Aims. To investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of older adults (aged ≥ 60 years) after tibial plateau fracture (TPF) compared to preinjury and population matched values, and what aspects of treatment were most important to patients. Methods. We undertook a retrospective, case-control study of 67 patients at mean 3.5 years (SD 1.3; 1.3 to 6.1) after TPF (47 patients underwent fixation, and 20 nonoperative management). Patients completed EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire, Lower Limb Function Scale (LEFS), and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) for current and recalled prefracture status. Propensity score matching for age, sex, and deprivation in a 1:5 ratio was performed using patient level data from the Health Survey for England to obtain a control group for HRQoL comparison. The primary outcome was the difference in actual (TPF cohort) and expected (matched control) EQ-5D-3L score after TPF. Results. TPF patients had a significantly worse EQ-5D-3L utility (mean difference (MD) 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.16; p < 0.001) following their injury compared to matched controls, and had a significant deterioration (MD 0.140, 95% CI 0 to 0.309; p < 0.001) relative to their preoperative status. TPF patients had significantly greater pre-fracture EQ-5D-3L scores compared to controls (p = 0.003), specifically in mobility and pain/discomfort domains. A decline in EQ-5D-3L greater than the minimal important change of 0.105 was present in 36/67 TPF patients (53.7%). Following TPF, OKS (MD -7; interquartile range (IQR) -1 to -15) and LEFS (MD -10; IQR -2 to -26) declined significantly (p < 0.001) from pre-fracture levels. Of the 12 elements of fracture care assessed, the most important to patients were getting back to their own home, having a stable knee, and returning to normal function. Conclusion. TPFs in older adults were associated with a clinically significant deterioration in HRQoL compared to preinjury level and age, sex, and deprivation matched controls for both
Occult (clinical) injuries represent 15% of all scaphoid fractures, posing significant challenges to the clinician. MRI has been suggested as the gold standard for diagnosis, but remains expensive, time-consuming, and is in high demand. Conventional management with immobilization and serial radiography typically results in multiple follow-up attendances to clinic, radiation exposure, and delays return to work. Suboptimal management can result in significant disability and, frequently, litigation. We present a service evaluation report following the introduction of a quality-improvement themed, streamlined, clinical scaphoid pathway. Patients are offered a removable wrist splint with verbal and written instructions to remove it two weeks following injury, for self-assessment. The persistence of pain is the patient’s guide to ‘opt-in’ and to self-refer for a follow-up appointment with a senior emergency physician. On confirmation of ongoing signs of clinical scaphoid injury, an urgent outpatient ‘fast’-wrist protocol MRI scan is ordered, with instructions to maintain wrist immobilization. Patients with positive scan results are referred for specialist orthopaedic assessment via a virtual fracture clinic.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to describe variation in hip fracture treatment in Norway expressed as adherence to international and national evidence-based treatment guidelines, to study factors influencing deviation from guidelines, and to analyze consequences of non-adherence. International and national guidelines were identified and treatment recommendations extracted. All 43 hospitals routinely treating hip fractures in Norway were characterized. From the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR), hip fracture patients aged > 65 years and operated in the period January 2014 to December 2018 for fractures with conclusive treatment guidelines were included (n = 29,613: femoral neck fractures (n = 21,325), stable trochanteric fractures (n = 5,546), inter- and subtrochanteric fractures (n = 2,742)). Adherence to treatment recommendations and a composite indicator of best practice were analyzed. Patient survival and reoperations were evaluated for each recommendation.Aims
Methods
