Search

Purpose: Data on the epidemiology, treatment, and outcome of burn patients treated at non-burn centre hospitals are not available. The primary aim was to compare the burn characteristics of patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized burn centre. Methods: This multicentre, prospective, cohort study enrolled patients with burns admitted to a hospital without a burn centre and patients with < 10% total body surface area (TBSA) burned admitted to the burn centre. Primary outcome measure was the burn-related injury characteristics. Secondary outcome measures were adherence to the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria, treatment (costs), quality of life, and scar quality. Results: During the 2-year study period, 48 patients were admitted to a non-burn centre and 148 patients to the burn centre. In the non-burn centre group, age [44 (P25–P75 26–61) versus 30 (P25–P75 8–52) years; P = 0.007] and Injury Severity Score [2 (P25–P75 1–4) versus 1 (P25–P75 1–1); P < 0.001] were higher. In the burn centre group, the TBSA burned was significantly higher [4% (P25–P75 2–6) versus 2% (P25–P75 1–4); P = 0.001], and more surgical procedures were performed (in 54 versus 7 patients; P = 0.004). At 12 months, > 85% of the non-burn centre group and > 75% of the burn centre group reported no problems in quality of life. Scar quality score was < 1.5 in both groups, with significantly poorer scores in the burn centre group (P ≤ 0.007). Conclusion: Both groups differed in patient, burn, and treatment characteristics. At 12 months, quality of life and scar quality were good in both groups. Significantly poorer scar quality scores were found in the burn centre group. This might be related to their larger burns and more frequent surgery. The organization of burn care in the Netherlands seems to work adequately. Patients are treated locally when possible and are transferred when necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The routine use of surgical drains in elective hip arthroplasty has been abandoned. Also in acute hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures drain use reduces. Question is, whether this is justified in geriatric patients, where the incidence of anticoagulation use is high. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes in patients with and without the use of a wound drain after hip hemiarthroplasty. Methods: Data were extracted from a prospective hip fracture database and completed by retrospective review of the hospital records at two level II trauma centers between January 1st 2010 and May 16th 2016. Patients with a femoral neck fracture requiring hip hemiarthroplasty were included in the study. Results: This study cohort included 900 patients (68% female), with a median age of 83.5 (IQR 78–88), of which 544 (60%) had a wound drain. Patients with a wound drain needed more days to be ready for discharged (10.0 days (SD ± 43.3), P = < 0.001) compared to patients without a drain (5.3 days (SD ± 4.2). With a drain more hemoglobin loss was found, 2.66 g/dL versus 2.4 g/dL (P = 0.008) and also more packed cells were supplemented, 0.29 versus 0.13 (P = 0.0016). Wound drain placement showed a statistically significant inverse relation with post-operative hematoma; odds ratio (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39; 0.94, P = 0.024), but no reduced risk of post-operative deep surgical site infection, (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.43; 2.72, P = 0.862). Conclusion: Surgical drain placement was not associated with a reduced risk of post-operative deep surgical site infections, nor one-year mortality. However, a decreased risk of post-operative wound hematoma was observed. Furthermore, patients with a drain needed more days to be ready for discharge, show more hemoglobin loss and need more packed cell supplementation during admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The minimally invasive (MI) anterolateral approach is a relatively new approach for the treatment of femoral neck fractures with a hemiarthroplasty (HA). There is limited research available presenting clinical outcomes after an HA using the MI approach. Therefore the aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of the MI and traditional anterolateral approaches in patients after HA.Methods: Data were extracted from a prospective hip fracture database and completed by retrospective review of the electronic medical records. Patients undergoing HA in a level II trauma teaching hospital between 1 January 2011 and 1 May 2016 were enrolled.Results: A total of 463 patients (67% female), 223 in the MI group (mean age, 82 ± 7) and 240 (mean age, 81 ± 8) in the traditional anterolateral group were enrolled. No significant difference was found in baseline characteristics. The surgeons experience measured by the operations performed per year was in favour of the MI anterolateral group (26 vs 18, p < 0.001). The median operating time for an MI approach was shorter (53 vs 69 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in mortality rates (p = 0.131) and post-operative complications: haematomas (p = 0.63), dislocations (p = 0.63), deep surgical site infections (p = 0.66) and re-operations.Conclusions: Our findings show the MI anterolateral approach has a minimally shorter operation time with no difference in post-operative complications and clinical outcomes. We, therefore, conclude that the MI anterolateral approach is a safe alternative for the traditional anterolateral approach with an improved operation time, a smaller incision and less surrounding tissue damage.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic level III retrospective cohort study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]