The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?

Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-ce...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Injury 2017-10, Vol.48 (10), p.2306-2310
Hauptverfasser: Little, Z., Smith, T.O., McMahon, S.E., Cooper, C., Trompeter, A., Pearse, M., Britten, S., Rogers, B., Sharma, H., Narayan, B., Costa, M., Beard, D.J., Hing, C.B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2310
container_issue 10
container_start_page 2306
container_title Injury
container_volume 48
creator Little, Z.
Smith, T.O.
McMahon, S.E.
Cooper, C.
Trompeter, A.
Pearse, M.
Britten, S.
Rogers, B.
Sharma, H.
Narayan, B.
Costa, M.
Beard, D.J.
Hing, C.B.
description Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-centre trials that have answered this question. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nailing to the application of a circular external fixator. A convenience questionnaire survey of attending surgeons was conducted during the United Kingdom’s Orthopaedic Trauma Society annual meeting 2017 to determine the treatment modalities used for a segmental tibial fracture (n=63). Patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients who had been treated for a segmental tibial fracture as part of a patient and public involvement focus group with questions covering the domains of surgical preference, treatment expectations, outcome, the consent process and follow-up regime (n=5). Based on the surgeon survey, 39% routinely use circular frame fixation following segmental tibial fracture compared to 61% who use nail fixation. Nail fixation was reported as the treatment of choice for a closed injury in a healthy patient in 81% of surgeons, and by 86% for a patient with a closed fracture who was obese. Twenty-one percent reported that they would use a nail for an open segmental tibia fracture in diabetics who smoked, whilst 57% would opt for a nail for a closed injury with compartment syndrome, and only 27% would use a nail for an open segmental injury in a young fit sports person. The patient and public preference exercise identified that sleep, early functional outcomes and psychosocial measures of outcomes are important. We concluded that a RCT comparing definitive fixation with an intramedullary nail and a circular external fixator is justified as there remains uncertainty on the optimal surgical management for segmental tibial fractures. Furthermore, psychosocial factors and early post-operative outcomes should be reported as core outcome measures as part of such a trial.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.014
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1930484592</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0020138317305272</els_id><sourcerecordid>1930484592</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-72ec5ae0d452f1c38e2f90763dfadd8d699a0e345342c7e058d0cb86198581bf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1v1DAQhi0EotvCP0DIRy4J448kDoeiqmoBqVIv7dl47XHr1Sbe2g5S_30dbeHI6Z3DM_NqHkI-MWgZsP7rrg3zbknPLQc2tKBaYPIN2TA1jA3wfnhLNgAcGiaUOCGnOe-ggiDEe3LClWJKcLkhv-8ekZaEpkw4Fxo9zfiwjmZPS9iGGj4ZW5aE-Rt1ETM9mBJW9pDQY8LZInXB17GScaJ5SQ8YZ2ofY7D4_QN5580-48fXPCP311d3lz-bm9sfvy4vbhorQZVm4Gg7g-Bkxz2zQiH3Iwy9cN44p1w_jgZQyE5IbgeETjmwW9WzUXWKbb04I1-Odw8pPi2Yi55CtrjfmxnjkjUbBUglu5FXVB5Rm2LO9Qt9SGEy6Vkz0KtbvdNHt3p1q0Hp6raufX5tWLYTun9Lf2VW4PwIYP3zT8Cksw2rHxcS2qJdDP9veAHx9o3b</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1930484592</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Little, Z. ; Smith, T.O. ; McMahon, S.E. ; Cooper, C. ; Trompeter, A. ; Pearse, M. ; Britten, S. ; Rogers, B. ; Sharma, H. ; Narayan, B. ; Costa, M. ; Beard, D.J. ; Hing, C.B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Little, Z. ; Smith, T.O. ; McMahon, S.E. ; Cooper, C. ; Trompeter, A. ; Pearse, M. ; Britten, S. ; Rogers, B. ; Sharma, H. ; Narayan, B. ; Costa, M. ; Beard, D.J. ; Hing, C.B.</creatorcontrib><description>Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-centre trials that have answered this question. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nailing to the application of a circular external fixator. A convenience questionnaire survey of attending surgeons was conducted during the United Kingdom’s Orthopaedic Trauma Society annual meeting 2017 to determine the treatment modalities used for a segmental tibial fracture (n=63). Patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients who had been treated for a segmental tibial fracture as part of a patient and public involvement focus group with questions covering the domains of surgical preference, treatment expectations, outcome, the consent process and follow-up regime (n=5). Based on the surgeon survey, 39% routinely use circular frame fixation following segmental tibial fracture compared to 61% who use nail fixation. Nail fixation was reported as the treatment of choice for a closed injury in a healthy patient in 81% of surgeons, and by 86% for a patient with a closed fracture who was obese. Twenty-one percent reported that they would use a nail for an open segmental tibia fracture in diabetics who smoked, whilst 57% would opt for a nail for a closed injury with compartment syndrome, and only 27% would use a nail for an open segmental injury in a young fit sports person. The patient and public preference exercise identified that sleep, early functional outcomes and psychosocial measures of outcomes are important. We concluded that a RCT comparing definitive fixation with an intramedullary nail and a circular external fixator is justified as there remains uncertainty on the optimal surgical management for segmental tibial fractures. Furthermore, psychosocial factors and early post-operative outcomes should be reported as core outcome measures as part of such a trial.