Search

Background: Multiple randomized trials have showed equivalent outcomes and improved patient/family satisfaction using a removable brace to treat pediatric distal radius buckle fractures (DRBF). We tested the hypothesis that we could use quality improvement (QI) methodology to increase the proportion of patients with DRBF treated with removable braces at 2 tertiary care orthopaedic clinics from a baseline of 34.8% to 80%., Methods: Clinic billing records were reviewed monthly to determine treatment (brace vs. cast) of DRBF and tracked using control charts (p-chart). Balance measures including correct application of the diagnostic criteria and algorithm were monitored. Process measures including the number of follow-up visits, radiographs obtained, and total cost of treatment were collected. Baseline data were obtained over a 3-month period, followed by a 12-month period of interventions using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles targeting both individuals and groups of providers., Results: The proportion of DRBF treated in a brace increased from a combined baseline of 34.8% to a combined 84% at the end of the study period. Following intervention, 83% (15/18) of providers began using braces for a majority of patients (defined as >67%), with only 1 provider continuing to use casts 100% of the time. Patient preference was cited as the most common reason for use of cast treatment. There was a significant decrease in the number of radiographs obtained at 1 of 2 institutions. The charges for brace treatment averaged $630 less per patient than for cast treatment, leading to an estimated medical-cost savings of $205,000 following intervention., Conclusions: Implementation of brace treatment for pediatric DRBF using QI methodology resulted in a shift toward brace treatment in the majority of patients, leading to substantial medical and nonmedical cost savings. Although patient preference was cited as the most common reason for persistent cast treatment, the data show the use of cast treatment to be more dependent upon individual provider preference., Level of Evidence: Level II-therapeutic.

Study Objective: Fractures in children may not be visible in the result of initial radiography, and undertreatment and overtreatment of such fractures routinely occur. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential cost of implementing limited magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at initial encounter, when radiographs are unrevealing., Methods: This was a retrospective review of 204 emergency department pediatric patients presenting between January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2006 with appendicular trauma, with initially negative radiographic result and follow-up. Emergency department treatment categorization of (1) no treatment, (2) ACE wrap, (3) brace, (4) splint, or (5) casting was evaluated. Final determination of presence or absence of fracture was based on follow-up. Patients with fractures were considered undertreated when they received categories 1 to 3 care; patients without fractures were considered overtreated when they received categories 4 and 5 care. The percentage of patients undertreated or overtreated and direct and total costs were determined and analyzed in conjunction with the cost of a limited MRI at initial encounter. Total costs include direct and indirect costs (lost wages for each day off work for the parent). Cost estimates assume patients determined to be without fractures at follow-up will not return for follow-up clinical care or obtain additional imaging after MRI at initial encounter., Results: Twenty-eight (13.7%) of the 204 patients had fractures at follow-up. Fifty one percent of patients without fractures were overtreated; 29% with fractures were undertreated. Mean direct cost for all patients and cost estimation with limited MRI protocol were $843.81 and $891.79, respectively (P = 0.365). However, mean total cost for all patients and cost estimation with limited MRI protocol was $1059.49 and $929.10, respectively (P = 0.02)., Conclusions: Based on clinical grounds and initially negative radiographic results, slightly more than half of patients without fractures can be overtreated, and nearly one third of patients with fractures can be undertreated. Instituting a protocol that includes limited trauma MRI lowers the total cost of care without increasing direct cost, and appropriate care may be instituted at the outset.

Study Design: Multicentric, randomized, and controlled study of clinical evaluation of medical device in subacute low back pain., Objective: To evaluate the effects of an elastic lumbar belt on functional capacity, pain intensity in low back pain treatment, and the benefice on medical cost., Summary of Background Data: There is limited evidence of efficiency of lumbar supports for treatment of low back pain. There is also a lack of the methodology in the studies reported on the efficiency of this device., Methods: This study is randomized, multicentric, and controlled with 2 groups: a patient group treated with a lumbar belt (BWG) and a control group (CG). The main criteria of clinical evaluation were the physical restoration assessed with the EIFEL scale, the pain assessed by a visual analogic scale, the main economical criteria was the overall cost of associated medical treatments., Results: One hundred ninety-seven patients have participated. The results show a higher decrease in EIFEL score in BWG than CG between days 0 and 90 (7.6 +/- 4.4 vs. de 6.1 +/- 4.7;P = 0.023). Respectively significant reduction in visual analogic scale was also noticed (41.5 +/- 21.4 vs. 32.0 +/- 20; P = 0.002). Pharmacologic consumption decreased at D90 (the proportion of patients who did not take any medication in BWG is 60.8% vs. 40% in CG;P = 0.029)., Conclusion: Lumbar belt wearing is consequent in subacute low back pain to improve significantly the functional status, the pain level, and the pharmacologic consumption. This study may be useful to underline the interest of lumbar support as a complementary and nonpharmacologic treatment beside the classic medication use in low back pain treatment.