Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty versus Non-Operative Treatment of Three-Part and Four-Part Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly Patient: A Pooled Analysis and Systematic Review.

Background: The treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients is not yet fully elucidated. Of all treatment options, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and non-operative treatment (NOT) appear to provide the best results. Evidence to guide the choice between the two is sparse. Therefore, this review provides an overview of the available evidence on RSA versus NOT. Methods: Studies comparing complex proximal humerus fractures in patients aged >65 years treated either with RSA or NOT were included for systematic review and direct comparison via pooled analysis of patient-rated outcome and range of motion. Indirect comparison of case series and non-comparative studies on either treatment was performed separately. Results: Three comparative studies including 77 patients treated with RSA and 81 treated non-operatively were analysed. The RSA group scored better for both the Constant-Murley score (mean difference 6 points) and DASH score (mean difference 8 points). No differences were detected in ASES, PENN score, pain scores, or range of motion between treatment groups. The most common complications for RSA were infection (3%), nerve injury (2%), and dislocation (2%). Reoperation was required in 5%. In the NOT group, common complications included malunion (42%), osteonecrosis (25%), and non-union (3%); no reoperation was required. Patient satisfaction was equal in both groups. Conclusions: The functional outcomes and range of motion after RSA seemed satisfactory and potentially superior to NOT in elderly patients. Patient satisfaction was comparable despite a high malunion and osteonecrosis rate in the non-operative treatment group, which did not require re-interventions.

Let's Agree to Disagree on Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Distal Radius Fractures in Older People: Protocol for a Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures are the most frequently encountered fractures in Western societies, typically affecting patients aged 50 years and older. Although this is a common injury, the best treatment for these fractures in older patients is still under debate. OBJECTIVE: This prospective study aims to compare the outcome of operatively and nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures in the older population. Only patients with distal radius fractures for which equipoise regarding the optimal treatment exists will be included. METHODS: This prospective international multicenter observational cohort study will be designed as a natural experiment. Natural experiments are observational studies in which treatment allocation is determined by factors outside the control of the investigators but also (largely) independent of patient characteristics. Patients aged 65 years and older with an acute distal radius fracture will be considered for inclusion. Treatment allocation (operative vs nonoperative) will be based on the local preferences of the treating hospital either in Switzerland or the Netherlands. Hence, the process governing treatment allocation resembles that of randomization. Patients will be identified after treatment has been initiated. Based on the radiographs and baseline information of the patient, an expert panel of 6 certified trauma surgeons from 2 regions will provide their treatment recommendation. Only patients for whom the experts disagree on treatment recommendations will ultimately be included in the study (ie, for whom there is a clinical equipoise). For these patients, both operative and nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures are viable, and treatment choice is predominantly determined by personal or local preference. The primary outcome will be the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, the EQ questionnaire, pain, the living situation, range of motion, complications, and radiological outcomes. By including outcomes such as living situation and the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, which are not relevant for younger cohorts, valuable information to tailor treatment to the needs of the older population can be gained. According to the sample size collection, which was based on the minimal important clinical difference of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, 92 patients will have to be included, with at least 46 patients in each treatment group. RESULTS: Enrollment began in July 2023 and is expected to continue until summer 2024. The final follow-up will be 2 years after the last patient is included. CONCLUSIONS: Although many trials on this topic have previously been published, there remains an ongoing debate regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures in older patients. This observational study, which will use a fairly new methodological study design, will provide further information on treatment outcomes for older patients with distal radius fractures for which to date equipoise exists regarding the optimal treatment. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52917.

Nonoperative treatment of multiple rib fractures, the results to beat: International multicenter prospective cohort study among 845 patients.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment (i.e. nonoperative or operative) for patients with multiple rib fractures remains debated. Studies that compare treatments are rationalized by the alleged poor outcomes of nonoperative treatment. METHODS: The aim of this prospective international multicenter cohort study (between January 2018 and March 2021) with one-year follow-up, was to report contemporary outcomes of nonoperatively treated patients with multiple rib fractures. Including 845 patients with three or more rib fractures. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (HLOS), (pulmonary) complications, and quality of life. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.7 ± 17.0 years, median Injury Severity Score was 17 (13-22) and the median number of rib fractures was 6 (4-8). In-hospital mortality rate was 1.5% (n = 13), 112 (13.3%) patients had pneumonia and four (0.5%) patients developed a symptomatic non-union. The median HLOS was 7 (4-13) days, and median intensive care unit length of stay was 2 (1-5) days. Mean EQ-5D-5L index value was 0.83 ± 0.18 one year after trauma. Polytrauma patients had a median HLOS of 10 (6-18) days, a pneumonia rate of 17.6% (n = 77) and mortality rate of 1.7% (n = 7). Elderly patients (≥65 years) had a median HLOS of 9 (5-15) days, a pneumonia rate of 19.7% (n = 57) and mortality rate of 4.1% (n = 12). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nonoperative treatment of patients with multiple rib fractures shows low mortality and morbidity rate and good quality of life after one year. Future studies evaluating the benefit of operative stabilisation should use contemporary outcomes to establish the therapeutic margin of rib fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic/Care Management.

