HUMeral shaft fractures: measuring recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment (HUMMER): a multicenter comparative observational study

Functional and Clinical Outcomes After Plate Osteosynthesis Versus Intramedullary Nailing of a Humeral Shaft Fracture: The Results of the HUMMER Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Plate osteosynthesis (referred to throughout as plating) and intramedullary nailing (referred to throughout as nailing) are the most common operative strategies for humeral shaft fractures. However, it is undecided which treatment is more effective. This study aimed to compare functional and clinical outcomes of these treatment strategies. We hypothesized that plating would result in an earlier recovery of shoulder function and fewer complications.

METHODS

From October 23, 2012, to October 3, 2018, adults with a humeral shaft fracture, OTA/AO type 12A or 12B, were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Patients were treated with plating or nailing. Outcome measures included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Constant-Murley score, ranges of motion of the shoulder and elbow, radiographic healing, and complications until 1 year. Repeated-measure analysis was done with correction for age, sex, and fracture type.

RESULTS

Of the 245 included patients, 76 were treated with plating and 169 were treated with nailing. Patients in the plating group were younger, with a median age of 43 years compared with 57 years for the nailing group (p < 0.001). The mean DASH score after plating improved faster over time, but did not differ significantly from the score after nailing at 12 months (11.7 points [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.6 to 15.7 points]) for plating and 11.2 points [95% CI, 8.3 to 14.0 points] for nailing). The Constant-Murley score and shoulder abduction, flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation displayed a significant treatment effect (p treatment ≤ 0.001), in favor of plating. The plating group had 2 implant-related complications, whereas the nailing group had 24, including 13 nail protrusions and 8 screw protrusions. Plating resulted in more postoperative temporary radial nerve palsy (8 patients [10.5%] compared with 1 patient [0.6%]; p < 0.001) and a trend toward fewer nonunions (3 patients [5.7%] compared with 16 patients [11.9%]; p = 0.285) than nailing.

CONCLUSIONS

Plating of a humeral shaft fracture in adults results in faster recovery, especially of shoulder function. Plating was associated with more temporary nerve palsies, but fewer implant-related complications and surgical reinterventions, than nailing. Despite heterogeneity in implants and surgical approach, plating seems to be the preferred treatment option for these fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Recovery and functional outcome after radial nerve palsy in adults with a humeral shaft fracture: a multicenter prospective case series

Background

The consequences of radial nerve palsy associated with a humeral shaft fracture are unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the functional recovery of radial nerve palsy, at presentation or postoperatively, in patients with a humeral shaft fracture.

Methods

Data from patients who participated in the HUMeral shaft fractures: measuring recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment (HUMMER) study, a multicenter prospective cohort study including adults with a closed humeral shaft fracture Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) type 12A or 12B, and had radial nerve palsy at presentation or postoperatively, were extracted from the HUMMER database. The primary outcome measure was clinically assessed recovery of motor function of the radial nerve. Secondary outcomes consisted of treatment, functional outcome (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Constant-Murley Score), pain level, quality of life (Short Form-36 and EuroQoL-5D-3L), activity resumption, and range of motion of the shoulder and elbow joint at 12 months after trauma.

Results

Three of the 145 nonoperatively treated patients had radial nerve palsy at presentation. One recovered spontaneously and 1 after osteosynthesis. Despite multiple surgical interventions, the third patient had no recovery after entrapment between fracture fragments. Thirteen of the 245 operatively treated patients had radial nerve palsy at presentation; all recovered. Nine other patients had postoperative radial nerve palsy; 8 recovered. One had ongoing recovery at the last follow-up, after nerve release and suture repair due to entrapment under the plate. At 12 months, the functional outcome scores of all patients suggested full recovery regarding functional outcome, pain, quality of life, activity resumption, and range of motion.

Conclusion

Radial nerve palsy in patients with a humeral shaft fracture at presentation or postoperatively functionally recovers in 94% and 89%, respectively.

Economic evaluation of operative versus nonoperative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture: economic analyses alongside a multicenter prospective cohort study (HUMMER)

PURPOSE

Operative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture results in faster recovery than nonoperative treatment. The cost-effectiveness, in terms of costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained (Dutch threshold €20,000-€80,000) or minimal important change (MIC) in disability reduced (DASH 6.7), is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of operative versus nonoperative treatment in adults with a humeral shaft fracture type 12A or 12B.

