Search

Background: Proximal full-thickness free hamstring tendon injury (ie, tendon avulsion or rupture) is a severe injury. Treatment decision making relies on clinical factors and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) variables; it specifically relies on which tendons are injured as well as the extent of tendon retraction. According to a worldwide evaluation of current practice, discontinuity of both proximal tendons and retraction of >2 cm are used as surgical indications. However, both the diagnosis and the use of MRI variables in decision making may be fraught with uncertainty in clinical practice. A reliable standardized MRI assessment is required. Purpose: To propose an MRI assessment for acute proximal full-thickness free hamstring tendon injury and to evaluate its interater reliability. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: We included 40 MRI scans of patients with acute (≤4 weeks of injury) proximal full-thickness free hamstring tendon injury. Three musculoskeletal radiologists assessed proximal full-thickness free hamstring tendon discontinuity using the novel “dropped ice cream sign” and tendon retraction (in mm). Quantification of tendon retraction (in mm) was performed using 2 different methods: (1) a direct (ie, shortest distance between the center of the hamstring origin and the tendon stump) method and (2) a combined craniocaudal/mediolateral measurement method. Absolute and relative interrater reliability were calculated. Results: We found an almost perfect interrater agreement (kappa = 0.87) for assessment of full-thickness tendon discontinuity using the dropped ice cream sign. Interrater agreement for the direct and craniocaudal retraction measurements was good for both the conjoint (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.88 and 0.83) and the semimembranosus tendons (ICC, 0.81 and 0.79). The mediolateral retraction measurement yielded only moderate to poor reliability for the conjoint (ICC, 0.53) and semimembranosus tendons (ICC, 0.41). Conclusion: The standardized MRI assessment to identify proximal hamstring tendon discontinuity and quantify tendon retraction is reliable. We recommend using the novel dropped ice cream sign and the direct retraction measurement in clinical practice and research.

ObjectiveTo prospectively evaluate 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes after operative and non-operative treatment of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions.MethodsPatients with an MRI-confirmed proximal hamstring tendon avulsion were included. Operative or non-operative treatment was selected by a shared decision-making process. The primary outcome was the Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) score. Secondary outcome scores were Proximal Hamstring Injury Questionnaire, EQ-5D-3L, Tegner Activity Scale, return to sports, hamstring flexibility, isometric hamstring strength and MRI findings including proximal continuity.ResultsTwenty-six operative and 33 non-operative patients with a median age of 51 (IQR: 37–57) and 49 (IQR: 45–56) years were included. Median time between injury and initial visit was 12 (IQR 6–19) days for operative and 21 (IQR 12–48) days for non-operative patients (p=0.004). Baseline PHAT scores were significantly lower in the operative group (32±16 vs 45±17, p=0.003). There was no difference in mean PHAT score between groups at 1 year follow-up (80±19 vs 80±17, p=0.97). Mean PHAT score improved by 47 (95% CI 39 to 55, pConclusionIn a shared decision-making model of care, both operative and non-operative treatment of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions resulted in comparable clinical outcome at 1-year follow-up. Operative patients had lower pretreatment PHAT scores but improved substantially to reach comparable PHAT scores as non-operative patients. We recommend using this shared decision model of care until evidence-based indications in favour of either treatment option are available from high-level clinical trials.

Background: Responsiveness and the minimal important change (MIC) are important measurement properties to evaluate treatment effects and to interpret clinical trial results. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring patient-reported knee-specific symptoms, functioning, and sports activities in a population with meniscal tears. However, evidence on responsiveness is of limited methodological quality, and the MIC has not yet been established for patients with symptomatic meniscal tears. Purpose: To evaluate the responsiveness and determine the MIC of the IKDC for patients with meniscal tears. Study Design: Cohort study (design); Level of evidence 2. Methods: This study was part of the ESCAPE trial: a noninferiority multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy with physical therapy. Patients aged 45 to 70 years who were treated for a meniscal tear by arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or physical therapy completed the IKDC and 3 other questionnaires (RAND 36-Item Health Survey, EuroQol-5D-5L, and visual analog scales for pain) at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing predefined hypotheses about the relation of the change in IKDC with regard to the change in the other self-reported outcomes. An external anchor question was used to distinguish patients reporting improvement versus no change in daily functioning. The MIC was determined by the optimal cutoff point in the receiver operating characteristic curve, which quantifies the IKDC score that best discriminated between patients with and without improvement in daily function. Results: Data from all 298 patients who completed baseline and 6-month follow-up questionnaires were analyzed. Responsiveness of the IKDC was confirmed in 7 of 10 predefined hypotheses about the change in IKDC score with regard to other patient-reported outcome measures. One hypothesis differed in the expected direction, while 2 hypotheses failed to meet the expected magnitude by 0.02 and 0.01 points. An MIC of 10.9 points was calculated for the IKDC of middle-aged and older patients with meniscal tears. Conclusion: This study showed that the IKDC is responsive to change among patients aged 45 to 70 years with meniscal tears, with an MIC of 10.9 points. This strengthens the value of the IKDC in quantifying treatment effects in this population.

