ABSTRACT
Objectives A lack of conclusive evidence on the treatment of acute median neuropathy (AMN) in patients with distal radius fractures has led to inconsistent surgical guidelines and recommendations regarding AMN in distal radius fractures. There is a wide variation in surgical decision-making. We aimed to evaluate international differences between surgical considerations and practices related to carpal tunnel release (CTR) in the setting of distal radius fractures. Methods We approached surgeons who were a member of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (United States) or of the Dutch Trauma Society (the Netherlands) and asked them to provide sociodemographic information and information on their surgical practice regarding CTR in the setting of distal radius fractures. After applying our exclusion criteria, our final cohort consisted of 127 respondents. Results Compared with Dutch surgeons, surgeons from the United States are more of the opinion that displaced distal radius fractures are at risk of developing acute carpal tunnel syndrome (ACTS), consider persistent paresthesia in the median nerve distribution after closed reduction to be a surgical emergency less often, and are more likely to perform a CTR if there are signs of ACTS in the setting of a distal radius fracture. Conclusion A lack of conclusive evidence has led to international differences in surgical practice regarding the treatment of ACTS in the setting of distal radius fractures. Future research should guide surgeons in making appropriate evidence-based decisions when performing CTR in the setting of distal radius fractures. Level of Evidence This is a Level V study.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Orthopedic injuries are the leading cause of hospital admissions in the USA, and many of these patients transition into chronic pain. Currently, there are no evidence-based interventions targeting prevention of chronic pain in patients with orthopedic injuries. We iteratively developed a four-session intervention "The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery" (TOR) which we plan to subsequently test for efficacy in a phase III hybrid efficacy-effectiveness multi-site clinical trial. In order to prevent methodological weaknesses in the subsequent trial, we conducted a feasibility pilot to evaluate the TOR delivered via secure live video versus usual care (UC) in patients with orthopedic injuries from an urban, level I trauma clinic, who screen in as at risk for chronic pain and disability. We tested the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of screening, and randomization methods; acceptability of the intervention, treatment adherence, and treatment fidelity; satisfaction with the intervention; feasibility of the assessment process at all time points; acceptability of outcome measures for the definitive trial; and within-treatment effect sizes. METHODS: We aimed to recruit 50-60 participants, randomize, and retain them for ~ 4 months. Assessments were done electronically via REDCap at baseline, post-intervention (approximately 5 weeks after baseline), and 3 months later. We followed procedures we intend to implement in the full-scale hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial. RESULTS: We recruited 54 participants and found that randomization and data collection procedures were generally acceptable. The majority of participants were white, educated, and employed. Warm hand-off referrals were more effective than research assistants directly approaching patients for participation without their providers' engagement. Feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of screening, and randomization were good. Satisfaction with the program, adherence to treatment sessions, and treatment fidelity were all high. There were no technical issues associated with the live video delivery of the TOR. There was minimal missing data and outcome measures were deemed appropriate. Effect sizes for improvement after participation in TOR were moderate to large. There were many lessons learned for future trials. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided evidence of the feasibility of the planned hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial design when implemented at our home institution. Establishing feasibility of the intervention and study procedures at other trauma centers with more diverse patient populations and different clinical practices is required before a multi-site phase III efficacy-effectiveness trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03405610. Registered on January 28, 2018-retrospectively registered.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Maximizing operating room utilization in orthopedic and other surgeries relies on accurate estimates of surgical control time (SCT). A variety of case and patient-specific variables can influence the duration of surgical time during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that these variables are better predictors of actual SCT (aSCT) than a surgeon's own prediction (pSCT). METHODS: All revision THAs from October 2008 to September 2014 from one institution were accessed. Variables for each case included aSCT, pSCT, patient age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status class, active infection, periprosthetic fracture, bone loss, heterotopic ossification, and implantation/explantation of a well-fixed acetabular/femoral component. These were incorporated in a stepwise fashion into a multivariate regression model for aSCT with a significant cutoff of 0.15. This was compared to a univariate regression model of aSCT that only used pSCT. RESULTS: In total, 516 revision THAs were analyzed. After stepwise selection, patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status were excluded from the model. The most significant increase in aSCT was seen with implantation of a new femoral component (24.0 min), followed by explantation of a well-fixed femoral component (18.7 min) and significant bone loss (15.0 min). Overall, the multivariate model had an improved r2 of 0.49, compared to 0.16 from only using pSCT. CONCLUSION: A multivariate regression model can assist surgeons in more accurately predicting the duration of revision THAs. The strongest predictors of increased aSCT are explantation of a well-fixed femoral component, placement of an entirely new femoral component, and presence of significant bone loss.
