RESUMO
Objectives: Many orbital fracture patients are transferred to tertiary care centers for immediate ophthalmology consultation, though few require urgent ophthalmic evaluation or intervention. This overutilizes limited resources and overburdens patients and the health care system with travel and emergency department (ED) expenses. A simple, easy-to-use, clinical decision-making tool is needed to aid local EDs and triage services in effectively identifying orbital fracture patients who need urgent ophthalmic evaluation. Design: Single center, retrospective cohort study. Subjects: Orbital fracture patients aged ≥ 18 years who presented to the study institution's emergency department and received an ophthalmology consultation. Methods: Ocular injuries that required close monitoring or an intervention within the first few hours after presentation were termed urgent. Two Hawkeye Orbital Fracture Prioritization and Evaluation (HOPE) algorithms were developed to identify orbital fracture patients needing urgent evaluation; including 1 algorithm incorporating computerized tomography (CT) scans interpreted by ophthalmology (HOPE+CT). Algorithms were compared with 3 previously published protocols: the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTH), the South Texas Orbital Fracture Protocol (STOP), and Massachusetts Eye and Ear (MEE) algorithms. Main Outcome Measures: Correct triage of patients with orbital fractures who have urgent ocular or orbital conditions. Results: In the study institution's ED, 134 adult patients (145 orbits) were seen with orbital fractures in 2019. Eighteen (13.4%) had ocular or orbital conditions categorized as urgent. The HOPE tool resulted in 100% sensitivity and 78.4% specificity. The HOPE+CT tool resulted in 100.0% sensitivity and 94.0% specificity. The UTH algorithm was 91.7% sensitive and 76.5% specific. South Texas Orbital Fracture Protocol and MEE were both 100% sensitive but only 35.1% and 32.8% specific, respectively. Conclusions: The HOPE and HOPE+CT algorithms were superior or equal to the UTH, STOP, and MEE algorithms in terms of specificity while detecting all urgent cases. Implementation of a triage protocol that uses the HOPE or HOPE+CT algorithms could improve resource utilization and reduce health care costs through identification of orbital fracture patients needing urgent evaluation. An online tool that deploys the HOPE+CT algorithm in a user-friendly interface has been developed and is undergoing prospective validation before public dissemination. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
RESUMO
Background: Orthopaedic surgeons debate the timing of and necessity for surgical intervention when treating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (MCFs). This systematic review evaluates the available literature regarding functional outcomes, complication rates, nonunion, and reoperation rates between patients undergoing early versus delayed surgical management of MCFs. Methods: Search strategies were applied in PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), Sport Discus (EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley). Following an initial screening and full-text review, demographic and study outcome data was extracted for comparison between the early fixation and delayed fixation studies. Results: Twenty-one studies were identified for inclusion. This resulted in 1158 patients in the early group and 44 in the delayed. Demographics were similar between groups except for a higher percentage of males in the early group (81.6% vs. 61.4%) and longer time to surgery in the delayed group (4.6 days vs. 14.5 months). Disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand scores (3.6 vs. 13.0) and Constant-Murley scores (94.0 vs. 86.0) were better in the early group. Percentages of initial surgeries resulting in complication (33.8% vs. 63.6%), nonunion (1.2% vs. 11.4%), and nonroutine reoperation (15.8% vs. 34.1%) were higher in the delayed group. Conclusion: Outcomes of nonunion, reoperation, complications, DASH scores, and CM scores favor early surgery over delayed surgery for MCFs. However, given the small cohort of delayed patients who still achieved moderate outcomes, we recommend a shared decision-making style for treatment recommendations regarding individual patients with MCFs. Level of Evidence: II.
