Aims. We introduced a self-care pathway for minimally displaced distal radius fractures, which involved the patient being discharged from a Virtual Fracture Clinic (VFC) without a physical review and being provided with written instructions on how to remove their own cast or splint at home, plus advice on exercises and return to function. Methods. All patients managed via this protocol between March and October 2020 were contacted by a medical secretary at a minimum of six months post-injury. The patients were asked to complete the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), a satisfaction questionnaire, advise if they had required surgery and/or contacted any health professional, and were also asked for any recommendations on how to improve the service. A review with a hand surgeon was organized if required, and a cost analysis was also conducted. Results. Overall 71/101 patients completed the telephone consultation; no patients required surgery, and the mean and median PRWE scores were 23.9/100 (SD 24.9) and 17.0/100 (interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 40), respectively. Mean patient satisfaction with treatment was 34.3/40 (SD 9.2), and 65 patients (92%) were satisfied or highly satisfied. In total there were 16 contact calls, 12 requests for a consultant review, no formal complaints, and 15 minor adjustment suggestions to improve patient experience. A relationship was found between intra-articular injuries and lower patient satisfaction scores (p = 0.025), however no relationship was found between PRWE scores and the nature of the fracture. Also, no relationship was found between the type of immobilization and the functional outcome or patient satisfaction. Cost analysis of the self-care pathway V traditional pathway showed a cost savings of over £13,500 per year with the new self-care model compared to the traditional model. Conclusion. Our study supports a VFC self-care pathway for patients with minimally displaced distal radius fractures. The pathway provides a good level of patient satisfaction and function. To improve the service, we will make minor amendments to our patient information sheet. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):726–732

Aims. Fractures of the distal radius are common, and form a considerable proportion of the trauma workload. We conducted a study to examine the patterns of injury and treatment for adult patients presenting with distal radius fractures to a major trauma centre serving an urban population. Methods. We undertook a retrospective cohort study to identify all patients treated at our major trauma centre for a distal radius fracture between 1 June 2018 and 1 May 2021. We reviewed the medical records and imaging for each patient to examine patterns of injury and treatment. We undertook a binomial logistic regression to produce a predictive model for operative fixation or inpatient admission. Results. Overall, 571 fractures of the distal radius were treated at our centre during the study period. A total of 146 (26%) patients required an inpatient admission, and 385 surgical procedures for fractures of the distal radius were recorded between June 2018 and May 2021. The most common mechanism of injury was a fall from a height of one metre or less. Of the total fractures, 59% (n = 337) were treated nonoperatively, and of those patients treated with surgery, locked anterior-plate fixation was the preferred technique (79%; n = 180). Conclusion. The epidemiology of distal radius fractures treated at our major trauma centre replicated the classical bimodal distribution described in the literature. Patient age, open fractures, and fracture classification were factors correlated with the decision to treat the fracture operatively. While most fractures were treated nonoperatively, locked anterior-plate fixation remains the predominant method of fixation for fractures of the distal radius; this is despite questions and continued debate about the best method of surgical fixation for these injuries. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):623–627

Aims. The purpose was to compare operative treatment with a volar plate and nonoperative treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in patients aged 65 years and over in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods. A cost-utility analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial. A total of 50 patients were randomized to each group. We prospectively collected data on resource use during the first year post-fracture, and estimated costs of initial treatment, further operations, physiotherapy, home nursing, and production loss. Health-related quality of life was based on the Euro-QoL five-dimension, five-level (EQ-5D-5L) utility index, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated. Results. The mean QALYs were 0.05 higher in the operative group during the first 12 months (p = 0.260). The healthcare provider costs were €1,533 higher per patient in the operative group: €3,589 in the operative group and 2,056 in the nonoperative group. With a suggested willingness to pay of €27,500 per QALY there was a 45% chance for operative treatment to be cost-effective. For both groups, the main costs were related to the primary treatment. The primary surgery was the main driver of the difference between the groups. The costs related to loss of production were high in both groups, despite high rates of retirement. Retirement rate was unevenly distributed between the groups and was not included in the analysis. Conclusion. Surgical treatment was not cost-effective in patients aged 65 years and older compared to nonoperative treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in a healthcare perspective. Costs related to loss of production might change this in the future if the retirement age increases. Level of evidence: II. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1027–1034

Aims

Patient decision aids have previously demonstrated an improvement in the quality of the informed consent process. This study assessed the effectiveness of detailed written patient information, compared to standard verbal consent, in improving postoperative recall in adult orthopaedic trauma patients.

Aims

It is imperative to understand the risks of operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2 virus) pandemic for clinical decision-making and medical resource planning. The primary aim was to determine the mortality risk and associated variables when operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objective was to assess differences in the outcome of patients treated between sites treating COVID-19 and a separate surgical site.