Early Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes in COVID-19 Infected Patients: A Case Series

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. e382-e388
Author(s):  
Diep N. Edwards ◽  
Alexandra M. Arguello ◽  
Brent A. Ponce ◽  
Clay A. Spitler ◽  
Jonathan H. Quade
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 337-342
Author(s):  
Xiang‐tian Deng ◽  
Zhong‐zheng Wang ◽  
Jian Zhu ◽  
Zhan‐chao Tan ◽  
Yu‐chuan Wang ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Mélanie Bérubé ◽  
Lynne Moore ◽  
Pier-Alexandre Tardif ◽  
Gregory Berry ◽  
Étienne Belzile ◽  
...  

Objectives. Fifteen potentially low value practices in adult orthopaedic trauma care were previously identified in a scoping review. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence on these practices. Methods. We searched four databases for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case series that assessed the effectiveness of selected practices. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR-2) for systematic reviews and the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. We evaluated risk of bias with the Cochrane revised tool for RCTs and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions tool for observational studies. We summarized findings with measures of frequency and association for primary outcomes. Results. Of the 30,670 records screened, 70 studies were retained. We identified high-level evidence of lack of effectiveness or harm for routine initial imaging of ankle injury, orthosis for A0-A3 thoracolumbar burst fracture in patients < 60 years of age, cast or splint immobilization for suspected scaphoid fracture negative on MRI or confirmed fifth metacarpal neck fracture, and routine follow-up imaging for distal radius and ankles fractures. However, evidence was mostly based on studies of low methodological quality or high risk of bias. Conclusion. In this review, we identified clinical practices in orthopedic injury care which are not supported by current evidence and whose use may be questioned. In future research we should measure their frequency, assess practice variations and evaluate root causes to identify practices that could be targeted for de-implementation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 230949901989014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Fang ◽  
Andreas Platz ◽  
Lars Müller ◽  
Thomas Chandy ◽  
Cong-Feng Luo ◽  
...  

Background: The Trauma Expectation Factor Trauma Outcomes Measure (TEFTOM) questionnaire is a self-administered, patient-rated outcome measurement questionnaire designed to measure both ‘expectation’ and ‘outcome’ in orthopaedic trauma patients using two subsets of 10 items. We aimed to validate this instrument in a culturally diverse cohort of patients recruited from Asian and European regions. Methods: A total of 193 adult patients with surgically treated AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association types 43 and 44 ankle malleolar and distal tibia fractures were recruited with 158 followed up till 1 year. Expectations were assessed prior to surgery, at 2 weeks and after 6 months using the trauma expectation factor (TEF) score. Outcomes were evaluated at 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months using the trauma outcome measure (TOM), American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) and short form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires. Psychometric properties of TEFTOM were assessed. Results: TEF and TOM demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.87) and reliability at all time points (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.90). TOM showed strong correlations ( R 2 ≥ 0.60) with the AAOS foot and ankle score, all FAOS subscales, except ‘symptoms’ and SF-36 physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, social functioning and the physical component summary at 6 and 12 months. Effect sizes for TOM were 2.30 and 0.74 from 2 weeks to 6 months and from 6 months to 12 months, respectively. The baseline patient TEF was predictive for the 1-year TOM score. Conclusions: TEFTOM demonstrated good psychometric properties in this cohort of patients with ankle fractures. The TEF ‘expectation’ score was predictive of the TOM ‘outcome’ score. We recommend researchers and clinicians to utilize TEFTOM when patient expectation measurement is concerned for orthopaedic trauma patients.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 202-203
Author(s):  
Mireya Perez-Guzman ◽  
Alfredo Nava de la Vega ◽  
Arturo Pena Velarde ◽  
Tania Raisha Torres Victoria ◽  
Froylan Martinez-Sanchez ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document