Aims. The aims of this study were to describe the epidemiology of
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates. PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases were searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported incidence rate (or count with population at risk), contained data on adult population, and were written in English language. The number of cases and population at risk were collected, and the pooled incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using either a fixed or random effects model.Aims
Methods
Due to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, “How useful are VFCs?”, and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic literature search of all papers pertaining to VFCs, using the search engines PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Searches were carried out and screened by two authors, with final study eligibility confirmed by the senior author.Background
Methods
Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are advocated by recent British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOASTs) to efficiently manage injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary aim of this national study is to assess the impact of these standards on patient satisfaction and clinical outcome amid the pandemic. The secondary aims are to determine the impact of the pandemic on the demographic details of injuries presenting to the VFC, and to compare outcomes and satisfaction when the BOAST guidelines were first introduced with a subsequent period when local practice would be familiar with these guidelines. This is a national cross-sectional cohort study comprising centres with VFC services across the UK. All consecutive adult patients assessed in VFC in a two-week period pre-lockdown (6 May 2019 to 19 May 2019) and in the same two-week period at the peak of the first lockdown (4 May 2020 to 17 May 2020), and a randomly selected sample during the ‘second wave’ (October 2020) will be eligible for the study. Data comprising local VFC practice, patient and injury characteristics, unplanned re-attendances, and complications will be collected by local investigators for all time periods. A telephone questionnaire will be used to determine patient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes for patients who were discharged following VFC assessment without face-to-face consultation.Aims
Methods
The aim of the Scaphoid Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Trauma (SMaRT) trial was to evaluate the clinical and cost implications of using immediate MRI in the acute management of patients with a suspected fracture of the scaphoid with negative radiographs. Patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with a suspected fracture of the scaphoid and negative radiographs were randomized to a control group, who did not undergo further imaging in the ED, or an intervention group, who had an MRI of the wrist as an additional test during the initial ED attendance. Most participants were male (52% control, 61% intervention), with a mean age of 36.2 years (18 to 73) in the control group and 38.2 years (20 to 71) in the intervention group. The primary outcome was total cost impact at three months post-recruitment. Secondary outcomes included total costs at six months, the assessment of clinical findings, diagnostic accuracy, and the participants’ self-reported level of satisfaction. Differences in cost were estimated using generalized linear models with gamma errors.Aims
Patients and Methods
