Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives Distal ulna plate fixation for ulnar neck and head fractures (excluding ulnar styloid fractures) aims to anatomically reduce the distal ulna fracture (DUF) by open reduction and internal fixation, while obtaining a stable construct allowing functional rehabilitation without need for cast immobilization. Indications Severe displacement, angulation or translation, as well as unstable or intra-articular fractures. Furthermore, multiple trauma or young patients in need of quick functional rehabilitation. Contraindications Inability to surgically address concomitant ipsilateral extremity fractures, thus, limiting early active rehabilitation. Stable, nondisplaced fractures. Need for bridging plate or external fixator of distal radiocarpal joint. Surgical technique An ulnar approach, with a straight incision between the extensor and flexor carpi ulnaris. Preservation of the dorsal branch of the ulnar nerve. Reduction and plate fixation with avoidance of plate impingement in the articular zone. Postoperative management Postoperatively, an elastic bandage is applied for the first 24–48 h. In isolated DUF with stable fixation, a postoperative splint is often unnecessary and should be avoided. For the first four weeks, only light weightbearing of everyday activities is allowed to protect the osteosynthesis. Thereafter, heavier weightbearing and activities are allowed and can be increased as tolerated. Results The best available evidence likely shows that for younger patients with a DUF, with or without concomitant distal radius fractures, open reduction and internal fixation can be safely achieved with good functional outcome and acceptable union and complication rates as long as proper technique is ensured.

Purpose Confounding in observational studies can be mitigated by selecting only those patients, in whom equipoise of both treatments is secured by experts’ disagreement over optimal therapy. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify observational studies in the field of orthopedic trauma surgery that utilized expert panels for patient inclusion in order to limit the potential for confounding. Results Four studies were identified that used expert panels to select participants based on expert disagreement. Derived from these studies and our own experience, recommendations were made regarding reporting of the size and composition of the expert panel, the information the expert panel receives, criteria for disagreement, selection of patients, and statistical analysis. Conclusion With this review we aim to provide insight into this study design and to stimulate discussions about the potential of expert panels to control for confounding in studies of medical treatments.

Purpose Ulnar styloid process (USP) fractures are present in 40–65% of all distal radius fractures (DRFs). USP base fractures can be associated with distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) instability and ulnar sided wrist pain and are treated by conservative management and surgical fixation, without consensus. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares operative to non-operative treatment of concomitant ulnar styloid base fractures in patients with distal radius fractures. Methods PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL databases were searched identifying RCTs and comparative observational studies. Effect estimates were extracted and pooled using random effect models to account for heterogeneity across studies. Results were presented as (standardized) mean differences (SMD or MD) or odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results Two RCTs (161 patients) and three observational studies (175 patients) were included. Tension band wiring was used for surgically treated USP fractures. Results were comparable across the different study designs and hence pooled across studies. Non-surgically treated patients had better wrist function at 6 months (SMD 0.57, 95%CI 0.30; 0.90, I 2  = 0%). After 12 months there was no observed difference (MD 2.31, 95%CI −2.57; 7.19, I 2  = 91%). Fewer patients had USP non-unions in the operative group (OR 0.08, 95%CI 0.04; 0.18, I 2  = 0%). More patients suffered complications in the operative group (OR 14.3; 95%CI 1.08; 188, I 2  = 89%). Conclusion Routinely fixating USP base fractures as standard of care is not indicated. Surgery may be considered in selective cases (e.g. persistent DRUJ instability during ballottement test after fixation of the radius).

Digitalizing the preoperative assessment clinic can be a solution to keep up with the growing demand for surgery. It remains unclear if a digital preoperative assessment clinic is as safe, and effective in terms of patient health outcomes and experience compared to face-to-face consultations. This study aimed to compare quality of recovery and mental state in patients undergoing a digital preoperative assessment versus regular face-to-face consultations. This was a single centre, randomized (1:1), parallel, open-label, noninferiority trial. The preoperative clinic and preoperative unit of an urban secondary care hospital. All adult, Dutch speaking, ASA I-IV patients with access to an online computer who required surgery. Digital preoperative screening, consisting of an electronic screening questionnaire and web-based platform with personalized information and recommendations related to the procedure, or face-to-face screening, consisting of two 20-min in-hospital consultations. The primary endpoint was quality of recovery, measured 48 h after surgery. The analysis followed a per-protocol principle, and only patients who underwent the intended screening were included in the analysis. The noninferiority margin was set at −6. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05535205, during the study on 09/08/2022, before analysing results. Between March 1, 2021 and 30 august 2021, 480 patients were assessed for eligibility. 400 patients were randomly assigned to the digital group (n = 200) or face-to-face group (n = 201), of which respectively 117 and 124 patients were eventually included in the primary analysis. The mean quality of recovery score of patients undergoing digital screening (158) was non-inferior to that of patients undergoing face-to-face screening (155), with a mean difference of 3·2 points and a 97.5% lower confidence limit of −2.1 points. There were no adverse events. A digital preoperative screening is not inferior to face-to-face consultations in patients undergoing predominantly low to moderate risk surgery. Given its potential to reduce physician workload, reallocate healthcare resources, and lower healthcare costs, a digital preoperative screening may be a better choice for preoperative assessments. •Digitally screened patients have the same postoperative recovery compared to face-to-face screened patients.•Not seeing a physician in the preoperative phase does not increase preoperative anxiety.•A digital preoperative screening can reduce loan costs by a third.•A digital patient portal provides 24/7 access for patients to review preoperative information and instructions.