METHODS

This study was performed alongside a multicenter prospective cohort study. Costs for health care and lost productivity until one year after trauma were calculated. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was reported in costs per QALY (based on the EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ-5D)) gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported in costs per MIC (based on the DASH score at three months) reduced.

RESULTS

Overall, 245 patients were treated operatively and 145 nonoperatively. In the operative group, the mean total costs per patient (€11,925 versus €8793; p < 0.001) and QALYs (0.806 versus 0.778; p < 0.001) were higher. The ICUR of operative treatment was €111,860 per QALY gained (i.e., €3132/0.028). The DASH was 7.3 points (p < 0.001) lower in the operative group. The ICER of operative treatment was €2880 per MIC in disability reduced (i.e., €3132/7.3*6.7).

CONCLUSION

Due to the limited effect of treatment on quality of life measured with the EQ-5D, the ICUR of operative treatment (€111,860 per QALY gained) exceeds the threshold. However, the incremental costs of €2880 per clinically meaningful difference in DASH are much lower and suggest that operative treatment for a humeral shaft fracture is cost-effective.

Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Literature Review on Current Treatment Methods

In this review, we aim to provide a concise yet comprehensive summation of the assessment and management of humeral shaft fractures. These are uncommon but prevalent enough that they are part of any trauma surgeon's scope of practice. They have historically been treated using non-operative methods, including braces and casts, supported by published excellent results in the rate of the bone union. However, recently published studies challenge these results and suggest the outcomes might be better with surgery, but the complications of an operation such as infection and nerve injury can not be overlooked. In summary, non-surgical treatment is still the gold standard in the treatment of these fractures, but the indications for surgical management are now clearer and include early signs of delayed union and patients who are unable to have a brace fitted or are uncompliant. It is likely that these new developments will start to change practice, and therefore the treatment of humeral shaft fractures should be a topic of interest of any clinician who deals with them.

Functional and clinical outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture (HUMMER): results of a multicenter prospective cohort study

Purpose

The best treatment of humeral shaft fractures in adults is still under debate. This study aimed to compare functional and clinical outcome of operative versus nonoperative treatment in adult patients with a humeral shaft fracture. We hypothesized that operative treatment would result in earlier functional recovery.

Methods

From October 23, 2012 to October 03, 2018, adults with a humeral shaft fracture AO type 12A or 12B were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in 29 hospitals. Patients were treated operatively or nonoperatively. Outcome measures were the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (DASH; primary outcome), Constant–Murley score, pain (Visual Analog Score, VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 (SF-36) and EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ-5D)), activity resumption (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), range of motion (ROM) of the shoulder and elbow joint, radiologic healing, and complications. Patients were followed for one year. Repeated measure analysis was done with correction for age, gender, and fracture type.

Results

Of the 390 included patients, 245 underwent osteosynthesis and 145 were primarily treated nonoperatively. Patients in the operative group were younger (median 53 versus 62 years; p < 0.001) and less frequently female (54.3% versus 64.8%; p = 0.044). Superior results in favor of the operative group were noted until six months follow-up for the DASH, Constant–Murley, abduction, anteflexion, and external rotation of the shoulder, and flexion and extension of the elbow. The EQ-US, and pronation and supination showed superior results for the operative group until six weeks follow-up. Malalignment occurred only in the nonoperative group (N = 14; 9.7%). In 19 patients with implant-related complications (N = 26; 10.6%) the implant was exchanged or removed. Nonunion occurred more often in the nonoperative group (26.3% versus 10.10% in the operative group; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Primary osteosynthesis of a humeral shaft fracture (AO type 12A and 12B) in adults is safe and superior to nonoperative treatment, and should therefore be the treatment of choice. It is associated with a more than twofold reduced risk of nonunion, earlier functional recovery and a better range of motion of the shoulder and elbow joint than nonoperative treatment. Even after including the implant-related complications, the overall rate of complications as well as secondary surgical interventions was highest in the nonoperative group.

Trial registration

NTR3617 (registration date 18-SEP-2012).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00068-022-01890-6.

Treatment fracture of the diaphisis humerus with functional plaster

Treatment of humerus fractures is divided into operative and non-operative treatment Fractures of the diaphysis of the humerus heal well. Surgeons today have many opportunities to treat them. The decision on the type of treatment to be applied depends on the location of the fracture, the existence of associated injuries, the age and the general condition of the patient. Non-operative treatment is most often applied, although there are fractures in which surgical intervention is necessary in order to perform healing and prevent complications. Non-operative treatment of fractures of the diaphysis of the humerus gives good results, with little angulation and minimal or no shortening of the arm. Adequate repositioning, appropriate plaster immobilization and regular X-rays heal the fracture within the allotted time. Disciplined early physical therapy in terms of circular movements prevents shoulder contracture and allows later physical therapy to last significantly shorter. Non-operative treatment lasts from 7-11,5 weeks.

