Treatment Of Upper Extremity Fractures Research Articles

Advances in Soft Tissue Injuries Associated with Open Fractures.

Management of soft tissue injury is a key component in the overall treatment of upper extremity fractures. Hand surgeons must rely on their armamentarium for treating soft tissue deficits for functional outcomes. Understanding the role of fracture fixation and wound adjuncts, including negative pressure wound therapy and dermal regenerative templates, is the keys to success. In addition, detailed knowledge of local and free tissue options is essential for hand reconstruction.

The Use of Patient-Specific Implants for the Treatment of Upper Extremity Fractures.

In this article, we discuss the use of three-dimensional (3-D) printed patient-specific implants in the management of upper extremity fractures. Traditional fracture fixation methods involve the use of standard-sized implants, which may not adequately address the needs of every patient, particularly those who have complications related to fracture nonunion or malunion and those who have significant bone loss. The benefits and limitations of this technology are also discussed, along with considerations for implementation in clinical practice. Overall, the use of 3-D printed patient-specific implants holds promise for improving the accuracy and efficacy of upper extremity fracture management.

The Utility of Routine Follow-up Radiographs in the Nonoperative Management of Proximal Humerus Fractures in Patients 65 Years and Older.

Whereas prior studies have aimed to define the utility of routine radiographs for the closed treatment of upper extremity fractures, it remains uncertain whether routine radiographs influence management decisions for nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs). The purpose of this investigation was to assess the utility of routine radiographic monitoring of closed PHFs in elderly patients initially indicated for nonoperative treatment. We identified all patients 65 years and older who had a PHF from 2016 to 2019. We excluded cases of pathologic fractures or peri-prosthetic fractures, nonunion, malunion, cases with insufficient follow-up, and cases for which surgery was indicated either in the emergency department or at the first orthopedic visit. After applying these exclusion criteria, 402 cases remained. We recorded baseline demographics and fracture descriptions and noted any conversion to operative treatment after the initial office visit. Two-part fractures were most common (56%). Of the 402 fractures indicated for nonoperative treatment, 21 (5%) were converted to operative management during the follow-up period. Nine fractures (2%) were converted to operative management within 30 days of the first office visit. Eight cases (2%) were converted to operative treatment more than 120 days after the initial office visit: 6 due to nonunion and 2 due to posttraumatic arthritis. For patients 65 years and older who undergo initial nonoperative treatment of a PHF, routine follow-up radiographs do not appear to alter management decisions. Given the risk and cost associated with routine radiographs, surgeons should consider forgoing these images in the absence of clinical concern. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(4):e244-e248.].

Variation in state and federal reimbursement in the United States in the treatment of upper extremity fractures

Medicare and Medicaid are 2 of the largest government-run health care programs in the United States. Although Medicare reimbursement is determined at the federal level by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicaid reimbursement rates are set by each individual state. The purpose of this study is to compare Medicaid reimbursement rates with regional Medicare reimbursement rates for 12 orthopedic procedures performed to treat common fractures of the upper extremity. Twelve orthopedic procedures were selected and their Medicare reimbursement rates were collected from the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Medicaid reimbursement rates were obtained from each state's physician fee schedule. Reimbursement rates were then compared by assessing the ratio of Medicaid to Medicare, the dollar difference in Medicaid to Medicare reimbursement, and the difference per relative value unit. The range of variation in Medicaid reimbursement and Medicare wage index-adjusted Medicaid reimbursement was calculated. Comparisons in reimbursement were calculated using coefficient of variation and Student t tests to evaluate the differences between the mean Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Two-sample coefficient of variation testing was used to determine whether dispersion in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates differed significantly. There was significant difference in reimbursement rates between Medicare and Medicaid for all 12 procedures, with Medicare reimbursing on average 46.5% more than Medicaid. In 40 states, Medicaid reimbursed less than Medicare for all 12 procedures. Regarding the dollar difference per relative value unit, Medicaid reimbursed on average $18.03 less per relative value unit than Medicare. The coefficient of variation for Medicaid reimbursement rates ranged from 0.26-0.33. This is in stark contrast with the significantly lower variability observed in Medicare reimbursement, which ranged from 0.06-0.07. Our findings highlight the variation in reimbursement that exists among state Medicaid programs for 12 orthopedic procedures commonly used to treat fractures of the upper extremity. Furthermore, average Medicaid reimbursement rates were significantly lower than Medicare rates for all 12 procedures. Such discrepancies in reimbursement may act as a barrier, impeding many Medicaid patients from accessing timely orthopedic care.

Patients’ preferences for occupational therapy after upper extremity fractures: a discrete choice experiment

ObjectiveOccupational therapy is often prescribed after the acute treatment of upper extremity fractures. However, high out-of-pocket expenses and logistical constraints can reduce access to formal therapy services. We aimed to...

