Search

To meet surge capacity and to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, a regional crisis task force was established during the first pandemic wave to coordinate the even distribution of COVID-19 patients in the Amsterdam region. Based on a preexisting regional management framework for acute care, this task force was led by physicians experienced in managing mass casualty incidents. A collaborative framework consisting of the regional task force, the national task force, and the region's hospital crisis coordinators facilitated intraregional and interregional patient transfers. After hospital admission rates declined following the first COVID-19 wave, a window of opportunity enabled the task forces to create, standardize, and optimize their patient transfer processes before a potential second wave commenced. Improvement was prioritized according to 3 crucial pillars: process standardization, implementation of new strategies, and continuous evaluation of the decision tree. Implementing the novel "fair share" model as a straightforward patient distribution directive supported the regional task force's decisionmaking. Standardization of the digital patient transfer registration process contributed to a uniform, structured system in which every patient transfer was verifiable on intraregional and interregional levels. Furthermore, the regional task force team was optimized and evaluation meetings were standardized. Lines of communication were enhanced, resulting in increased situational awareness among all stakeholders that indirectly provided a safety net and an improved integral framework for managing COVID-19 care capacities. In this article, we describe enhancements to a patient transfer framework that can serve as an exemplary system to meet surge capacity demands during current and future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The clinical relevance of classification for trochanteric fractures is limited and little agreement exists on what type of implant should be used. It is unknown whether more advanced radio-diagnostics, such as CT, result in better agreement on the treatment. We assessed the effect of CT on agreement of classification and subsequent treatment for trochanteric fractures. Materials and Methods: Eleven observers (five radiologists, four trauma surgeons and two orthopedic residents) assessed 30 radiographs and CTs of trochanteric fractures. Each rating included an assessment according to the AO classification and of the preferred type of implant. The inter-observer agreement of the AO classification and on the choice of implant was calculated. Results: The inter-observer agreement was κ0.70 (SE 0.03) for radiographic assessment of the main groups of the AO classification and κ0.68 (SE 0.03) for CT assessment. The agreement on choice of implant was κ0.63 (SE 0.05) if the choice was made with radiographs and κ0.69 (SE 0.05) with CTs. Six out of the 13 fractures were classified differently after assessment of the CT. Most corrections in choice of implant occurred for the assessment of A3 fractures. Conclusions: This study confirmed that trochanteric fractures can be reliably classified on both radiographs and CT, according to the main groups of the AO classification. The implementation of CT for trochanteric fractures does not lead to higher agreement on fracture classification or choice of treatment. Therefore, the clinical relevance of CT for classification of trochanteric fractures seems low. For specific subgroups such as A3 fractures, CT may be of value for adequate fracture classification and subsequent treatment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients with pelvic fragility fractures suffer from high morbidity and mortality rates. Despite the high incidence, there is currently no regional or nationwide treatment protocol which results in a wide variety of clinical practices. Recently, there have been new insights into treatment strategies, such as early diagnosis and minimally invasive operative treatment. The aim of this study is to implement an evidence-based and experience-based treatment clinical pathway to improve outcomes in this fragile patient population., Methods and Analysis: This study will be a regional stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. All older adult patients (≥50 years old) who suffered a pelvic fragility fracture after low-energetic trauma are eligible for inclusion. The pathway aims to optimise the diagnostic process, to guide the decision-making process for further treatment (eg, operative or conservative), to structure the follow-up and to provide guidelines on pain management, weight-bearing and osteoporosis workup. The primary outcome is mobility, measured by the Parker Mobility Score. Secondary outcomes are mobility measured by the Elderly Mobility Scale, functional performance, quality of life, return to home rate, level of pain, type and dosage of analgesic medications, the number of falls after treatment, the number of (fracture-related) complications, 1-year and 2-year mortality. Every 6 weeks, a cluster will switch from current practice to the clinical pathway. The aim is a total of 393 inclusions, which provides an 80% statistical power for an improvement in mobility of 10%, measured by the Parker mobility score., Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Research Ethics Committee of Academic Medical Center has exempted the PELVIC study from the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO). Informed consent will be obtained using the opt-out method and research data will be stored in a database and handled confidentially. The final study report will be shared via publication without restrictions from funding parties and regardless of the outcome., Trial Registration Number: NCT06054165., Protocol Version: V.1.0, 19 July 2022., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether retained hardware after surgical treatment for a pelvic fracture prior to pregnancy affects the choice of delivery method. The study aims to provide insights into the rates of vaginal delivery and caesarean sections, understanding whether the mode of delivery was influenced by patient preference or the recommendations of obstetricians or surgeons, and examining the rate of complications during delivery and postpartum., Methods: All women of childbearing age who underwent surgical fixation for a pelvic ring fracture between 1994 and 2021 were identified. A questionnaire was sent about their possible pregnancies and deliveries. Of the included patients, surgical data were collected and the fracture patterns were