RESUMO

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effect of adverse events (AEs) on orthopaedic surgeons, illustrate common ways orthopaedic surgeons deal with AEs, and describe solutions to reduce the negative effect of AEs and prevent them from recurring. AEs are common in orthopaedic surgery and increase the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide. Orthopaedic surgeons may experience negative effects after AEs even when they are not at fault. AEs are linked to moral injury, second victim syndrome, burnout, and disruptive physician behaviors. Many surgeons deal with AEs in isolation out of fear of a negative effect on their professional reputation, potentially leading to increased psychological distress and unhealthy coping mechanisms. Healthy ways to address AEs and improve the well-being of surgeons include destigmatizing psychological stress after AEs and creating a culture of receptivity and peer support.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an acute fixation protocol for high-energy tibial pilon fractures increases the rate of wound complications. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. SETTING: Urban level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred forty-seven patients with OTA/AO 43B and 43C high-energy tibial pilon fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). INTERVENTION: Acute (<48 hours) versus delayed ORIF protocols. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Wound complications, reoperations, time to fixation, operative costs, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Patients were compared by protocol, regardless of ORIF timing, for an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-five and 112 high-energy pilon fractures were treated under the acute and delayed ORIF protocols, respectively. In the acute ORIF protocol group, 82.9% of patients received acute ORIF versus 15.2% of patients in the standard delayed protocol group. The 2 groups had no observed difference (OD) in the rate of wound complications (OD -5.7%, confidence interval (95% CI) -16.1% to 7.8%; P = 0.56) or reoperations (OD -3.9%, 95% CI, -14.1% to 9.4%; P = 0.76). The acute ORIF protocol group had a shorter LOS (OD -2.0, 95% CI, -4.0 to 0.0; P = 0.02) and lower operative costs (OD $-2709.27, 95% CI, -3582.02 to -1601.16; P < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, wound complications were associated with open fractures (odds ratio 3.36, 95% CI, 1.06-10.69; P = 0.04) and an American Society of Anesthesiologists score >2 (odds ratio 3.68, 95% CI, 1.07-12.67; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that an acute fixation protocol for high-energy pilon fractures decreases time to definitive fixation, lowers operative costs, and shortens hospital LOS without affecting wound complications or reoperations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether an acute fixation protocol for high-energy tibial plateau fractures increases the rate of wound complications. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. SETTING: Urban level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-four patients with high-energy tibial plateau fractures (OTA/AO 41B/C [Schatzker VI/V/VI]) treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). INTERVENTION: Utilization of an acute ORIF (<48 hours) versus delayed ORIF protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcomes: wound complications (wound dehiscence/necrosis, superficial/deep infections) and reoperations. Secondary outcomes: total operative costs and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Overall, 83.9% (26/31) of patients received definitive fixation within 48 hours under the acute ORIF protocol versus 18.4% (19/103) of patients treated under the standard delayed protocol with no observed differences in the rate of wound complications (proportional difference (PD) -4.6%, confidence interval (CI) -17.2% to 11.3%; P = 0.78) or reoperations (PD 2.0%, CI, 13.0% to 12.5%; P = 1.00). The acute ORIF protocol lowered operative costs (median difference (MD) $-2.563.00, CI, 3021.00 to -1661.00; P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (MD 4.0 days, CI, 6.0-1.0; P = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, wound complications were associated with increasing age (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, CI, 1.01-1.10; P = 0.01) and tobacco use (OR 3.75, CI, 1.19-11.82; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: An acute ORIF protocol for high-energy tibial plateau fractures decreased time to fixation and lowered operative costs without increasing the risk of wound complications or reoperations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Assuntos

RESUMO

As hip arthroscopy becomes more prevalent, it is imperative to identify potential risks associated with this procedure. In this article, we report a case of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism that developed after hip arthroscopy in a moderate-risk patient with heterozygous factor V Leiden deficiency. The patient concomitantly developed DVT and pulmonary embolism during a 5-day course of treatment with subcutaneous enoxaparin. The American College of Chest Physicians and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons guidelines on postarthroplasty DVT prophylaxis do not address thromboprophylaxis in hip arthroscopy. Guidelines on managing venous thromboembolism after hip arthroscopy are needed. With complications increasing, protocols should be implemented to address the potential risks of this popular procedure.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Orthopaedic journals, such as the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, frequently publish studies reporting functional outcome instruments, but little information has been provided regarding the validity and overall strength of these instruments. This study analyzes the trends in reported functional outcome instruments in articles published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma over a 5-year period and examines the utilization rate, "overall" strength, and validity of these functional outcome instruments for the populations being studied. METHODS: Articles that were published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma from January 2006 to December 2010 were reviewed, and each article was assigned to 1 of 4 different categories, based on the subspecialty focus and body region. The total number of articles reporting the use of functional outcome instruments, articles with at least 1 functional outcome instrument found in the AO Handbook, and the total number of functional outcome instruments reported were recorded. Each functional outcome instrument was assigned to 1 of 3 categories (generic, nonvalidated, validated), and each validated instrument was also examined to determine whether the category of interest for which it was used was one in which it was previously validated in. RESULTS: A total of 171 articles (34%) of the articles initially reviewed met the inclusion criteria. The average number of articles per year that reported functional outcome instruments was 56% (range, 47%-65%), and the average number of articles that reported at least 1 validated outcome instrument was 51% (range, 44%-61%). The average percentage of validated scores that were appropriately used within the category of interest was 23% (range, 13%-41%). CONCLUSIONS: Even though the 56% utilization rate of functional outcome instruments in The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is much higher than other journals, it is still low given the importance of measuring and attaining excellent functional outcomes. It is clear that future effort should be given to validating outcome measures for correct evaluation of orthopaedic trauma patients.

Assuntos