Early prediction of tibial and femoral fracture healing: Are we reliable?

Abstract Introduction To evaluate the ability of orthopaedic trauma subspecialists to predict early bony union in femoral and tibia shaft fractures. Materials and methods Eight orthopaedic trauma subspecialists prospectively predicted the probability of bony union at 6 and 12 weeks post-operatively...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Injury 2016-12, Vol.47 (12), p.2805-2808
Hauptverfasser: Squyer, Emily R, Dikos, Gregory D, Kaehr, David M, Maar, Dean C, Crichlow, Renn J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2808
container_issue 12
container_start_page 2805
container_title Injury
container_volume 47
creator Squyer, Emily R
Dikos, Gregory D
Kaehr, David M
Maar, Dean C
Crichlow, Renn J
description Abstract Introduction To evaluate the ability of orthopaedic trauma subspecialists to predict early bony union in femoral and tibia shaft fractures. Materials and methods Eight orthopaedic trauma subspecialists prospectively predicted the probability of bony union at 6 and 12 weeks post-operatively for an aggregate of 48 femoral and tibial shaft fractures treated at a Level 1 trauma centre. An additional orthopaedic trauma subspecialist was blinded to treating surgeon and adjudicated healing at 18 weeks. The Squared-Error Skill Score (SESS) determined the likelihood of accurate forecasting for bony union. Results Nine patients were lost follow-up, resulting in 39 fractures (81.25% retention) including 20 femoral and 19 tibial fractures. Fourteen fractures were open, 15 were not-yet united at final follow-up. SESS values were 0.25–0.77. The ability to predict union (sensitivity) was 1.000. The ability to predict nonunions (specificity) was 0.330–0.500. The probability of a correct predicted union was 0.727 and correct predicted nonunion at final follow-up was 1.000. AO/OTA type A fractures pattern predictions were highly accurate. As body mass index increased, predictions trended toward decreased accuracy (p = 0.06). Tobacco use, age, gender, associated injuries, open fractures, and surgeons’ years in clinical practice were not associated with accuracy of predictions. Conclusions At 12-weeks post-operatively orthopaedic trauma subspecialists can confidently predict the union state in this patient population. This data is most useful in the nonunion patient, directing early intervention, thereby decreasing patient disability and discomfort.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.036
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1836731365</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0020138316307021</els_id><sourcerecordid>1836731365</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-2fa621648e17ceac3f7488042717a12e00ef6ec3e198ee09f23191e96838ee6f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUFP3DAQha2qqCy0_6BCOfaSZcYOttNDK4QoICFxgJ4tr3fcOniTrZ2A9t_X0dIeuHCy3-jNG803jH1GWCKgPO2Woe-mtFvyokppCUK-YwvUqq2BS_WeLQA41Ci0OGRHOXcAqECID-yQK10yzsSC3VzaFHfVNtE6uDEMfTX4agyrYGNl-3XlaTOk8vfJunFKVP0mG0P_62t1XsQzVYlisKtI3z-yA29jpk8v7zH7-ePy4eK6vr27urk4v61do8VYc28lR9loQuXIOuFVozU0XKGyyAmAvCQnCFtNBK3nAlukVmpRtPTimH3Z527T8GeiPJpNyI5itD0NUzaohVQChTwr1mZvdWnIOZE32xQ2Nu0Mgpkhms7sIZoZ4lwtEEvbycuEabWh9f-mf9SK4dveQGXPp0DJZBeod4VhIjea9RDemvA6wBWowdn4SDvK3TClvjA0aDI3YO7nQ853RClAAUfxF1EBmH8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1836731365</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Early prediction of tibial and femoral fracture healing: Are we reliable?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Squyer, Emily R ; Dikos, Gregory D ; Kaehr, David M ; Maar, Dean C ; Crichlow, Renn J</creator><creatorcontrib>Squyer, Emily R ; Dikos, Gregory D ; Kaehr, David M ; Maar, Dean C ; Crichlow, Renn J</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Introduction To evaluate the ability of orthopaedic trauma subspecialists to predict early bony union in femoral and tibia shaft fractures. Materials and methods Eight orthopaedic trauma subspecialists prospectively predicted the probability of bony union at 6 and 12 weeks post-operatively for an aggregate of 48 femoral and tibial shaft fractures treated at a Level 1 trauma centre. An additional orthopaedic trauma subspecialist was blinded to treating surgeon and adjudicated healing at 18 weeks. The Squared-Error Skill Score (SESS) determined the likelihood of accurate forecasting for bony union. Results Nine patients were lost follow-up, resulting in 39 fractures (81.25% retention) including 20 femoral and 19 tibial fractures. Fourteen fractures were open, 15 were not-yet united at final follow-up. SESS values were 0.25–0.77. The ability to predict union (sensitivity) was 1.000. The ability to predict nonunions (specificity) was 0.330–0.500. The probability of a correct predicted union was 0.727 and correct predicted nonunion at final follow-up was 1.000. AO/OTA type A fractures pattern predictions were highly accurate. As body mass index increased, predictions trended toward decreased accuracy (p = 0.06). Tobacco use, age, gender, associated injuries, open fractures, and surgeons’ years in clinical practice were not associated with accuracy of predictions. Conclusions At 12-weeks post-operatively orthopaedic trauma subspecialists can confidently predict the union state in this patient population. This data is most useful in the nonunion patient, directing early intervention, thereby decreasing patient disability and discomfort.