retrospectively classified. Follow-up was a minimum of 36 months., Results: A total of 168 women with a pelvic fracture were identified, of whom 13 had a pregnancy after surgical stabilization. Eleven women had combined anterior and posterior fracture patterns and two had isolated sacral fractures. Four women underwent combined anterior and posterior fixation, the others either anterior or posterior fixation. Seven women had a total of 11 vaginal deliveries, and 6 women had 6 caesarean sections. The decision for vaginal delivery was often the wish of the mother (n = 4, 57%) while the decision to opt for caesarean section was made by the surgeon or obstetrician (n = 5, 83%). One woman in the vaginal delivery group suffered a postpartum complication possibly related to her retained pelvic hardware., Conclusion: Women with retained hardware after pelvic ring fixation can have successful vaginal deliveries. Complications during labor or postpartum are rare. The rate of primary caesarean sections is high (46%) and is probably influenced by physician bias. Future research should focus on tools that can predict labor outcomes in this specific population, and larger multicenter studies are needed., Level of Evidence: Level III., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals., Design/setting: An international research priority-setting partnership., Participants: People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb., Methods: A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021-October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities., Results: A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions., Conclusions: The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Guidelines on the management of open tibia fractures recommend timely treatment in a limb reconstruction center which offer joint orthopedic-trauma and plastic surgery services. However, patient's transfer between centers remains inevitable. This review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes and hospital factors for patients directly admitted and transferred patients to a limb-reconstruction center., Methods: A research protocol adhering to PRISMA standards was established. The search included databases like MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up until March 2023. Nine articles met the inclusion criteria, focusing on open tibia fractures. Exclusion criteria were experimental studies, animal studies, and case reports. Outcomes of interest were operation and infection rates, nonunion, limb salvage, and the Enneking limb score., Results: The analysis involved data from 520 patients across nine studies published between 1990 and 2023, with the majority (83.8%) having Gustilo Anderson type III open tibia fractures. Directly admitted patients showed lower overall infection rates (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.90; P = 0.03) and fewer deep infections (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.22-0.68; P = 0.001) compared to transferred patients. Transferred patients experienced an average five-day delay in soft tissue closure and extended hospital stays by eight days. Patients transferred without initial surgical management underwent fewer total surgical procedures. The direct admission group displayed more favorable functional outcomes., Conclusion: Low- to moderate-quality evidence indicates worse clinical outcomes for transferred patients compared to directly admitted patients. Early treatment in specialized limb reconstruction units is essential for improved results in the management of open tibia fractures., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level IIa., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) in elderly patients are an underappreciated injury with a significant impact on mobility, independency, and mortality of affected patients and is a growing burden for society/health care. Given the lack of clinical practice guidelines for these injuries, the authors postulate there is heterogeneity in the current use of diagnostic modalities, treatment strategies (both operative and nonoperative), and follow-up of patients with FFP. The goal of this study was to assess international variation in the management of FFP., Methods: All International Orthopaedic Trauma Association (IOTA) steering committee members were asked to select 15 to 20 experts in the field of pelvic surgery to complete a case-driven international survey. The survey addresses the definition of FFP, use of diagnostic modalities, timing of imaging, mobilization protocols, and indications for surgical management., Results: In total, 143 experts within 16 IOTA societies responded to the survey. Among the experts, 86% have >10 years of experience and 80% works in a referral center for pelvic fractures. However, only 44% of experts reported having an institutional protocol for the management of FFP. More than 89% of experts feel the need for a (inter)national evidence-based guideline. Of all experts, 73% use both radiographs and computed tomography (CT) to diagnose FFP, of which 63% routinely use CT and 35% used CT imaging selectively. Treatment strategies of anterior ring fractures were compared with combined (anterior and posterior ring) fractures. Thirty-seven percent of patients with anterior ring fractures get admitted to the hospital compared with 75% of patients with combined fractures. Experts allow pain-guided mobilization in 72% after anterior ring fracture but propose restricted weight-bearing in case of a combined fracture in 44% of patients. Surgical indications are primarily based on the inability to mobilize during hospital admission (33%) or persistent pain after 2 weeks (25%). Over 92% plan outpatient follow-up independent of the type of fracture or treatment., Conclusion: This study shows that there is a great worldwide heterogeneity in the current use of diagnostic modalities and both nonoperative and surgical management of FFP, emphasizing the need for a consensus meeting or guideline., Competing Interests: Outside the submitted work, D. van Embden reports personal fees from Stryker. T. Miclau reports nonfinancial support and other from Orthopaedic Trauma Association, other from Osteosynthesis and Trauma Care Foundation, other from AO Foundation, other from Bone Therapeutics, other from NXTSENS, nonfinancial support from San Francisco General Foundation, and nonfinancial support from International Orthopaedic Trauma Association, outside the submitted work. L.J. Kleeblad, S.A.I. Loggers, W.P. Zuidema, and K.-J. Ponsen have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association.)