Rasch analysis of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) instrument in patients with a humeral shaft fracture

BACKGROUND

The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) instrument was developed to assess the disability experienced by patients with any musculoskeletal condition of the upper extremity and to monitor change in symptoms and upper-limb function over time. The 30 items are scored on a 5-point rating scale. The Dutch-language version of the DASH instrument (DASH-DLV) has been examined with the classical test theory in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. This study aimed to examine the DASH-DLV with a more rigorous and extensive analysis by applying the Rasch model.

METHODS

Data of 400 patients included in a multicenter, prospective study comparing operative and nonoperative treatment of adult patients with a humeral shaft fracture were used. The person-item map, item fit statistics, reliability, response category ordering, and dimensionality were examined. Raw data were converted to linear measures using the Rasch model.

RESULTS

The DASH-DLV showed a good fit to the Rasch model, except for item 26 ("Tingling [pins and needles] in your arm, shoulder or hand"). The person reliability was 0.92. In general, the category functioning of the 5-point rating scale was working well. Dimensionality analysis revealed that the DASH-DLV is a unidimensional scale. Differential item functioning for sex was not detected, and only item 26 exhibited differential item functioning as a function for age.

CONCLUSION

The DASH-DLV fits the stringent Rasch model in a clinical situation with a group of adult patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Adequate measurement for scientific research can be obtained to evaluate longitudinal intervention research.

A prospective randomised controlled trial of operative versus non-operative management of fractures of the humeral diaphysis: the HUmeral Shaft Fracture FIXation (HU-FIX) Study protocol

BACKGROUND

Humeral shaft fractures constitute around 1% of adult fractures in the UK, with an annual incidence of approximately 13 per 100,000 population. Historically, these injuries have been primarily managed non-operatively, with operative fixation reserved for specific indications. Although some recent retrospective studies have suggested there are potential benefits of operative fixation over humeral bracing, there is a deficiency in level 1 evidence to support operative management as the primary treatment for humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS/DESIGN

This single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 70 adult patients with an isolated closed fracture of the humeral diaphysis into one of two treatment arms: operative (n = 35) or non-operative (n = 35). The operative arm will undergo open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the fracture using a standard fixation technique (plate and screws). The non-operative arm will be fitted with a prefabricated humeral brace until fracture union. All patients will be followed up for 1 year post-intervention. The primary outcome measure will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 3 months post-intervention. Secondary outcome measures will include pain, treatment complications, return to work or sporting activities, shoulder and elbow range of motion, radiographic assessment, EuroQol (EQ-5D) Health Outcome score and 12-item Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey score. A health economic analysis will be performed to compare the cost implications of each treatment strategy.

DISCUSSION

This randomised controlled trial will provide level 1 evidence comparing a standard ORIF technique against functional bracing for isolated closed humeral shaft fractures. The investigators hope that the study results will assist surgeons in their decision-making when managing patients with these injuries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03689335 . Registered on 28 September 2018 (retrospectively).

Treating fractures in upper limb gunshot injuries: The Cape Town experience

BACKGROUND

Upper extremity gunshot fractures are generally treated conservatively or surgically using open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), intramedullary nails (IM) or external fixators. However, there is no gold standard for the management of these complex, multi-fragmentary upper extremity fractures. The aim was to describe and identify the injury patterns, management, complications and associated risk factors for upper extremity gunshot fractures.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Data of patients with upper extremity gunshot injuries that presented to a Level I Trauma Unit in Cape Town, South Africa was collected prospectively over a ten-month period from June 2014 to April 2015. Clinical notes and radiographs were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one of 90 patients (56.7%) with ballistic injuries had fractures, 30% had neurovascular injuries and 75% had additional injuries to other anatomical structures including head, neck, spine, chest, abdomen, pelvis and urogenital tract. Most fractures were diaphyseal, multi-fragmentary and extra-articular. Fractures were treated conservatively in more than half of the cases. Median fracture length was 5.5 centimetres. A longer fracture zone was statistically associated with surgical treatment. When surgically treated, open reduction and internal fixation was most often performed. Median hospital stay was six days. Infection and injury severity prolonged hospital stay.