[Treatment of traumatic rib fractures]. / Behandeling van traumatische ribfracturen.

Patients with rib fractures are a heterogenous group of patients who are treated by general practitioners as well as by specialized trauma surgeons. We present three patients with rib fractures with different degrees of thoracic trauma and therefore treatments differ significantly. The cornerstone in the treatment of rib fractures remains attaining adequate analgesia and breathing exercises. The last decade, there has been an increase in the utilization of rib fixation, however, precise indications remain unknown. It has proven effective in patients with flail chest on mechanical ventilation in whom it decrease intensive care and hospital length and reduces mortality. In case of prolonged (> 3 months) pain, dyspnea or a clicking sensation one could think of a nonunion of the rib fracture. Rib fixation can relieve these complaints in about 60% of the patients, however due to a high implant irritation rate and secondary operation to remove the osteosynthesis is common.

In patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, does fracture fixation of the clavicle improve clinical outcomes? A multicenter prospective cohort study of 232 patients.

BACKGROUND: Clavicle and rib fractures are often sustained concomitantly. The combination of injuries may result in decreased stability of the chest wall, making these patients prone to (respiratory) complications and prolonged hospitalization. This study aimed to assess whether adding chest wall stability by performing clavicle fixation improves clinical outcomes in patients with concurrent clavicle and rib fractures. METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was performed including all adult patients admitted between January 2018 and March 2021 with concurrent ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures. Patients treated operatively versus nonoperatively for their clavicle fracture were matched using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (HLOS). Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, pain, complications, and quality of life at 6 weeks and 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 232 patients with concomitant ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures were included. Fifty-two patients (22%) underwent operative treatment of which 39 could be adequately matched to 39 nonoperatively treated patients. No association was observed between clavicle plate fixation and HLOS (mean difference, 2.3 days; 95% confidence interval, -2.1 to 6.8; p = 0.301) or any secondary endpoint. Eight of the 180 nonoperatively treated patients (4%) had a symptomatic nonunion, for which 5 underwent secondary clavicle fixation. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that, in patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, plate fixation of the clavicle reduces HLOS, pain, or (pulmonary) complications, nor that it improves quality of life. STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Quality of life and clinical outcomes of operatively treated patients with flail chest injuries: A multicentre prospective cohort study.

Introduction: Most studies about rib fractures focus on mortality and morbidity. Literature is scarce on long term and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Therefore, we report QoL and long-term outcomes after rib fixation in flail chest patients. Methods: A prospective cohort study of clinical flail chest patients admitted to six level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands and Switzerland between January 2018 and March 2021. Outcomes included in-hospital outcomes and long-term outcomes, such as QoL measurements 12 months after hospitalization using the EuroQoL five dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Results: Sixty-one operatively treated flail chest patients were included. Median hospital length of stay was 15 days and intensive care length of stay was 8 days. Sixteen (26%) patients developed pneumonia and two (3%) died. One year after hospitalization the mean EQ5D score was 0.78. Complication rates were low and included hemothorax (6%) pleural effusion (5%) and two revisions of the implant (3%). Implant related irritation was commonly reported by patients (n = 15, 25%). Conclusions: Rib fixation for flail chest injuries can be considered a safe procedure and with low mortality rates. Future studies should focus on quality of life rather than solely short-term outcomes.Trial registration: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017 and the Swiss Ethics Committees Registration Number 2019-00668.

