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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Injury 2017-10, Vol.48 (10), p.2306-2310 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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</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 & numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fracture</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation - methods</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation - psychology</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - statistics & 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 & 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 & numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fracture</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation - methods</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation - psychology</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - statistics & 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 & 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 |