Background: It is unknown whether the treatment effects of partial meniscectomy and physical therapy differ when focusing on activities most valued by patients with degenerative meniscal tears. Purpose: To compare partial meniscectomy with physical therapy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear, focusing on patients’ most important functional limitations as the outcome. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: This study is part of the Cost-effectiveness of Early Surgery versus Conservative Treatment with Optional Delayed Meniscectomy for Patients over 45 years with non-obstructive meniscal tears (ESCAPE) trial, a multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 9 orthopaedic hospital departments in the Netherlands. The ESCAPE trial included 321 patients aged between 45 and 70 years with a symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging–confirmed meniscal tear. Exclusion criteria were severe osteoarthritis, body mass index >35 kg/m2, locking of the knee, and prior knee surgery or knee instability due to an anterior or posterior cruciate ligament rupture. This study compared partial meniscectomy with physical therapy consisting of a supervised incremental exercise protocol of 16 sessions over 8 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Dutch-language equivalent of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), a secondary outcome measure of the ESCAPE trial. We used crude and adjusted linear mixed-model analyses to reveal the between-group differences over 24 months. We calculated the minimal important change for the PSFS using an anchor-based method. Results: After 24 months, 286 patients completed the follow-up. The partial meniscectomy group (n = 139) improved on the PSFS by a mean of 4.8 ± 2.6 points (from 6.8 ± 1.9 to 2.0 ± 2.2), and the physical therapy group (n = 147) improved by a mean of 4.0 ± 3.1 points (from 6.7 ± 2.0 to 2.7 ± 2.5). The crude overall between-group difference showed a –0.6-point difference (95% CI, –1.0 to –0.2; P = .004) in favor of the partial meniscectomy group. This improvement was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful, as the calculated minimal important change was 2.5 points on an 11-point scale. Conclusion: Both interventions were associated with a clinically meaningful improvement regarding patients’ most important functional limitations. Although partial meniscectomy was associated with a statistically larger improvement at some follow-up time points, the difference compared with physical therapy was small and clinically not meaningful at any follow-up time point. Registration: NCT01850719 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) and NTR3908 (the Netherlands Trial Register).

Introduction There is no consensus on how pelvic X-rays should be ordered selectively in blunt trauma patients which may save time, reduce radiation exposure and costs. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the need for routine pelvic X-rays in awake, respiratory and hemodynamically (HD) stable blunt trauma patients without signs of pelvic fracture. Criteria to identify patients who could safely forgo pelvic X-ray were evaluated. Methods A literature search was performed for prospective comparative cohort studies. Inclusion criteria were: blunt force trauma, hemodynamically and respiratory stable and awake patients, physical examination (PE) for pelvic fractures was adequately described, and the reliability of negative PE findings could be evaluated. Primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of PE for all and for clinically relevant pelvic fractures. Additionally sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. Results Ten studies were included; yielding a total of 11,423 patients. The NPV of PE for all pelvic fractures ranged from 0.96 to 1.00 with a median of 0.996. Combining studies, total NPV was 0.991. For clinically relevant fractures, the NPV of PE ranged from 0.996 to 1.00 with a median of 1.00. In patients with negative findings during PE, 0.9% had fractures, and 0.1% had clinically relevant fractures, none requiring surgical management. Conclusions In awake, hemodynamically and respiratory stable blunt trauma patients, PE could identify those patients who could safely forgo pelvic X-ray. Selective ordering of pelvic X-ray may lead to a decrease in patient work-up time, lower radiation exposure, and reduce costs. A decision making flow chart is proposed..