DISCUSSION

In contrast to studies from the USA and Europe, most fractures in this study were managed conservatively. High quality prospective controlled trials are required to evaluate radiographic and clinical outcomes of treatment methods for upper extremity gunshot injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Open reduction and internal fixation of humeral shaft fractures versus conservative treatment with a functional brace: a study protocol of a randomised controlled trial embedded in a cohort

INTRODUCTION

Humeral shaft fractures represent 1%-3% of all fractures and 20% of humeral fractures in adults. The treatment of these fractures is mainly conservative and operative treatment is usually reserved for specific circumstances. To date, no randomised controlled trial (RCT) has compared operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures with conservative treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct an RCT to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment of humeral shaft fractures. After providing informed consent, 80 patients from 18 years of age with humeral shaft fracture will be randomly assigned to open reduction and internal fixation with locking plate or conservative treatment with functional bracing. We will follow the patients for 10 years and compare the results at different time points. The primary outcome will be Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) at 12 months. The secondary outcomes will include Numerical Rating Scale for pain at rest and in activities, Constant Score and quality of life instrument 15D. Patients not willing to participate in the RCT will be asked to participate in a prospective cohort follow-up study, 'the declined cohort'. This cohort will be followed up at the same time points as the randomised patients to assess the potential effect of participation bias on RCT results and to enhance the external validity of the RCT. In one of the recruiting centres, all cooperative patients with humeral shaft fractures not eligible for randomisation will be asked to participate in a 'non-eligible cohort' study. We will use blinded data interpretation of the randomised cohort to avoid biased interpretation of outcomes. Our null hypothesis is that there is no clinically relevant difference in the primary outcome measure between the two treatment groups. We will consider a difference of a minimum of 10 points in DASH clinically relevant.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District has approved the protocol. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01719887; pre-results.

Reliability and Reproducibility of the OTA/AO Classification for Humeral Shaft Fractures

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the OTA/AO classification for humeral shaft fractures, and to evaluate differences between fracture types, fracture groups, and surgical specializations.

METHODS

Thirty observers (25 orthopaedic trauma surgeons and 5 general orthopaedic surgeons) independently classified 90 humeral shaft fractures according to the OTA/AO classification. Patients of 16 years and older were included. Periprosthetic, recurrent, and pathological fractures were excluded. Radiographs were provided in random order, and observers were blinded to clinical information. To determine intraobserver agreement, radiographs were reviewed again after 2 months in a different random order. Agreement was assessed using kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Interobserver agreement for the 3 fracture types was moderate (κ = 0.60; 0.59-0.61). It was substantial for type A (κ = 0.77; 0.70-0.84) and moderate for type B (κ = 0.52; 0.46-0.58) and type C fractures (κ = 0.46; 0.42-0.50). Interobserver agreement for the 9 fracture groups was moderate (κ = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.48-0.48). Orthopaedic trauma surgeons had better overall agreement for fracture types, and general orthopaedic surgeons had better overall agreement for fracture groups. Observers classified 64% of fractures identically in both rounds. Intraobserver agreement was substantial for the 3 types (κ = 0.80; 0.77-0.81) and 9 groups (κ = 0.80; 0.77-0.82). Intraobserver agreement showed no differences between surgical disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS

The OTA/AO classification for humeral shaft fractures has a moderate interobserver and substantial intraobserver agreement for fracture types and groups.

American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score: a study protocol for the translation and validation of the Dutch language version

INTRODUCTION

The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score is among the most commonly used instruments for measuring the outcome of treatment in patients who sustained a complex ankle or hindfoot injury. It combines a clinician-reported and a patient-reported part. A valid Dutch version of this instrument is currently not available. Such a translated and validated instrument would allow objective comparison across hospitals or between patient groups, and with shown validity and reliability it may become a quality of care indicator in future. The main aims of this study are to translate and culturally adapt the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score questionnaire into Dutch according to international guidelines, and to evaluate the measurement properties of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score-Dutch language version (DLV) in patients with a unilateral ankle or hindfoot fracture.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The design of the study will be a multicentre prospective observational study (case series) in patients who presented to the emergency department with a unilateral ankle or hindfoot fracture or (fracture) dislocation. A research physician or research assistant will complete the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score-DLV based on interview for the subjective part and a physical examination for the objective part. In addition, patients will be asked to complete the Foot Function Index (FFI) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36). Descriptive statistics (including floor and ceiling effects), internal consistency, construct validity, reproducibility (ie, test-retest reliability, agreement and smallest detectable change) and responsiveness will be assessed for the AOFAS DLV.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been exempted by the Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) Erasmus MC (Rotterdam, the Netherlands). Each participant will provide written consent to participate and remain anonymised during the study. The results of the study are planned to be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR5613. pre-result.

Reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Constant-Murley scores in patients with a humeral shaft fracture

BACKGROUND

The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley scores are commonly used instruments. The DASH is patient-reported, and the Constant-Murley combines a clinician-reported and a patient-reported part. For patients with a humeral shaft fracture, their validity, reliability, responsiveness, and minimal important change (MIC) have not been published. This study evaluated the measurement properties of these instruments in patients who sustained a humeral shaft fracture.

METHODS

The DASH and Constant-Murley instruments were completed 5 times until 1 year after trauma. Pain score, Short Form 36, and EuroQol-5D were completed for comparison. Internal consistency was determined by the Cronbach α. Construct and longitudinal validity were evaluated by assessing hypotheses about expected Spearman rank correlations in scores and change scores, respectively, between patient-reported outcome measures (sub)scales. The smallest detectable change (SDC) was calculated. The MIC was determined using an anchor-based approach. The presence of floor and ceiling effects was determined.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were included. Internal consistency was sufficient for DASH (Cronbach α = 0.96) but was insufficient for Constant-Murley (α = 0.61). Construct and longitudinal validity were sufficient for both patient-reported outcome measures (>75% of correlations hypothesized correctly). The MIC and SDC were 6.7 (95% confidence interval, 5.0-15.8) and 19.0 (standard error of measurement, 6.9), respectively, for DASH and 6.1 (95% CI -6.8 to 17.4) and 17.7 (standard error of measurement, 6.4), respectively, for Constant-Murley.

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH and Constant-Murley are valid instruments for evaluating outcome in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Reliability was only shown for the DASH, making this the preferred instrument. The observed MIC and SDC values provide a basis for sample size calculations for future research.

The triceps-sparing posterior approach to plating humeral shaft fractures results in a high rate of union and low incidence of complications

INTRODUCTION

The optimal treatment of humeral shaft fractures continues to be debated. In the current investigation, we sought to determine the clinical and radiographic outcomes following the plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures utilizing the triceps-sparing posterior approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review identified a consecutive series of 66 humeral shaft fractures (OTA 12-A, 12-B, or 12-C) treated with dual plate fixation via a posterior, triceps-sparing approach between 2005 and 2014 by a single surgeon. Demographics, operative reports, clinical follow-up, and preoperative radiographs were reviewed. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for angular deformity and time to union. Range of motion and strength testing were also reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 66 humeral shaft fractures were reviewed with a mean clinical follow-up of 8.0 months. The mean time to union was 15.6 ± 11.1 weeks, and there was one case of delayed union. Seventeen of 66 (25.8 %) patients presented with a primary radial nerve palsy following injury, and 14 of the 17 (82 %) of the preoperative radial nerve palsies fully resolved at an average of 31 weeks following injury. Two additional patients developed radial nerve palsies postoperatively (3.0 %).

CONCLUSION

This is a large consecutive series of humeral shaft fractures treated with plating through a posterior approach by a single surgeon. The triceps-sparing posterior approach to the humerus results in high union rates and a low incidence of secondary radial nerve palsy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Case Series.

Functional recovery after treatment of extra-articular distal radius fractures in the elderly using the IlluminOss® System (IO-Wrist); a multicenter prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Approximately 17 % of all fractures involve the distal radius. Two-thirds require reduction due to displacement. High redislocation rates and functional disability remain a significant problem after non-operative treatment, with up to 30 % of patients suffering long-term functional restrictions. Whether operative correction is superior to non-operative treatment with respect to functional outcome has not unequivocally been confirmed. The IlluminOss® System was introduced in 2009 as a novel, patient-specific, and minimally invasive intramedullary fracture fixation. This minimally invasive technique has a much lower risk of iatrogenic soft tissue complications. Because IlluminOss® allows for early mobilization, it may theoretically lead to earlier functional recovery and ADL independence than non-operative immobilization. The main aim of this study is to examine outcome in elderly patients who sustained a unilateral, displaced, extra-articular distal radius fracture that was treated with IlluminOss®.

