Search

Distal radius fractures are one of the most frequent fractures of the upper extremities. The decision for conservative or surgical treatment is made after appropriate diagnostics using conventional radiographic and usually computed tomography imaging examinations. If the indications for surgical treatment are present, various options for reduction and fixation are available. The spectrum ranges from closed to open procedures up to accompanying arthroscopic support. Appropriate preoperative patient education about the procedure and the planned postinterventional treatment is essential. The goal of treatment is to restore wrist function while maintaining mobility and strength with a low risk of complications. All surgical procedures share the principle of reduction to restore anatomical relationship followed by fixation. Closed procedures include fixation with Kirschner wires and the construction of an external fixator. Volar locking plate osteosynthesis has become established in recent years as the method of choice for the majority of the fractures to be treated. For special fracture patterns and the treatment of accompanying injuries, arthroscopic support can be indicated. There is no uniform consensus on the best choice of procedure. This article discusses the possible procedures including the approaches, fixation techniques and specific follow-up treatment., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Careful evaluation of new interventions is essential. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs provide the most reliable evidence base in comparative evaluations of treatments and interventions. Observational study designs are found at the lower levels of the classical evidence hierarchy. In light of policy efforts to accelerate the availability of innovations, the use of evidence from non-randomized studies for reimbursement decisions is being discussed. The present study addresses the question of the value and feasibility of RCTs and observational studies for benefit assessment after an intervention has been introduced into practice., Methods: Experts from German-speaking countries were interviewed using qualitative, semi-structured interviews. Participants included experts in health economics, health services and health services research, health communication, ethics, and health policy. The interviews were conducted by one researcher and then analyzed using a deductive approach. Main categories and subcategories were extracted., Results: Twenty-six experts were invited to participate, and 15 agreed to be interviewed. The duration of the individual interviews varied between 35 and 80minutes. The interviewed experts considered it possible and necessary to conduct RCTs when an intervention is already available in care in order to demonstrate that an intervention is more effective than existing alternatives. Experts considered good study design, methodological knowledge of those conducting the study, infrastructure, and funding as underlying conditions. They emphasized that the benefit of an intervention cannot be conclusively clarified on the basis of observational studies and that RCTs can therefore only be dispensed with in exceptional cases. Therefore, observational studies do not represent an alternative to RCTs in benefit assessment in general. In the opinion of the experts, the requirements for observational studies included sensible criteria and quality assurance measures. As alternatives to RCTs, the experts named studies based on routine data or high-quality, prospective, comparative cohort studies. Individual experts were very critical of studies based on data from registries., Discussion and Conclusion: The results of the interviews are underlined by findings from the scientific literature. For example, international scientists advocate for conducting RCTs instead of observational studies and for a reduction in hurdles and barriers for conducting RCTs. In international methodological standards for the preparation of health technology assessments, RCTs are also generally preferred for benefit assessment. Nevertheless, there is still a need for research about the optimal use of observational studies, alternative RCT designs and the use of data from routine care or registries, as policy makers, among others, believe that observational studies should be used for benefit assessment. The results show that experts still adhere to the established principles of clinical epidemiology. Observational studies should only be used as an alternative to RCTs in exceptional cases to examine whether one intervention is more effective than existing alternatives., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Treatment of scaphoid non-unions is still challenging for responsible hand surgeons, especially in cases of avascular proximal pole non-unions or failed prior surgeries. Several surgical procedures treating scaphoid non-unions have been established. These aim to restore correct anatomy to provide stability and adequate blood flow. Treatment options range from avascular to free, vascularized bone grafts. The two most used free vascularized bone grafts derive from the iliac crest and the medial femoral condyle. The vascular anatomy of the medial femoral condyle graft is more constant, the donor site morbidity lower and the healing rate higher in comparison to the iliac crest graft. It is easier to harvest the femoral condyle graft and additionally, it can be harvested as a cortico-cancellous or osteochondral graft. Looking at all advantage, we come to the conclusion that the free vascularized medial femoral condyle graft is our method of choice for the treatment of a avascular proximal pole non-union of the scaphoid., Competing Interests: Kein Autor hegt einen Interessenskonflikt, der sich auf den behandelten Inhalt des übermittelten Dokuments auswirkt. Keiner der Autoren hat professionelle oder finanzielle Verbindungen, welche zu Verfälschungen im übermittelten Dokument führen könnten., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)