Objectives: To compare measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (physical function [PF] and pain interference [PI]) computerized adaptive testing to traditional Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) (dysfunction index [DI] and bother index [BI]). To explore factors associated with PROMIS scores.
Methods:
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Setting: Level I Trauma Center.
Patient selection criteria: Isolated upper/lower extremity fracture patients were recruited from the orthopaedic trauma outpatient clinic (October 1, 2021 to January 1, 2023).
Outcome measures: Correlations (Pearson), reliability (standard error [SE] [T score]), efficiency (amount of information per item [1 - SE2/Nitems]), and floor/ceiling effects were assessed. An r > 0.7 represented high correlation, and SE ≤ 2.2 represented sufficient reliability. Factors associated with worse PROMIS scores were also identified.
Results: In total, 202 patients completed PROMs at median 98 days follow-up. Correlations between PROMIS-PF and SMFA-DI, and PROMIS-PI and SMFA-BI were -0.84 and 0.65. Reliability was very high for both instruments (mean SE 2.0 [PROMIS-PF], SE 2.1 [PROMIS-PI], and SE 1.2 [SMFA-DI], SE 1.8 [SMFA-BI]). Relative efficiency for PROMIS-PF versus SMFA-DI, and PROMIS-PI versus SMFA-BI was 7.8 (SD 2.5) and 4.1 (SD 1.7), respectively. Neither PROMIS nor SMFA exhibited floor/ceiling effects. In the multivariable regression analyses, elevated levels of depression, among other factors, showed an (independent) association with worse PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI scores.
Conclusions: PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI CATs showed a (high and moderate) correlation with SMFA and hence measure a comparable construct of physical function and discomfort. As computerized adaptive tests are much more efficient to administer, they present a compelling alternative to SMFA for evaluating impact of fracture treatment. The relation between symptoms of depression and PROMIS scores emphasizes the importance of psychosocial aspects of health in orthopaedic trauma patients.
Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Objectives: To determine whether scheduled low-dose, short-term ketorolac modulates cytokine concentrations in orthopaedic polytrauma patients.
Methods:
Design: Secondary analysis of a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Single Level I trauma center from August 2018 to October 2022.
Patient selection criteria: Orthopaedic polytrauma patients between 18 and 75 years with a New Injury Severity Score greater than 9 were enrolled. Participants were randomized to receive 15 mg of intravenous ketorolac every 6 hours for up to 5 inpatient days or 2 mL of intravenous saline similarly.
Outcome measures and comparisons: Daily concentrations of prostaglandin E2 and interleukin (IL)-1a, IL-1b, IL-6, and IL-10. Clinical outcomes included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, pulmonary complications, and acute kidney injury.
Results: Seventy orthopaedic polytrauma patients were enrolled, with 35 participants randomized to the ketorolac group and 35 to the placebo group. The overall IL-10 trend over time was significantly different in the ketorolac group ( P = 0.043). IL-6 was 65.8% higher at enrollment compared to day 3 ( P < 0.001) when aggregated over both groups. There was no significant treatment effect for prostaglandin E2, IL-1a, or IL-1b ( P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups ( P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Scheduled low-dose, short-term, intravenous ketorolac was associated with significantly different mean trends in IL-10 concentration in orthopaedic polytrauma patients with no significant differences in prostaglandin E2, IL-1a, IL-1b, or IL-6 levels between groups. The treatment did not have an impact on clinical outcomes of hospital or intensive care unit length of stay, pulmonary complications, or acute kidney injury.
Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.