Primary Closure or Secondary Wound Healing of Pin Sites After External Fixator Removal: A Single-Center Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this single-center randomized controlled trial was to compare primary wound closure using a suture with secondary wound healing of pin sites after removal of temporary external fixation. METHODS: This noninferiority trial included all patients who were treated with a temporary external fixator on an upper or lower extremity at 1 institution. The primary outcome was pin-site infection. Secondary outcomes were measured at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks and included all other complications, time to pin-site wound healing (in weeks), the most satisfactory pin site as rated by the patient, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The most proximal pin site was randomly allocated (1:1) to either primary closure or secondary wound healing, and the other pin sites were treated alternately. RESULTS: Seventy patients, providing 241 pin sites, were included between January 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020. A total of 123 pin sites were treated with primary closure and 118, with secondary wound healing. The median age was 55 years (interquartile range, 46 to 67 years), 44% were male, and the median duration of the external fixation was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 8 days). There were no pin-site infections in either group. Wound healing was significantly faster in the primary closure group (median of 2 versus 6 weeks, p = 0.013). The VSS and patient satisfaction showed no differences between groups. There was 1 case of fracture-related infection not related to any pin site. CONCLUSIONS: Primary closure of temporary external fixator pin sites did not result in higher infection rates compared with secondary wound healing, and pin sites healed significantly faster after primary closure. Primary closure should therefore be considered in patients treated with a temporary external fixator. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Rib fractures in the elderly population: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple rib fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in elderly patients. There is growing interest in surgical stabilization in this subgroup of patients. This systematic review compares conservative treatment to surgical fixation in elderly patients (older than 60 years) with multiple rib fractures. The primary outcome is mortality. Secondary outcomes include hospital and intensive care length of stay (HLOS and ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV) and pneumonia rates. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for comparative studies reporting on conservative versus operative treatment for rib fractures in patients older than 60 years. Both observational studies and randomised clinical trials were considered. RESULTS: Five observational studies (n = 2583) were included. Mortality was lower in operatively treated patients compared to conservative treatment (4% vs. 8%). Pneumonia rate and DMV were similar (5/6% and 5.8/6.5 days) for either treatment modality. Overall ILOS and HLOS of stay were longer in operatively treated patients (6.5 ILOS and 12.7 HLOS vs. 2.7 ILOS and 6.5 ILOS). There were only minimal reports on perioperative complications. Notably, the median number of rib fractures (8.4 vs. 5) and the percentage of flail chest were higher in operatively treated patients (47% vs. 39%). CONCLUSION: It remains unknown to what extent conservative and operative treatment contribute individually to reducing morbidity and mortality in the elderly with multiple rib fractures. To date, the quality of evidence is rather low, thus well-performed comparative observational studies or randomised controlled trials considering all confounders are needed to determine whether operative treatment can improve a patient's outcome.

Non-operative vs. operative treatment for multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. RESULTS: In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8-9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI - 0.2-0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. CONCLUSIONS: We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017.

Let's Agree to Disagree on Operative versus Nonoperative (LADON) treatment for proximal humerus fractures: Study protocol for an international multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The proximal humerus fracture is a common injury, but the optimal management is much debated. The decision for operative or nonoperative treatment is strongly influenced by patient specific factors, regional and cultural differences and the preference of the patient and treating surgeon. The aim of this study is to compare operative and nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fractures for those patients for whom there is disagreement about optimal management. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes an international multicenter prospective cohort study, in which all patients of 18 years and older presenting within three weeks after injury with a radiographically diagnosed displaced proximal humerus fracture can be included. Based on patient characteristics and radiographic images several clinical experts advise on the preferred treatment option. In case of disagreement among the experts, the patient can be included in the study. The actual treatment that will be delivered is at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary outcome is the QuickDash score at 12 months. Propensity score matching will be used to control for potential confounding of the relation between treatment modality and QuickDash scores. DISCUSSION: The LADON study is an international multicenter prospective cohort study with a relatively new methodological study design. This study is a "natural experiment" meaning patients receive standard local treatment and surgeons perform standard local procedures, therefore high participation rates of patients and surgeons are expected. Patients are only included after expert panel evaluation, when there is proven disagreement between experts, which makes this a unique study design. Through this inclusion process, we create two comparable groups whom received different treatments and where expert disagree about the already initiated treatment. Since we are zooming in on this particular patient group, confounding will be largely mitigated. Internationally the treatment of proximal humerus fractures are still much debated and differs much per country and hospital. This observational study with a natural experiment design will create insight into which treatment modality is to be preferred for patients in whom there is disagreement about the optimal treatment strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in Netherlands trial register NL9357 and Swiss trial register CH 2020-00961; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Persistent Inflammation, Immunosuppression and Catabolism Syndrome (PICS) after Polytrauma: A Rare Syndrome with Major Consequences.

Nowadays, more trauma patients develop chronic critical illness (CCI), a state characterized by prolonged intensive care. Some of these CCI patients have disproportional difficulties to recover and suffer from recurrent infections, a syndrome described as the persistent inflammation, immunosuppression and catabolism syndrome (PICS). A total of 78 trauma patients with an ICU stay of ≥14 days (CCI patients) between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Within this group, PICS patients were identified through two ways: (1) their clinical course (≥3 infectious complications) and (2) by laboratory markers suggested in the literature (C-reactive protein (CRP) and lymphocytes), both in combination with evidence of increased catabolism. The incidence of PICS was 4.7 per 1000 multitrauma patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the laboratory markers was 44% and 73%, respectively. PICS patients had a longer hospital stay (median 83 vs. 40, p < 0.001) and required significantly more surgical interventions (median 13 vs. 3, p = 0.003) than other CCI patients. Thirteen PICS patients developed sepsis (72%) and 12 (67%) were readmitted at least once due to an infection. In conclusion, patients who develop PICS experience recurrent infectious complications that lead to prolonged hospitalization, many surgical procedures and frequent readmissions. Therefore, PICS forms a substantial burden on the patient and the hospital, despite its low incidence.