A recent thought-provoking editorial1 suggested that the reported annual increase in hamstring injuries could in fact be associated with increased awareness rather than an actual increase in injury incidence. We share the author’s optimism on the improving knowledge on (musculotendinous) hamstring injuries, yet we still have concerns regarding awareness of its evil twin—the full-thickness hamstring tendon avulsion. In this letter, we argue that there is a ‘blind spot’ when it comes to diagnosing these serious injuries. Hamstring tendon avulsions mostly affect the proximal tendons, and are typically sustained during sports or slip and fall accidents involving a combination of forceful hip flexion and knee extension.2 Our ongoing prospective study raised concerns that medical professionals may be disproportionally affected by these injuries. We noticed that 20% (95% CI 9% to 37%) of included patients with a full-thickness proximal hamstring tendon avulsion were medical doctors and physiotherapists. In the Netherlands, medical doctors and physiotherapists make up approximately 0.8% of the adult population.3 4 This percentage is in sharp contrast with the significantly higher proportion of those medical professionals that we encountered in our cohort of patients with a full-thickness proximal hamstring tendon avulsion. Interestingly, we observed that substantial diagnostic delay (ie, time between injury and MRI-confirmed diagnosis) …

Background In the past several years, an increase in open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for intra-articular distal radius fractures has been observed. This technique leads to a quicker recovery of function compared to non-operative treatment. However, some patients continue to have a painful and stiff wrist postoperatively. Arthroscopically assisted removal of intra-articular fracture haematoma and debris may improve the functional outcomes following operative treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures. The purpose of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the difference in functional outcome, assessed with the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score, after ORIF with and without an additional wrist arthroscopy in adult patients with displaced complete articular distal radius fractures. Methods In this multicentre trial, adult patients with a displaced complete articular distal radius fracture are randomised between ORIF with an additional wrist arthroscopy to remove fracture haematoma and debris (intervention group) and conventional fluoroscopic-assisted ORIF (control group). The primary outcome is functional outcome assessed with the PRWE score after three months. Secondary outcomes are wrist function assessed with the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, postoperative pain, range of motion, grip strength, complications and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, in the intervention group, the quality of reduction, associated ligamentous injuries and cartilage damage will be assessed. A total of 50 patients will be included in this study. Discussion Although ORIF of intra-articular distal radius fractures leads to a quicker resume of function compared to non-operative treatment, some patients continue to have a painful and stiff wrist postoperatively. We hypothesise that, due to the removal of fracture haematoma and debris by an additional arthroscopy, functional outcomes will be better compared to the non-arthroscopically treated group. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02660515. Registered on 13 January 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2409-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Loss of contact between radial head fracture fragments is strongly associated with other elbow or forearm injuries. If this finding has adequate interobserver reliability, it could help examiners identify and treat associated ligament injuries and fractures (eg, forearm interosseous ligament injury or elbow dislocation). (1) What is the interobserver agreement on radiographic loss of contact between radial head fracture fragments? (2) Are there factors associated with the observer such as location of practice or subspecialization that increase interobserver reliability? Fully trained practicing orthopaedic and trauma surgeons from around the world evaluated 27 anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of radial head fractures on a web-based platform for the following characteristics: (1) loss of contact between at least one radial head fracture fragment and the remaining radial head and neck; (2) a gap between fragments of 2 mm or greater; (3) anticipated fracture instability (mobility) on operative exposure; (4) anticipated associated ligament injuries; and (5) recommendation for treatment. Agreement among observers was measured using the multirater kappa measure. Kappas for various observer characteristics were compared using 95% confidence intervals. The overall interobserver agreement was moderate (range, 0.49-0.55) for each question except associated ligament injury, which was fair (0.33). Shoulder and elbow surgeons had substantial agreement (range, 0.51-0.61) in many areas, but kappas were generally in the moderate range (0.41-0.59) based on number of years in practice, radial head fractures treated per year, and trainee supervision. Radiographic signs of radial head fracture instability such as loss of contact have moderate reliability. This characteristic seems clinically useful, because loss of contact between at least one radial head fracture fragment and the remaining radial head and neck is strongly associated with associated ligament injury or other fractures. Level III, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Item does not contain fulltext PURPOSE: Surgical costs are under scrutiny and surgeons are being held increasingly responsible for cost containment. In some instances, implants are the largest component of total procedure cost, yet previous studies reveal that surgeons' knowledge of implant prices is poor. Our study aims to (1) understand drivers behind implant selection and (2) assess whether educating surgeons about implant costs affects implant selection. METHODS: We surveyed 226 orthopedic surgeons across 6 continents. The survey presented 8 clinical cases of upper extremity fractures with history, radiographs, and implant options. Surgeons were randomized to receive either a version with each implant's average selling price ("price-aware" group), or a version without prices ("price-naive" group). Surgeons selected a surgical implant and ranked factors affecting implant choice. Descriptive statistics and univariate, multivariable, and subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: For cases offering implants within the same class (eg, volar locking plates), price-awareness reduced implant cost by 9% to 11%. When offered different models of distal radius volar locking plates, 25% of price-naive surgeons selected the most expensive plate compared with only 7% of price-aware surgeons. For cases offering different classes of implants (eg, plate vs external fixator), there was no difference in implant choice between price-aware and price-naive surgeons. Familiarity with the implant was the most common reason for choosing an implant in both groups (35% vs 46%). Price-aware surgeons were more likely to rank cost as a factor (29% vs 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Price awareness significantly influences surgeons' choice of a specific model within the same implant class. Merely including prices with a list of implants leads surgeons to select less expensive implants. This implies that an untapped opportunity exists to reduce surgical expenditures simply by enhancing surgeons' cost awareness. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/Decision Analyses I.