Purpose: Pelvic fractures in older adults are a major public health problem and socioeconomic burden. The standard of care has changed over the past years, and there is limited consensus on which patients benefit from surgical fixation. There is currently no nationwide treatment protocol to guide the decision-making process. Therefore, the aim of this survey was to provide more insight into if, when, and why patients with a fragility fracture of the pelvis (FFPs) would be considered for additional imaging and surgical fixation by treating physicians., Methods: An online clinical vignette-based survey of hypothetical scenarios was sent out to all orthopedic and trauma surgeons in the Netherlands. The questionnaire comprised multiple-choice questions and radiographic images. Differences between subgroups were calculated using the X2 test or the Fisher exact test., Results: 169 surgeons responded to the survey, with varying levels of experience and working in different types of hospitals. In a patient with a simple pubic ramus fracture and ASA 2 or ASA 4, 32% and 18% of the respondents would always advise a CT scan for further analysis. In the same patients, 11% and 31% of the respondents would not advise a CT scan, respectively. When presented with three cases of increasing severity of co-morbidity (ASA) and/or increasing age and/or different clinical presentation of an FFP type 3c on a CT scan, an increasing number of respondents would not consider surgical fixation. There was significant variation in practice patterns between the respondents who do not work in a hospital performing pelvic and acetabular (P&A) fracture surgery and those who do work in a P&A referral hospital. Most respondents (77%) refer patients 1-5 times a year to an expert center for surgical fixation., Conclusion: There is currently a wide variety of clinical practices regarding the imaging and management of FFPs, which seems to be influenced by the type of hospital the patients are presented to. A regional or national evidence-based treatment protocol should be implemented to ensure a more uniform approach.

Identifying the full scope of pelvic fracture patterns in older adults has gained clinical importance since the last decennium. CT is recommended as the golden standard; however, MRI has even greater diagnostic accuracy. Dual energy computed tomography (DECT) is a new and promising imaging technique, but the diagnostic accuracy in the context of pelvic fragility fractures (FFPs) has not been widely established. The aim was to provide insight into the diagnostic accuracy of different imaging techniques and the relevance for clinical practice. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed database. All studies that reported on CT, MRI or DECT imaging techniques in older adults who suffered a pelvic fracture were reviewed and, if relevant, included. Eight articles were included. In up to 54% of the patients, additional fractures were found on MRI compared to CT, and in up to 57% of the patients on DECT. The sensitivity of DECT for posterior pelvic fracture detection was similar to MRI. All patients without fractures on CT appeared to have posterior fractures on MRI. After additional MRI, 40% of the patients had a change of classification. DECT and MRI showed very similar results in terms of diagnostic accuracy. Over a third of all patients appear to have a more severe fracture classification after MRI, the majority changing to Rommens type 4. However, in only a few patients who changed of fracture classification, a change of therapy was advised. This review suggests that MRI and DECT scans are superior in diagnosing FFPs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Effects of clockwise torque rotation onto proximal femoral fracture fixation have been subject of ongoing debate: fixated right-sided trochanteric fractures seem more rotationally stable than left-sided fractures in the biomechanical setting, but this theoretical advantage has not been demonstrated in the clinical setting to date. The purpose of this study was to identify a difference in early reoperation rate between patients undergoing surgery for left- versus right-sided proximal femur fractures using cephalomedullary nailing (CMN)., Materials and Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried from 2016-2019 to identify patients aged 50 years and older undergoing CMN for a proximal femoral fracture. The primary outcome was any unplanned reoperation within 30 days following surgery. The difference was calculated using a Chi-square test, and observed power calculated using post-hoc power analysis., Results: In total, of 20,122 patients undergoing CMN for proximal femoral fracture management, 1.8% (n=371) had to undergo an unplanned reoperation within 30 days after surgery. Overall, 208 (2.0%) were left-sided and 163 (1.7%) right-sided fractures (p=0.052, risk ratio [RR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.50), odds ratio [OR] 1.23 (95%CI 1.00-1.51), power 49.2% (α=0.05)., Conclusion: This study shows a higher risk of reoperation for left-sided compared to right-sided proximal femur fractures after CMN in a large sample size. Although results may be underpowered and statistically insignificant, this finding might substantiate the hypothesis that clockwise rotation during implant insertion and (postoperative) weightbearing may lead to higher reoperation rates., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level II., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. One of the authors (JO) certifies that she received, an amount less than USD 10,000 from the Marti-Keuning-Eckhardt Foundation., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)