Purpose The treatment of the posterior fragment in trimalleolar fractures differs from hospital to hospital in the Netherlands. A nationwide survey was performed to evaluate the fixation criteria... Show morePurpose The treatment of the posterior fragment in trimalleolar fractures differs from hospital to hospital in the Netherlands. A nationwide survey was performed to evaluate the fixation criteria and practice variation. Methods An online cross-sectional survey amongst (orthopaedic) trauma surgeons was performed in the Netherlands. It consisted of three sections: a general section, a section showing preoperative images of six cases and a section with postoperative images of nine cases. Results A total of 151 surgeons completed the online survey. 45% of the respondents indicated that they fixated the posterior fragment if smaller than 25% of the intra-articular surface. 48% preferred an open posterior approach to fixate the posterior fragment. There was good consensus in treatment for the two cases with Bartonicek type 4 fractures (operative treatment in 73 and 72% respectively). Little consensus was found for Bartonicek type 2 and 3 fractures (88% opted for operative treatment in one case, but 89% for conservative treatment in the second case). Reoperation was mostly considered in cases with a step-off of more than 1 mm (by 33-38% of the respondents). There was great variation in the choice of treatment if only the size of the posterior fragment was considered. Other fixation criteria such as postoperative step-off or instability after fixation of the lateral and medial malleoli are taken into account. In cases where fixation was needed, a percutaneous approach and an open posterolateral approach were equally preferred. Conclusions There is much variation in treatment of the posterior malleolar fracture amongst orthopaedic and trauma surgeons in the Netherlands. The percutaneous approach and open posterolateral approach to fixate the posterior malleolar fracture seem to be equally used in the Netherlands. Still, there is no uniformity in treatment of posterior malleolar fracture, especially for Bartonicek 2 and Bartonicek 3 fractures. Reoperation is considered by less than half of the surgeons in case of postoperative persistent step-off of more than 1 mm. Show less
Gerven, P. van; Dongen, J.M. van; Rubinstein, S.M.; Termaat, M.F.; Moumni, M. el; Zuidema, W.P.; ... ; WARRIOR Study Grp 2020
Background: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a reduction in the number of routine radiographs in the follow-up of patients with ankle fractures.Methods: We performed an economic evaluation... Show moreBackground: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a reduction in the number of routine radiographs in the follow-up of patients with ankle fractures.Methods: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the multicentre, randomised WARRIOR trial. Participants were randomised to a reduced imaging follow-up protocol (i.e. radiographs at week 6 and 12 follow-up obtained on clinical indication) or usual care (i.e. routine radiography at weeks 6 and 12). The Olerud & Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) was used to assess ankle function and the EQ-5D-3L was used to estimate Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Costs and resource use were assessed using self-reported questionnaires and medical records, and analysed from a societal perspective. Multiple imputation was used for missing data, and data were analysed using seemingly unrelated regression analysis and bootstrapping.Results: In total, 246 patients had data available for analysis (reduced imaging = 118; usual care = 128). Fewer radiographs were obtained in the reduced imaging group (median = 4) compared with the usual-care group (median = 5). Functional outcome was comparable in both groups. The difference in QALYs was - 0.008 (95% CI:-0.06 to 0.04) and the difference in OMAS was 0.73 (95% CI:-5.29 to 6.76). Imaging costs were lower in the reduced imaging group (-(sic)48; 95% CI:- (sic)72 to -(sic)25). All other cost categories did not statistically differ between the groups. The probability of the reduced imaging protocol being cost-effectiveness was 0.45 at a wiliness-to-pay of (sic)20,000 per QALY.Conclusions: Reducing the number of routine follow-up radiographs has a low probability of being cost-effective compared with usual care. Functional outcome, health-related quality of life and societal costs were comparable in both groups, whereas imaging costs were marginally lower in the reduced imaging group. Given this, adherence to a reduced imaging follow-up protocol for those with routine ankle fractures can be followed without sacrificing quality of care, and may result in reduced costs. Show less