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-1383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0267</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.014</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28818324</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Choice Behavior ; Clinical Decision-Making ; External Fixators - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Female ; Fracture ; Fracture Fixation - methods ; Fracture Fixation - psychology ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Fracture Healing - physiology ; Health Care Surveys ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Education as Topic ; Patient Preference - psychology ; Patient Preference - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Preference ; Segmental ; Surgeon ; Surgeons ; Tibia ; Tibial Fractures - psychology ; Tibial Fractures - surgery ; Treatment Outcome ; Trial</subject><ispartof>Injury, 2017-10, Vol.48 (10), p.2306-2310</ispartof><rights>2017 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-72ec5ae0d452f1c38e2f90763dfadd8d699a0e345342c7e058d0cb86198581bf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-72ec5ae0d452f1c38e2f90763dfadd8d699a0e345342c7e058d0cb86198581bf3</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.2017.08.014$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27926,27927,45997</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28818324$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Little, Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, T.O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McMahon, S.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooper, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trompeter, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pearse, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Britten, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharma, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Narayan, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beard, D.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hing, C.B.</creatorcontrib><title>The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?</title><title>Injury</title><addtitle>Injury</addtitle><description>Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-centre trials that have answered this question. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nailing to the application of a circular external fixator. A convenience questionnaire survey of attending surgeons was conducted during the United Kingdom’s Orthopaedic Trauma Society annual meeting 2017 to determine the treatment modalities used for a segmental tibial fracture (n=63). Patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients who had been treated for a segmental tibial fracture as part of a patient and public involvement focus group with questions covering the domains of surgical preference, treatment expectations, outcome, the consent process and follow-up regime (n=5). Based on the surgeon survey, 39% routinely use circular frame fixation following segmental tibial fracture compared to 61% who use nail fixation. Nail fixation was reported as the treatment of choice for a closed injury in a healthy patient in 81% of surgeons, and by 86% for a patient with a closed fracture who was obese. Twenty-one percent reported that they would use a nail for an open segmental tibia fracture in diabetics who smoked, whilst 57% would opt for a nail for a closed injury with compartment syndrome, and only 27% would use a nail for an open segmental injury in a young fit sports person. The patient and public preference exercise identified that sleep, early functional outcomes and psychosocial measures of outcomes are important. We concluded that a RCT comparing definitive fixation with an intramedullary nail and a circular external fixator is justified as there remains uncertainty on the optimal surgical management for segmental tibial fractures. Furthermore, psychosocial factors and early post-operative outcomes should be reported as core outcome measures as part of such a trial.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Clinical Decision-Making</subject><subject>External Fixators - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fracture</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation - methods</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation - psychology</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Fracture Healing - physiology</subject><subject>Health Care Surveys</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic</subject><subject>Patient Preference - psychology</subject><subject>Patient Preference - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Preference</subject><subject>Segmental</subject><subject>Surgeon</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Tibia</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - psychology</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Trial</subject><issn>0020-1383</issn><issn>1879-0267</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1v1DAQhi0EotvCP0DIRy4J448kDoeiqmoBqVIv7dl47XHr1Sbe2g5S_30dbeHI6Z3DM_NqHkI-MWgZsP7rrg3zbknPLQc2tKBaYPIN2TA1jA3wfnhLNgAcGiaUOCGnOe-ggiDEe3LClWJKcLkhv-8ekZaEpkw4Fxo9zfiwjmZPS9iGGj4ZW5aE-Rt1ETM9mBJW9pDQY8LZInXB17GScaJ5SQ8YZ2ofY7D4_QN5580-48fXPCP311d3lz-bm9sfvy4vbhorQZVm4Gg7g-Bkxz2zQiH3Iwy9cN44p1w_jgZQyE5IbgeETjmwW9WzUXWKbb04I1-Odw8pPi2Yi55CtrjfmxnjkjUbBUglu5FXVB5Rm2LO9Qt9SGEy6Vkz0KtbvdNHt3p1q0Hp6raufX5tWLYTun9Lf2VW4PwIYP3zT8Cksw2rHxcS2qJdDP9veAHx9o3b</recordid><startdate>201710</startdate><enddate>201710</enddate><creator>Little, Z.</creator><creator>Smith, T.O.</creator><creator>McMahon, S.E.</creator><creator>Cooper, C.</creator><creator>Trompeter, A.</creator><creator>Pearse, M.</creator><creator>Britten, S.</creator><creator>Rogers, B.</creator><creator>Sharma, H.</creator><creator>Narayan, B.</creator><creator>Costa, M.</creator><creator>Beard, D.J.</creator><creator>Hing, C.B.</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>201710</creationdate><title>The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?