METHODS/DESIGN

The design of the study will be a multicenter, prospective, observational study (case series). The study population comprises elderly (60 years or older; independent in activities of daily living) with a unilateral, displaced, extra-articular distal radius fracture (AO/OTA type 23-A2 and A3) that after successful closed reduction was fixed within 2 weeks after the injury with IlluminOss®. Critical elements of treatment will be registered, and outcome will be monitored until 1 year after surgery. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score will serve as primary outcome measure. The Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score, level of pain, health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 and EuroQoL-5D), time to ADL independence, time to activities/work resumption, range of motion of the wrist, radiological outcome, and complications are secondary outcome measures. Health care consumption and lost productivity will be used for a cost analysis. The cost analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. Descriptive data will be reported.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide evidence on the effectiveness of operative treatment of patients who sustained an extra-articular distal radius fracture with the IlluminOss® System, using clinical, patient-reported, and societal outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register ( NTR5457 ; 29-sep-2015).

Management of Humeral Shaft Fractures; Non-Operative Versus Operative

Context:

Functional humeral bracing remains the gold standard for treatment of humeral shaft fractures. There is an increasing trend in the literature to perform operative fixation of these fractures.

Evidence Acquisition:

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the level one evidence for the outcome of non-operative with operative management of humeral shaft fractures in adults. A comprehensive electronic literature search of Medline and PubMed was performed with specific inclusion criteria to identify randomized controlled trials.

Results:

In total, seventeen different studies were identified from the search terms and combinations used. Only one study met the inclusion criteria; however, this was a published study protocol of an ongoing trial currently being conducted. One additional published protocol for an ongoing trial was also identified, but this was for a prospective comparative observational study. Although this latter study may not be level one evidence, it would offer great insight into the functional outcome of humeral shaft fractures and economic implications of operative management, which is currently not addressed in the literature. Two retrospective comparative studies were also identified, one of which demonstrated a significantly lower rate of nonunion and malunion in those patients undergoing operative management.

Conclusions:

This systematic review demonstrated a deficiency in the current literature of level one evidence available for the management of humeral shaft fractures. The current ongoing randomized control trail would offer a greater insight into the management of humeral shaft fractures and help confirm or refute the current literature. If this randomized control trial affirms the reduction in the rate of nonunion with operative fixation, a cost economic analysis is essential. As it would seem to offer operative management to all patients may be over treatment and not to offer this at all would undertreat.

Short-term functional versus patient-reported outcome of the bicruciate stabilized total knee arthroplasty: prospective consecutive case series

Background

The main goals of the standard treatment for advanced symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty (TKA), are pain reduction and restoration of knee motion.

The aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of the patient-based Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the surgeon-based Knee Society Score (KSS) and its Knee Score (KS) and Knee Functional Score (KFS) components after (TKA) using the Journey knee prosthesis, and to assess the correlation of these scores with range of motion (ROM).

Methods

In a prospective case series study between August 1^st 2008 and May 31^st 2011, 99 patients, all operated by a single surgeon, received Journey bicruciate stabilized total knee prostheses. The female/male ratio was 53/34, the mean patient age at surgery was 68 years (range 41–83 years), and the left/right knee ratio was 55/44. The KOOS, range of motion, and KS and KFS were obtained preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. The pre- and postoperative levels of the outcome measures were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Correlation between ROM and patient outcomes was analysed with the Spearman coefficient.

Results

All KOOS subscores improved significantly. Ninety percent of patients improved by at least the minimum clinically relevant difference of 10 points in stiffness and other symptoms, 94.5% in pain, 94.5% in activities of daily living, 84.9% in sports and recreation, and 90% in knee-related quality of life. The mean passive and active ROM improved from 122.4° (range 90-145°) and 120.4° (range 80-145°) preoperatively to 129.4° (range 90-145°) and 127.1° (range 100-145°) postoperatively. The highest correlation coefficients for ROM and KOOS were observed for the activity and pain subscores. Very low or no correlation was seen for the sport subscore.

There was a significant and clinically relevant improvement of KSS (preop/postop 112.2/174.5 points), and its KS (preop/postop 45.6/86.8 points) and KFS (preop/postop 66.6/87.8 points) components.

Conclusions

The Journey bicruciate stabilized knee prosthesis showed good 1-year postoperative results in terms of both functional and patient-based outcome. However, higher knee ROM correlates only moderately with patient-based outcome, implying that functionality afforded by the Journey bicruciate TKA is not equivalent to patient satisfaction.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-435) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.