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-1383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0267</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.036</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27810153</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Bony union prediction ; Child ; Female ; Femoral Fractures - complications ; Femoral Fractures - physiopathology ; Femoral Fractures - surgery ; Femoral nonunion ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary ; Fracture Healing - physiology ; Fractures, Open - physiopathology ; Fractures, Open - surgery ; Fractures, Ununited - physiopathology ; Fractures, Ununited - surgery ; Healing prediction ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Orthopedics ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Reproducibility of Results ; Tibial Fractures - complications ; Tibial Fractures - physiopathology ; Tibial Fractures - surgery ; Tibial nonunion ; Trauma Centers ; Treatment Outcome ; United States ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Injury, 2016-12, Vol.47 (12), p.2805-2808</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-2fa621648e17ceac3f7488042717a12e00ef6ec3e198ee09f23191e96838ee6f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-2fa621648e17ceac3f7488042717a12e00ef6ec3e198ee09f23191e96838ee6f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.036$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,3552,27931,27932,46002</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27810153$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Squyer, Emily R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dikos, Gregory D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaehr, David M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maar, Dean C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crichlow, Renn J</creatorcontrib><title>Early prediction of tibial and femoral fracture healing: Are we reliable?</title><title>Injury</title><addtitle>Injury</addtitle><description>Abstract Introduction To evaluate the ability of orthopaedic trauma subspecialists to predict early bony union in femoral and tibia shaft fractures. Materials and methods Eight orthopaedic trauma subspecialists prospectively predicted the probability of bony union at 6 and 12 weeks post-operatively for an aggregate of 48 femoral and tibial shaft fractures treated at a Level 1 trauma centre. An additional orthopaedic trauma subspecialist was blinded to treating surgeon and adjudicated healing at 18 weeks. The Squared-Error Skill Score (SESS) determined the likelihood of accurate forecasting for bony union. Results Nine patients were lost follow-up, resulting in 39 fractures (81.25% retention) including 20 femoral and 19 tibial fractures. Fourteen fractures were open, 15 were not-yet united at final follow-up. SESS values were 0.25–0.77. The ability to predict union (sensitivity) was 1.000. The ability to predict nonunions (specificity) was 0.330–0.500. The probability of a correct predicted union was 0.727 and correct predicted nonunion at final follow-up was 1.000. AO/OTA type A fractures pattern predictions were highly accurate. As body mass index increased, predictions trended toward decreased accuracy (p = 0.06). Tobacco use, age, gender, associated injuries, open fractures, and surgeons’ years in clinical practice were not associated with accuracy of predictions. Conclusions At 12-weeks post-operatively orthopaedic trauma subspecialists can confidently predict the union state in this patient population. This data is most useful in the nonunion patient, directing early intervention, thereby decreasing patient disability and discomfort.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Bony union prediction</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Femoral Fractures - complications</subject><subject>Femoral Fractures - physiopathology</subject><subject>Femoral Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Femoral nonunion</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary</subject><subject>Fracture Healing - physiology</subject><subject>Fractures, Open - physiopathology</subject><subject>Fractures, Open - surgery</subject><subject>Fractures, Ununited - physiopathology</subject><subject>Fractures, Ununited - surgery</subject><subject>Healing prediction</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - complications</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - physiopathology</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Tibial nonunion</subject><subject>Trauma Centers</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0020-1383</issn><issn>1879-0267</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUFP3DAQha2qqCy0_6BCOfaSZcYOttNDK4QoICFxgJ4tr3fcOniTrZ2A9t_X0dIeuHCy3-jNG803jH1GWCKgPO2Woe-mtFvyokppCUK-YwvUqq2BS_WeLQA41Ci0OGRHOXcAqECID-yQK10yzsSC3VzaFHfVNtE6uDEMfTX4agyrYGNl-3XlaTOk8vfJunFKVP0mG0P_62t1XsQzVYlisKtI3z-yA29jpk8v7zH7-ePy4eK6vr27urk4v61do8VYc28lR9loQuXIOuFVozU0XKGyyAmAvCQnCFtNBK3nAlukVmpRtPTimH3Z527T8GeiPJpNyI5itD0NUzaohVQChTwr1mZvdWnIOZE32xQ2Nu0Mgpkhms7sIZoZ4lwtEEvbycuEabWh9f-mf9SK4dveQGXPp0DJZBeod4VhIjea9RDemvA6wBWowdn4SDvK3TClvjA0aDI3YO7nQ853RClAAUfxF1EBmH8</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Squyer, Emily R</creator><creator>Dikos, Gregory D</creator><creator>Kaehr, David M</creator><creator>Maar, Dean C</creator><creator>Crichlow, Renn J</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>Early prediction of tibial and femoral fracture healing: Are we reliable?