</title><author>Little, Z. ; Smith, T.O. ; McMahon, S.E. ; Cooper, C. ; Trompeter, A. ; Pearse, M. ; Britten, S. ; Rogers, B. ; Sharma, H. ; Narayan, B. ; Costa, M. ; Beard, D.J. ; Hing, C.B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-72ec5ae0d452f1c38e2f90763dfadd8d699a0e345342c7e058d0cb86198581bf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Clinical Decision-Making</topic><topic>External Fixators - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fracture</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation - methods</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation - psychology</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Fracture Healing - physiology</topic><topic>Health Care Surveys</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic</topic><topic>Patient Preference - psychology</topic><topic>Patient Preference - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Preference</topic><topic>Segmental</topic><topic>Surgeon</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Tibia</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - psychology</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Trial</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Little, Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, T.O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McMahon, S.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooper, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trompeter, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pearse, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Britten, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharma, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Narayan, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beard, D.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hing, C.B.</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>Little, Z.</au><au>Smith, T.O.</au><au>McMahon, S.E.</au><au>Cooper, C.</au><au>Trompeter, A.</au><au>Pearse, M.</au><au>Britten, S.</au><au>Rogers, B.</au><au>Sharma, H.</au><au>Narayan, B.</au><au>Costa, M.</au><au>Beard, D.J.</au><au>Hing, C.B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?</atitle><jtitle>Injury</jtitle><addtitle>Injury</addtitle><date>2017-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2306</spage><epage>2310</epage><pages>2306-2310</pages><issn>0020-1383</issn><eissn>1879-0267</eissn><abstract>Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-centre trials that have answered this question. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nailing to the application of a circular external fixator. A convenience questionnaire survey of attending surgeons was conducted during the United Kingdom’s Orthopaedic Trauma Society annual meeting 2017 to determine the treatment modalities used for a segmental tibial fracture (n=63). Patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients who had been treated for a segmental tibial fracture as part of a patient and public involvement focus group with questions covering the domains of surgical preference, treatment expectations, outcome, the consent process and follow-up regime (n=5). Based on the surgeon survey, 39% routinely use circular frame fixation following segmental tibial fracture compared to 61% who use nail fixation. Nail fixation was reported as the treatment of choice for a closed injury in a healthy patient in 81% of surgeons, and by 86% for a patient with a closed fracture who was obese. Twenty-one percent reported that they would use a nail for an open segmental tibia fracture in diabetics who smoked, whilst 57% would opt for a nail for a closed injury with compartment syndrome, and only 27% would use a nail for an open segmental injury in a young fit sports person. The patient and public preference exercise identified that sleep, early functional outcomes and psychosocial measures of outcomes are important. We concluded that a RCT comparing definitive fixation with an intramedullary nail and a circular external fixator is justified as there remains uncertainty on the optimal surgical management for segmental tibial fractures. Furthermore, psychosocial factors and early post-operative outcomes should be reported as core outcome measures as part of such a trial.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>28818324</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.014</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-1383
ispartof Injury, 2017-10, Vol.48 (10), p.2306-2310
issn 0020-1383
1879-0267
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1930484592
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
Choice Behavior
Clinical Decision-Making
External Fixators - statistics & numerical data
Female
Fracture
Fracture Fixation - methods
Fracture Fixation - psychology
Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - statistics & numerical data
Fracture Healing - physiology
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Education as Topic
Patient Preference - psychology
Patient Preference - statistics & numerical data
Preference
Segmental
Surgeon
Surgeons
Tibia
Tibial Fractures - psychology
Tibial Fractures - surgery
Treatment Outcome
Trial
title The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T21%3A53%3A10IST&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=The%20treatment%20of%20segmental%20tibial%20fractures:%20does%20patient%20preference%20differ%20from%20surgeon%20choice?&rft.jtitle=Injury&rft.au=Little,%20Z.&rft.date=2017-10&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2306&rft.epage=2310&rft.pages=2306-2310&rft.issn=0020-1383&rft.eissn=1879-0267&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.014&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1930484592%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=1930484592&rft_id=info:pmid/28818324&rft_els_id=S0020138317305272&rfr_iscdi=true