The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with limitations in function, measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), six to nine months after a proximal humeral fracture, from a range of demographic, injury, psychological, and social variables measured within a week and two to four weeks after injury. We enrolled 177 adult patients who sustained an isolated proximal humeral fracture into the study and invited them to complete PROMs at their initial outpatient visit within one week of injury, between two and four weeks, and between six to nine months after injury. There were 128 women and 49 men; the mean age was 66 years (Aims
Patients and Methods
We performed a systematic review of the literature
pertaining to the functional outcomes of the surgical management
of acetabular fractures. A total of 69 articles met our inclusion
criteria, revealing that eight generic outcome instruments were
used, along with five specific instruments. The majority of studies
reported outcomes using a version of the d’Aubigne and Postel score,
which has not been validated for use in acetabular fracture. Few validated
outcome measures were reported. No psychometric testing of outcome
instruments was performed. The current assessment of outcomes in
surgery for acetabular fractures lacks scientific rigour, and does
not give reliable outcome data for either scientific comparison
or patient counselling. Take home message: The use of non-validated functional outcome
measures is a major limitation of the current literature pertaining
to surgical management of acetabular fractures; future studies should
use validated outcome measures to ensure the legitimacy of the reported
results. Cite this article:
The aims of this study were to estimate the cost of surgical
treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus using a micro-costing
methodology, contrast this cost with the national reimbursement
tariff and establish the major determinants of cost. A detailed inpatient treatment pathway was constructed using
semi-structured interviews with 32 members of hospital staff. Its
content validity was established through a Delphi panel evaluation.
Costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC)
and sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the determinants
of costAims
Methods
Although the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was designed, and has been validated, as a measure of disability in patients with disorders of the upper limb, the influence of those of the lower limb on disability as measured by the DASH score has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate whether it exclusively measures disability associated with injuries to the upper limb. The Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment, a general musculoskeletal assessment instrument, was also completed by participants. Disability was compared in 206 participants, 84 with an injury to the upper limb, 73 with injury to the lower limb and 49 controls. We found that the DASH score also measured disability in patients with injuries to the lower limb. Care must therefore be taken when attributing disability measured by the DASH score to injuries of the upper limb when problems are also present in the lower limb. Its inability to discriminate clearly between disability due to problems at these separate sites must be taken into account when using this instrument in clinical practice or research.
