Ultrasound supports clinical decision-making in determining the Sanders' skeletal maturity score of the hand.

PURPOSE: The Sanders Scoring System has revolutionized the way we assess the remaining growth potential of the skeleton. However, because it involves radiation exposure, it must be used with caution in children. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the Sanders skeletal maturity score (SMS) could be accurately determined using ultrasound (U). METHODS: We took radiographs (R) of the hand and performed U of the thumb and index finger in 115 patients between six and 19 years of age who were undergoing treatment for scoliosis or limb deformities. Paediatric orthopaedic surgeons, a paediatrician, and a paediatric radiologist were evaluated the blinded images. Those classified images are based on the SMS and the Thumb Ossification Composite Index (TOCI). RESULTS: Intrarater reliability was high for SMS and slightly weaker for TOCI, but still significant. Interrater reliability was clear for R and weaker for U in both staging systems. Ultimately, SMS 3 and 7 achieved the highest percentage of concordance (P) of 71.7% and 66.0%, respectively, when U was performed. Combining the clinically relevant groups of SMS 3&4 and SMS 7&8 also significantly increased peak scores (SMS 3 and 4 P = 76.7%; SMS 7 and 8 P = 79.7%). The probabilities of peak scores were significantly weaker when the TOCI score was examined. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that U can be used effectively especially to measure stages 3 and 4 and stages 7 and 8 of SMS. The U method is easy to use and therefore may offer advantages in clinical practice without the need for radiation exposure.

Nail fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures with or without cement augmentation: A cost-utility analysis in the United States: Cost-utility of cement augmentation.

OBJECTIVES: Recent clinical studies have shown favorable outcomes for cement augmentation for fixation of trochanteric fracture. We assessed the cost-utility of cement augmentation for fixation of closed unstable trochanteric fractures from the US payer's perspective. METHODS: The cost-utility model comprised a decision tree to simulate clinical events over 1 year after the index fixation surgery, and a Markov model to extrapolate clinical events over patients' lifetime, using a cohort of 1,000 patients with demographic and clinical characteristics similar to that of a published randomized controlled trial (age ≥75 years, 83 % female). Model outputs were discounted costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on results. RESULTS: Fixation with augmentation reduced per-patient costs by $754.8 and had similar per-patient QALYs, compared to fixation without augmentation, resulting in an ICER of -$130,765/QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the utility of revision surgery, mortality risk ratio after the second revision surgery, mortality risk ratio after successful index surgery, and mortality rate in the decision tree model. The probability that fixation with augmentation was cost-effective compared with no augmentation was 63.4 %, 58.2 %, and 56.4 %, given a maximum acceptable ceiling ratio of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fixation with cement augmentation was the dominant strategy, driven mainly by reduced costs. These results may support surgeons in evidence-based clinical decision making and may be informative for policy makers regarding coverage and reimbursement.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cement Augmentation Versus No Augmentation for the Fixation of Unstable Trochanteric Fractures.

BACKGROUND: A previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated a trend toward a reduced risk of implant-related revision surgery following fixation with use of a Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) with TRAUMACEM V+ Injectable Bone Cement augmentation versus no augmentation in patients with unstable trochanteric fractures. To determine whether this reduced risk may result in long-term cost savings, the present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TRAUMACEM V+ cement augmentation versus no augmentation for the fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures from the German health-care payer's perspective. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness model comprised 2 stages: a decision tree simulating clinical events, costs, and utilities during the first year after the index procedure and a Markov model extrapolating clinical events, costs, and utilities over the patient's lifetime. Sources of model parameters included the previous RCT, current literature, and administrative claims data. Outcome measures were incremental costs (in 2020 Euros), incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that fixation with cement augmentation was the dominant strategy as it was associated with cost savings (€50.3/patient) and QALY gains (0.01 QALY/patient). Major influential parameters for the ICER were the utility of revision, rates of revision surgery within the first year after fixation surgery, and the costs of augmentation and revision surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that estimates of cost savings were more robust than those of increased QALYs (66.4% versus 52.7% of the simulations). For a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds from €0 to €50,000, the probability of fixation with cement augmentation being cost-effective versus no augmentation remained above 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Fixation with use of cement augmentation dominated fixation with no augmentation for unstable trochanteric fractures, resulting in cost savings and QALY gains. Given the input parameter uncertainties, future analyses are warranted when long-term costs and effectiveness data for cement augmentation are available. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Volumetric and densitometric evaluation of the adrenal glands in patients with primary aldosteronism.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate volumetric and densitometric properties of the adrenal glands in patients with unilateral and bilateral disease in comparison with normal controls. DESIGN: A total of 77 patients (56 males and 21 females) diagnosed with primary aldosteronism (PA) with a mean age of 53 ± 10 years were prospectively enrolled. Unenhanced and contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans were analysed for adrenal volumes and mean densities. These values were compared with normal controls and between PA subtypes. RESULTS: Adrenals containing an aldosterone-producing adenoma (APA, n = 56) had on average higher attenuation values as compared to adrenals with bilateral adrenal hyperplasia (n = 21). Mean adrenal gland volume in PA patients was not significantly different between PA subtypes. In comparison with normal adrenal glands, volumes were significantly higher in PA patients (P < 0·0001) including adrenals contralateral to APAs, which were significantly larger in comparison with controls. CONCLUSION: Independent of subtype differentiation, adrenal volumetry reveals higher adrenal volumes in PA patients in comparison with normal controls. These findings provide indirect evidence for a general adrenal growth dysregulation in the context of PA.

Linear and volumetric evaluation of the adrenal gland--MDCT-based measurements of the adrenals.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to provide normal values of volumetry and linear dimensions of adrenal glands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography scans of 105 patients were evaluated in this retrospective study. Imaging software was used both to measure the adrenal gland volume and to determine linear dimensions and density. For interobserver reliability, determination was repeated by a second reader in 10 patients selected at random. RESULTS: The mean adrenal volume was 4.84 (±1.67) cm³ on the left side and 3.62 (±1.23) cm³ on the right side. The total adrenal volume was mainly influenced by body weight (P < .001) and gender with women having smaller glands on average. The total width of the adrenal gland was 15.80 (±3.05) mm on the right side and 18.96 (±3.37) mm on the left side. There was a significant correlation between volume and linear measurements (P < .001). The mean density of both adrenal glands was 32.66 (±19.64) HU. Overall, interobserver reliability was high for volumetry (left adrenal, r = 0.98; right adrenal, r = 0.90) and low for linear dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Normal data for volumetry and linear dimensions are provided. There is a concordance between volumetric and linear assessment. However, volumetry is more reproducible.