondaparinux significantly reduces the risk of DVT in patients with an ankle or foot fracture who were treated in a below-knee cast without any major adverse events.

Inter- and intra-observer agreement of the AO classification for operatively treated distal radius fractures.

The reproducibility of the AO classification for distal radius fractures remains a topic of debate. Previous studies showed variable reproducibility results. Important treatment decisions depend on correct classification, especially in comminuted, intra-articular fractures. Therefore, reliable reproducibility results need to be undisputedly determined. Hence, the study objective was to assess inter- and intra-observer agreement of the AO classification for operatively treated distal radius fractures. A database of 54 radiographs of all AO types (A, B and C) and groups (A2-3, B1-3, and C1-3) of distal radius fractures was assessed in twofold. Likewise, a subset of 152 radiographs of solely C-type groups (C1-3) was assessed. All fractures were classified by six observers with different experience levels: three consultant trauma surgeons, one sixth-year trauma surgery resident, a consultant trauma radiologist, and an intern with limited experienced. The inter-observer agreement of both main types and groups was moderate (κ = 0.49 resp. κ = 0.48) in combination with a good intra-observer agreement (κ = 0.68 resp. κ = 0.70). The inter-observer agreement of the subset C-type fractures group was fair (κ = 0.27) with moderate intra-observer agreement (κ = 0.43). According to these results, the reproducibility of the AO classification of main types and groups of distal radius fractures based on conventional radiographs is insufficient (κ < 0.50), especially at group level of C-type fractures.

Diagnostic performance of the Bernese versus Ottawa ankle rules: Results of a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) brought about a reduction of radiographs on the Emergency Department (ED). However, still 50% of patients with ankle injuries undergo unnecessary radiography. Compared to the OAR, the Bernese ankle rule (BAR) has an acclaimed 84% reduction in radiography without loss of sensitivity. The primary aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of both rules. Furthermore, the ability of triage nurses to accurately interpret the BAR was assessed. METHODS: Participants were assessed by both the ED resident and the triage nurse, applying the OAR and the BAR. After standardised data collection, ankle and foot radiographs were performed in all patients. Sensitivity and specificity of both tests applied by both observers were obtained and compared by McNemar's test. Reproducibility was calculated with Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients with ankle trauma were included. For the OAR obtained by the ED residents, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 and 0.29, respectively. For the BAR, the sensitivity and specificity of the ED residents were 0.69 and 0.45, respectively. For the triage nurses, the OAR sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 and 0.25, respectively. The BAR sensitivity and specificity for the nurses were 0.86 and 0.40, respectively. The reproducibility of the OAR was 0.45, and for the BAR, it was 0.48. CONCLUSION: Both rules showed comparable reproducibility. Although the BAR showed a superior specificity compared to the OAR, its sensitivity was too low to promote clinical use. The triage nurses demonstrated too low sensitivity on both rules to allow safe application. Therefore, the OAR remain the decision rules of choice for ankle injuries despite its modest 'ruling out' capacity.

Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of the Ottawa Knee Rule vs the Pittsburgh Decision Rule.

PURPOSE: The aim of this present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of 2 clinical decision rules (the Ottawa Knee Rules [OKR] and Pittsburgh Decision Rules [PDR]) developed for selective use of x-rays in the evaluation of isolated knee trauma. Application of a decision rule leads to a more efficient evaluation of knee injuries and a reduction in health care costs. The diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility are compared in this study. METHODS: A cross-sectional interobserver study was conducted in the emergency department of an urban teaching hospital from October 2008 to July 2009. Two observer groups collected data on standardized case-report forms: emergency medicine residents and surgical residents. Standard knee radiographs were performed in each patient. Participants were patients 18 years and older with isolated knee injuries. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were compared using χ(2) statistics, and interobserver agreement was calculated by using κ statistics. RESULTS: Ninety injuries were assessed. Seven injuries concerned fractures (7.8%). For the OKR, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.96) and 0.27 (95% CI, 0.21-0.35), respectively. The PDR had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.57-0.96) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.44-0.59). The PDR was significantly (P = .002) more specific. The κ values for the OKR and PDR were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.86), respectively. CONCLUSION: The PDR was found to be more specific than the OKR, with equal sensitivity. Interobserver agreement was moderate for the OKR and substantial for the PDR.

Cost-effectiveness of the SEN-concept: Specialized Emergency Nurses (SEN) treating ankle/foot injuries.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Departments (EDs) are confronted with progressive overcrowding. As a consequence, the workload for ED physicians increases and waiting times go up with the risk of unnecessary complications and patient dissatisfaction. To cope with these problems, Specialized Emergency Nurses (SENs), regular ED-nurses receiving a short, injury-specific course, were trained to assess and treat minor injuries according to a specific protocol. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing House Officers (HOs) and SENs in their assessment of ankle and foot injuries. Cost prices were established for all parts of healthcare utilization involved. Total costs of health care utilization were computed per patient in both groups. Cost-effectiveness was investigated by comparing the difference in total cost between groups with the difference in sensitivity and specificity between groups in diagnosing fractures and severe sprains. Finally, cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and presented on a cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between treatment groups for any of the health care resources assessed. However, the waiting times for both first assessment by a treatment officer and time spent waiting between hearing the diagnosis and final treatment were significantly longer in the HO group. There was no statistically significant difference in costs between groups. The total costs were euro 186 (SD euro 623) for patients in the SEN group and euro 153 (SD euro 529) for patients in the HO group. The difference in total costs was euro 33 (95% CI: - euro 84 to euro 155). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro 27 for a reduction of one missed diagnosis and euro 18 for a reduction of one false negative. CONCLUSION: Considering the benefits of the SEN-concept in terms of decreased workload for the ED physicians, increased patient satisfaction and decreased waiting times, SENs appear to be a useful solution to the problem of ED crowding.

Diagnostic accuracy of lower extremity X-ray interpretation by 'specialized' emergency nurses.

OBJECTIVES: In the quest for a cost-effective and quality-preserving solution to manage crowding in the emergency department, the possibility of deploying regular emergency nurses for the treatment of acute ankle injuries was investigated. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of emergency nurses with that of senior house officers in interpreting ankle and foot radiographs. METHODS: A prospective study comparing the assessment of 60 radiographs (30 feet and 30 ankles) by 16 emergency nurses before and after an educational session was performed. Each subset of 30 radiographs contained 12 fractures, hand-picked by a radiologist to represent everyday traumatology in the emergency department. The control group consisted of eight senior house officers representing everyday expertise. The outcome of the diagnostic assessment, represented as the pooled sensitivity and specificity for both groups, was compared using Z-statistics. RESULTS: Before the training session, the specialized emergency nurse group showed a sensitivity of 0.87 (confidence interval 0.83-0.91) compared with 0.93 (confidence interval 0.88-0.96) for the control group (P = 0.05). The specificity of specialized emergency nurses was 0.87 (confidence interval 0.81-0.92) compared with 0.93 (confidence interval 0.89-0.95) for the senior house officers (P < 0.05). After the training session, specialized emergency nurse diagnostic parameters did not differ significantly from the control group, displaying a sensitivity of 0.89 (confidence interval 0.86-0.92) and specificity of 0.92 (confidence interval 0.87-0.95). CONCLUSION: Before the training session, the specialized emergency nurse group showed a significantly lower accuracy than the SHO group. After training, however, the diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly between groups. Therefore, we conclude that emergency nurses are able to accurately interpret foot and ankle radiographs after a short educational session.