Cost-Effectiveness of Titanium Elastic Nail (TEN) in the Treatment of Forearm Fractures in Children.

Background and objectives: There are various methods in the management of forearm fractures in children. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing using Titanium Elastic Nail (TEN) is nowadays employed in diaphysis fractures of children, with clear benefits over other treatment options. However, in the case of TEN versus other treatment methods of forearm fractures in children, cost is an important issue. This report will focus on the cost assessment of using TEN versus other therapeutic means in the treatment of forearm fractures in children. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective longitudinal study of 173 consecutive patients with forearm fractures treated in a single institution during 2017. We calculated the cost for each patient by summing up direct costs plus indirect costs, calculated at an aggregate level. Hospital income data were extracted from the Diagnosis Related Groups database. Results: A total of 173 patients with forearm fractures were treated, 44 using TEN, 86 using K-wire, and 46 using closed reduction and cast. There were 66 radius fractures, 1 ulna fracture, and 106 that were both radius and ulna fractures. Mean treatment cost were $632.76 for TEN, $499.50 for K-wire, and $451.30 for closed reduction and cast. Costs for TEN were higher than for K-wire insertion (p = 0.00) and higher than closed reduction and cast ($182.42; p = 0.00). Reimbursement per patient was higher with TEN versus K-wire patients; $497.88 vs. $364.64 /patient (p = 0.00), and higher than for patients treated with closed reduction and cast (p = 0.00). Conclusions: The treatment of upper extremity fractures using TEN was more expensive than the other methods. In Romania, because the reimbursement for TEN is higher as well, there are no differences in the financial burden when treating forearm fractures with TEN versus K-wire. Non-surgical treatment has the lowest cost but also the lowest reimbursement.

Postsurgical complications following distal radius volar plating in a diabetic population at short-term follow-up.

Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of complications following operative treatment of lower extremity fractures. There is little published data establishing the impact of diabetes following surgical treatment of upper extremity fractures. This investigation aimed to compare the incidence of short-term postsurgical complications following volar locked plating of distal radius fractures in patients with and without diabetes. A retrospective matched cohort investigation of 33 diabetics matched 1:2 to 66 non-diabetics was performed, accounting for age, gender, fracture type, and smoking status. Electronic medical records and radiographs were reviewed for all major and minor postsurgical complications. Demographic characteristics, postoperative radiographic parameters, and final range of motion were also compared. Mean follow-up was 5.3 ± 8.2 and 5.5 ± 7.8months for diabetics and non-diabetics, respectively. The diabetic cohort had a significantly higher overall complication rate with 24 postsurgical complications affecting 12 patients (36%) compared to 16 complications affecting 12 patients (18%) in the non-diabetic cohort. There was no difference in the incidence of major complications requiring operative intervention. Minor complications were significantly more common in the diabetic group and were largely accounted for by peripheral neuritis with an incidence of 30%. Final radiographic outcomes and range of motion were similar. Diabetics experienced a greater incidence of minor postsurgical complications following volar locked plating of distal radius fractures when compared to a matched, control population. The difference in outcomes is largely accounted for by the increased incidence of peripheral neuritis among diabetics. Diabetic patients should be counseled pre-operatively regarding their elevated risk profile.

National trends in ambulatory surgery for upper extremity fractures: a 10-year analysis of the US National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery.

Upper extremity fractures are increasing in frequency and have profound socioeconomic implications. The purpose of this study was to assess trends in ambulatory upper extremity fracture fixation in the USA from 1996 to 2006 using data from the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery (NSAS). The NSAS was used to identify cases of closed forearm, carpal, metacarpal, and phalanx fractures treated with open or closed reduction with internal fixation in 1996 and 2006. Data were analyzed for trends in fracture location, age, gender, facility type, payor status, and anesthesia type. US census data were used to obtain national population estimates. Over the 10-year study period, there was a 54.4% increase in the population-adjusted rate of upper extremity fractures treated with internal fixation (34.6 to 53.4 per 100,000 capita). There was a 173% increase in the age-adjusted rate of patients over 55years treated with internal fixation. There was a 505% increase in the number of cases performed at freestanding surgical centers compared to hospital-based facilities. Though the majority of cases involved general anesthesia, regional anesthesia (16.6 versus 20.6%) and monitored anesthesia care (7.1 versus 11.8%) increased in frequency. Private insurance groups funded the majority of surgeries in both study years. The volume of ambulatory surgery for upper extremity fractures has increased dramatically from 1996 to 2006. Operative treatment of upper extremity fractures has increased markedly. Our analysis provides valuable information for providers and policy-makers for allocating the appropriate resources to help sustain this volume.