Background Trauma systems have data registries in order to describe and evaluate (the quality of) trauma care. If results between centres and countries (benchmarking) are to be compared, data has to be accurate, reliable and complete. All trauma registries deal with incompleteness. A contributor to incompleteness of the data is failure to include patients that fulfil the criteria; the so-called missing patients. The aim of this study is to assess the number of missing patients in our regional trauma registry and to identify predictors for being missing from the trauma registry. Methods A random sample was taken. Four calendar weeks from 2012 were selected and medical files of all consecutive presentations to the emergency department or trauma room during those weeks were studied. Patients who were already correctly included in the trauma registry were assigned to the ‘included’ group and patients who should have been but were not to the ‘missing’ group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for being missed from the trauma registry. Results Of a total of 338 patients, 50 (15%) were identified as missing. Characteristics of the missing patients did not differ substantially from the included patients. Transfer to another hospital after initial assessment and presentation in a Level 3 hospital compared to a Level 1 hospital were independent predictors for being missed from the trauma registry, with an adjusted odds ratio of 5.86 (95% CI: 2.08–16.52) and 6.64 (95% CI: 1.86–23.78), respectively. Conclusions Overall, 15% of the patients who met the inclusion criteria of the trauma registry were not included in the registry. Special attention should be paid to patients who are transferred to other hospitals in the network after initial assessment and to registration in Level 3 hospitals.

Purpose To address the factors that surgeons use to decide between 2 options for treatment when the evidence is inconclusive. Methods We tested the null hypothesis that the factors surgeons use do not vary by training, demographics, and practice. A total of 337 surgeons rated the importance of 7 factors when deciding between treatment and following the natural history of the disease and 12 factors when deciding between 2 operative treatments using a 5-point Likert scale between "very important" and "very unimportant." Results According to the percentages of statements rated very important or somewhat important, the most popular factors influencing recommendations when evidence is inconclusive between treatment and following the natural course of the illness were "works in my hands," "familiarity with the treatment," and "what my mentor taught me." The most important factors when evidence shows no difference between 2 surgeries were "fewer complications," "quicker recovery," "burns fewer bridges," "works in my hands" and "familiarity with the procedure." Europeans rated "works in my hands" and "cheapest/most resourceful" of significantly greater importance and "what others are doing," "highest reimbursement," and "shorter procedure" of significantly lower importance than surgeons in the United States. Observers with fewer than 10 years in independent practice rated "what my mentor taught me," "what others are doing" and "highest reimbursement" of significantly lower importance compared to observers with 10 or more years in independent practice. Conclusions Surgeons deciding between 2 treatment options, when the evidence is inconclusive, fall back to factors that relate to their perspective and reflect their culture and circumstances, more so than factors related to the patient's perspective, although this may be different for younger surgeons. Clinical relevance Hand surgeons might benefit from consensus fallback preferences when evidence is inconclusive. It is possible that falling back to personal comfort makes us vulnerable to unhelpful commercial and societal influences.