Twelve-month outcomes following surgical repair of the Achilles tendon

INTRODUCTION

Incidence of Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) has increased over recent years, and debate regarding optimal management has been widely documented. Most papers have focused on surgical success, complications and short term region-specific outcomes. Inconsistent use of standardised outcome measures following surgical ATR repair has made it difficult to evaluate the impact of ATR on a patient's health status post-surgery, and to compare this to other injury types. This study aimed to report the frequency of surgical repairs of the Achilles tendon over a five-year period within an orthopaedic trauma registry, and to investigate return to work (RTW) status, health status and functional outcomes at 12 months post-surgical repair of the Achilles tendon.

METHODS

Two hundred and four adults registered by the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR) who underwent surgical repair of the Achilles tendon between July 2009 and June 2014 were included in this prospective cohort study. The Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E), 3-level European Quality of Life 5 Dimension measure (EQ-5D-3L), and RTW status 12 months following surgical ATR repair were collected through structured telephone interviews conducted by trained interviewers.

RESULTS

At 12 months, 92% of patients were successfully followed up. Of those working prior to injury, 95% had returned to work. 42% of patients reported a full recovery on the GOS-E scale. The prevalence of problems on the EQ-5D-3L at 12 months was 0.5% for self-care, 11% for anxiety, 13% for mobility, 16% for activity, and 22% for pain. 16% of patients reported problems with more than one domain. The number of surgical repairs of the Achilles tendon within the VOTOR registry decreased by 68% over the five-year study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients recover well following surgical repair of the Achilles tendon. However, in this study, deficits in function persisted for over half of patients at 12 months post-injury. The decreased incidence of surgical Achilles tendon repair may reflect a change in practice at VOTOR hospitals whereby surgery may be becoming less favoured for initial ATR management.

Quality of care for patients with a fracture of the hip in major trauma centres

Aims

In this study, we aimed to determine whether designation as a major trauma centre (MTC) affects the quality of care for patients with a fracture of the hip.

Patients and Methods

All patients in the United Kingdom National Hip Fracture Database, between April 2010 and December 2013, were included. The indicators of quality that were recorded included the time to arrival on an orthopaedic ward, to review by a geriatrician, and to operation. The clinical outcomes were the development of a pressure sore, discharge home, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and re-operation within 30 days.

Results

There were 289 466 patients, 49 350 (17%) of whom were treated in hospitals that are now MTCs. Using multivariable logistic and generalised linear regression models, there were no significant differences in any of the indicators of the quality of care or clinical outcomes between MTCs, hospitals awaiting MTC designation and non-MTC hospitals.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that the regionalisation of major trauma in England did not improve or compromise the overall care of elderly patients with a fracture of the hip. Take home message: There is no evidence that reconfiguring major trauma services in England disrupted the treatment of older adults with a fracture of the hip. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:414–19.

Inter-rater agreement on assessment of outcome within a trauma registry

INTRODUCTION

To better evaluate the degree of ongoing disability in trauma patients, it has been recommended that trauma registries introduce routine long-term outcome measurement. One of the measures recommended for use is the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E). However, few registries have adopted this measure and further research is required to determine its reliability with trauma populations. This study aimed to evaluate the inter-rater agreement of GOS-E scoring between an expert rater and trauma registry follow-up staff with a sample of detailed trauma case scenarios.

METHODS

Sixteen trauma registry telephone interviewers participated in the study. They were provided with a written summary of 15 theoretical adult trauma cases covering a spectrum of disability and asked to rate each case using the structured GOS-E interview. Their ratings were compared with those of an expert rater in order to calculate the inter-rater agreement for each individual rater-expert rater pair. Agreement was reported as the percentage of agreement, the kappa statistic, and weighted kappa. A multi-rater kappa value was also calculated for agreement between the 16 raters.

RESULTS

Across the 15 cases, the percentage of agreement between individual raters and the expert ranged from 63% to 100%. Across the 16 raters, the percentage of agreement with the expert rater ranged from 73-100% (mean=90%). Kappa values ranged from 0.65 to 1.00 across raters (mean=0.86) and weighted kappa values ranged from 0.73 to 1.00 (mean=0.89) The multi-rater kappa value was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Sixteen follow-up staff achieved 'substantial' to 'almost perfect' agreement with an expert rater using the GOS-E outcome measure to score 15 sample trauma cases. The results of this study lend support to the use of the GOS-E within trauma populations and highlight the importance of ongoing training where multiple raters are involved to ensure reliable outcome reporting. It is also recommended that the structured GOS-E interview guide be used to achieve better agreement between raters. Ensuring the reliability of trauma outcome scores will enable more accurate evaluation of patient outcomes, and ultimately, more targeted trauma care.