Mixing Implants of Differing Metallic Composition in the Treatment of Upper-extremity Fractures

Mixing implants with differing metallic compositions has been avoided for fear of galvanic corrosion and subsequent failure of the implants and of bone healing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate upper-extremity fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation with metallic implants that differed in metallic composition placed on the same bone. The authors studied the effects of using both stainless steel and titanium implants on fracture healing, implant failure, and other complications associated with this method of fixation. Their hypothesis was that combining these metals on the same bone would not cause clinically significant nonunions or undo clinical effects from galvanic corrosion. A retrospective review was performed of 17 patients with upper-extremity fractures fixed with metal implants of differing metallic compositions. The primary endpoint was fracture union. Eight clavicles, 2 proximal humeri, 3 distal humeri, 3 olecranons, and 1 glenoid fracture with an average follow-up 10 months were reviewed. All fractures healed. One patient experienced screw backout, which did not affect healing. This study implies that mixing implants with differing metallic compositions on the same bone for the treatment of fractures does not adversely affect bone healing. No evidence existed of corrosion or an increase in complications with this method of treatment. Contrary to prior belief, small modular hand stainless steel plates can be used to assist in reduction of smaller fracture fragments in combination with anatomic titanium plates to obtain anatomic reduction of the fracture without adversely affecting healing.

Clinical Research Fails to Support More Aggressive Management of Pediatric Upper Extremity Fractures

Recent years have seen a trend toward more operative treatment of upper extremity fractures in children. The current study examines clinical research regarding pediatric upper extremity fracture treatment over the past twenty years in an attempt to identify research-based support for the increasingly aggressive treatment of these fractures. Accepted abstracts on pediatric upper extremity fracture treatment presented at the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meetings from 1993 through 2012 were reviewed. Abstracts were chosen rather than publications because of the larger number of abstracts that are available and because abstracts offer a more global representation of the research being performed by and presented to the members of these societies. The treatment recommendations of authors were classified as more aggressive, less aggressive, or neutral by two attending surgeons on the basis of which treatment was favored in comparative studies or how treatments in single-group studies compared with the standard of care at the time. Abstracts without treatment recommendations were excluded. Relationships between level of evidence, fracture location, and treatment recommendation were statistically evaluated with use of Spearman correlations and logistic regression analysis. Overall, a higher proportion of studies gave less aggressive (47%, ninety of 190) or neutral (27%, fifty-one of 190) recommendations than more aggressive treatment recommendations (26%, forty-nine of 190). Only 24% of operative studies and 11% of nonoperative studies recommended more aggressive treatment (p = 0.001). Case series were more likely to recommend more aggressive treatments than comparative studies (30% versus 17%, p = 0.025). Also, studies with a smaller sample size were more likely to recommend more aggressive treatments (p = 0.006). The great majority of level-I and level-II (91%, ten of eleven), level-III (81%, thirty-nine of forty-eight), and level-IV (70%, ninety-two of 131) studies, however, provided either neutral or less-aggressive treatment recommendations. The majority of research presented at POSNA and AAOS meetings over the past two decades fails to support the trend toward increasingly aggressive treatment of pediatric upper extremity fractures. This dichotomy between clinical research and the direction of clinical treatment must be explored in our efforts to provide evidence-based care of pediatric upper extremity fractures.

Bone Graft Substitutes in the Treatment of Distal Radius and Upper Limb Injuries

Over the years, autologous and allogeneic bone grafts have been used to supplement techniques in internal and external fixation to treat fractures in the upper extremity. The development of a variety of bone graft substitutes has allowed the use of these materials when there are significant comorbidities in harvesting autograft or when the use of allograft is undesirable. With recent advances in the synthesis, testing, and employment of bone graft substitutes, these materials have been used in the treatment of upper extremity fractures to fill a bony defect, to correct skeletal deformity , to restore structural integrity, and to stimulate bone healing. In this chapter, we will identify the major types of graft substitutes available or in development and review their unique features and capabilities. The authors have no financial interest in any of these products; rather, the cases included in this review are included solely as examples of the various types of commercially available products. The indications and potential applications for graft substitutes in the distal radius and the upper limb will be discussed, as we contemplate the future direction in the research and development of new graft substitutes.

Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block for the treatment of upper extremity fractures, dislocations, and abscesses in the ED

Emergency department (ED) patients with fractures, dislocations, or abscesses of the upper extremities often require closed reduction or incision and drainage to treat these conditions. Procedural sedation is often necessary when infiltration of local anesthetic provides insufficient analgesia. Anesthesiologists commonly perform supraclavicular brachial plexus nerve blocks to achieve analgesia for upper extremity surgery. We report a series of 5 ED patients in whom supraclavicular brachial plexus nerve blocks using real-time ultrasound guidance provided excellent analgesia and obviated the need for procedural sedation.

Intravenous Regional Anesthesia: Use in Treatment of Upper Extremity Fractures in Children

Intravenous Regional Anesthesia: Use in Treatment of Upper Extremity Fractures in Children