</title><author>Squyer, Emily R ; Dikos, Gregory D ; Kaehr, David M ; Maar, Dean C ; Crichlow, Renn J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-2fa621648e17ceac3f7488042717a12e00ef6ec3e198ee09f23191e96838ee6f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Bony union prediction</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Femoral Fractures - complications</topic><topic>Femoral Fractures - physiopathology</topic><topic>Femoral Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Femoral nonunion</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary</topic><topic>Fracture Healing - physiology</topic><topic>Fractures, Open - physiopathology</topic><topic>Fractures, Open - surgery</topic><topic>Fractures, Ununited - physiopathology</topic><topic>Fractures, Ununited - surgery</topic><topic>Healing prediction</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - complications</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - physiopathology</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Tibial nonunion</topic><topic>Trauma Centers</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Squyer, Emily R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dikos, Gregory D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaehr, David M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maar, Dean C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crichlow, Renn J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Injury</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Squyer, Emily R</au><au>Dikos, Gregory D</au><au>Kaehr, David M</au><au>Maar, Dean C</au><au>Crichlow, Renn J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Early prediction of tibial and femoral fracture healing: Are we reliable?</atitle><jtitle>Injury</jtitle><addtitle>Injury</addtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2805</spage><epage>2808</epage><pages>2805-2808</pages><issn>0020-1383</issn><eissn>1879-0267</eissn><abstract>Abstract Introduction To evaluate the ability of orthopaedic trauma subspecialists to predict early bony union in femoral and tibia shaft fractures. Materials and methods Eight orthopaedic trauma subspecialists prospectively predicted the probability of bony union at 6 and 12 weeks post-operatively for an aggregate of 48 femoral and tibial shaft fractures treated at a Level 1 trauma centre. An additional orthopaedic trauma subspecialist was blinded to treating surgeon and adjudicated healing at 18 weeks. The Squared-Error Skill Score (SESS) determined the likelihood of accurate forecasting for bony union. Results Nine patients were lost follow-up, resulting in 39 fractures (81.25% retention) including 20 femoral and 19 tibial fractures. Fourteen fractures were open, 15 were not-yet united at final follow-up. SESS values were 0.25–0.77. The ability to predict union (sensitivity) was 1.000. The ability to predict nonunions (specificity) was 0.330–0.500. The probability of a correct predicted union was 0.727 and correct predicted nonunion at final follow-up was 1.000. AO/OTA type A fractures pattern predictions were highly accurate. As body mass index increased, predictions trended toward decreased accuracy (p = 0.06). Tobacco use, age, gender, associated injuries, open fractures, and surgeons’ years in clinical practice were not associated with accuracy of predictions. Conclusions At 12-weeks post-operatively orthopaedic trauma subspecialists can confidently predict the union state in this patient population. This data is most useful in the nonunion patient, directing early intervention, thereby decreasing patient disability and discomfort.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>27810153</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.036</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-1383
ispartof Injury, 2016-12, Vol.47 (12), p.2805-2808
issn 0020-1383
1879-0267
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1836731365
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Bony union prediction
Child
Female
Femoral Fractures - complications
Femoral Fractures - physiopathology
Femoral Fractures - surgery
Femoral nonunion
Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary
Fracture Healing - physiology
Fractures, Open - physiopathology
Fractures, Open - surgery
Fractures, Ununited - physiopathology
Fractures, Ununited - surgery
Healing prediction
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
Predictive Value of Tests
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Tibial Fractures - complications
Tibial Fractures - physiopathology
Tibial Fractures - surgery
Tibial nonunion
Trauma Centers
Treatment Outcome
United States
Young Adult
title Early prediction of tibial and femoral fracture healing: Are we reliable?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-05T07%3A31%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Early%20prediction%20of%20tibial%20and%20femoral%20fracture%20healing:%20Are%20we%20reliable?&rft.jtitle=Injury&rft.au=Squyer,%20Emily%20R&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2805&rft.epage=2808&rft.pages=2805-2808&rft.issn=0020-1383&rft.eissn=1879-0267&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.036&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1836731365%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1836731365&rft_id=info:pmid/27810153&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0020138316307021&rfr_iscdi=true