Zeitschrift Fur Orthopadie Und Unfallchirurgie最新文献

Background: Surgical treatment of proximal humerus fracture is an established procedure. Postoperative complications have been shown to have a significant impact on shoulder-specific outcome. Little is known to date about an influence on injury-independent quality of life.

Aim of the work: The aim of this retrospective study is to analyse whether patients with a poor functional outcome after surgically treated proximal humerus fracture also show a reduced general quality of life in the medium term. Emphasis is placed on the analysis of patients with poor functional outcome due to postsurgical complications.

Material and methods: Evaluation of all patients operated at one level 1 trauma centre with a proximal humerus fracture in the period 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2015 and follow-up using validated scores (Constant-Murley Score [CMS], EQ-5D). Two groups, group A with good outcome (∆CMS ≤ 15P.) and group B with poor outcome (∆CMS ≥ 16P.), were defined. Furthermore, descriptive variables including definition of a complication were defined in advance.

Results: 138 patients were included in the study (group A: 91, group B: 47). The mean follow-up was 93.86 months ± 37.33 (36-167). Group B had significantly more complications. Furthermore, patients with poor outcome regarding the shoulder (group B) were also found to have significantly lower EQ-VAS (78.9 ± 19.2 [20.0-100] vs. 70.4 ± 19.5 [15.0-98.0]; p = 0.008) and EQ index (0.91 ± 0.14 [0.19-1.00] vs. 0.82 ± 0.17 [0.18-1.00]; p < 0.001).

Discussion: In conclusion, in the present study, the patients with poor outcome of shoulder function in CMS have significantly lower overall quality of life after a mean of more than 6 years of follow-up. The poor outcome was due to a significantly higher postoperative complication rate. This was independent of the fracture morphology present and the surgical procedure used.

Background: The measures taken in the coronavirus disease pandemic have had major structural and financial effects on orthopaedics and trauma surgery as many surgeries in this field. Experience Appropriate reports from non-surgical orthopaedics are not yet available.

Aims of the study: The study aimed to provide information on the changes that occurred in a group of patients with spinal diseases undergoing conservative in-patient treatment during the coronavirus disease pandemic, with regard to the number of cases, patient structure and course of treatment.

Materials and methods: Data from a total of 954 patients from an acute department for conservative treatment of back pain from the years 2019 and 2020 were retrospectively compared, thus allowing conclusions to be drawn about the course of in-patient conservative spinal treatment. In addition to sociodemographic data, numerical pain rating scales, scales for impairment by pain and physical function at the beginning and at the end of treatment were analysed using descriptive statistics and differentiation tests.

Results: The study showed a 21% reduction in the number of cases in 2020 compared with those in 2019. The patient structure has changed in terms of diagnosis groups and physical function. The values of the assessments on discharge and their pre-post differences show an almost identical pattern of treatment outcomes before and after the start of the pandemic.

Conclusions: The relatively small decline in the number of in-patient admissions for the non-surgical treatment of specific spinal disorders indicates that this treatment option was also necessary in the pandemic-related crisis. With minor changes in the patient structure, comparable treatment results could be achieved.

Background: Several treatment options for chronic periprosthetic joint infections have been published in the current literature, with an on-going discussion to determine effective management algorithms.

Objectives: To compare outcomes of the two-stage exchange procedure in revision TKA prior to and after implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation treatment algorithm. The primary endpoints were defined as (i) revisions during the interval time, (ii) duration of the interval time and (iii) successful PJI eradication.

Material and methods: Between 02/2013 and 09/2016, 122 patients were included in a single-centre cohort analysis. 55 patients were treated according to the previously used algorithm (K1) and 67 according to the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation algorithm (K2). A minimum follow-up period of 3 years was set as the inclusion criterion. Successful eradication of infection was defined in accordance with the consensus criteria by Diaz-Ledezma et al. RESULTS: Successful eradication was achieved in 42 (67%) patients in K1 and 47 (85.5%) in K2 (p ≤ 0.005). The mean interval time was 88 days (range 51 - 353) in K1 and 52 days (range 42 - 126) in K2 (p ≤ 0.005). In K1, a mean of 0.8 (range 0 - 6) revisions were necessary during the interval period compared with 0.5 (range 0 - 4) in K2 (p = 0.066).

Conclusion: Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT treatment algorithm led to significant improvement in the outcome of periprosthetic joint infections. During mid-term follow-up, infection eradication was highly successful, with decreases in the interval time as well as the number of revisions.