PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Owen D Williamson

Publications and source records attributed to Owen D Williamson.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Is pain ever "normal"?

This article analyzes the Pain Terminology adopted by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), noting that most of their pain categories are defined in terms of a reference standard of "normal" pain. Given the lack of any officially adopted operational definition of the word "normal," we argue that the use of this word expresses and maintains a paradigm that drives many clinicians' reasoning about their patients' pain. We offer evidence that this uninterrogated paradigm is being tacitly used to differentiate legitimate pain reports from malingering and drug seeking. We consider this unsubstantiated "folk" sense of "normal" in light of evidence-based, rationalized prototypes based on statistical analysis of empirical evidence. We conclude that evidence for consistency in the experience and expression of pain and for clinician accuracy in evaluating the veracity of that pain is lacking; therefore, the logical preconditions needed for a rationalized, evidence-based prototype of "normal" pain have yet to be met. We conclude that the use of "normal" as a reference standard leads to ineffective and inhumane management of patient pain and to the danger that third parties, such as insurance companies and drug enforcement agencies, will use this unsubstantiated reference standard to arbitrarily limit pain therapy options. The authors recommend that the word "normal" be expunged from the International Association for the Study of Pain, Pain Terminology.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

A comparison of self-reported and independently observed disability in an orthopedic trauma population.

BACKGROUND: Although outcome measures that assess disability after isolated orthopedic injuries have been found to be valid and responsive to change, the reliability of self-reported disability has not been studied in these patients. The purpose of this study was to compare self-reported and independently observed disability in patients with isolated orthopedic injuries. METHODS: Items were selected from the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) outcome assessment instruments. Participants had either an isolated upper (n = 61) or lower extremity (n = 55) injury or were noninjured controls (n = 40). Participants completed the SMFA and DASH before being videotaped completing items selected from the outcome assessment instruments. Observers reviewed the video and rated participants' levels of disability in performing the items. RESULTS: Observers consistently rated the disability levels for the items lower than the participants. Overall, agreement in levels of disability between observers and participants varied greatly across the different items (quadratic weighted kappa; range, 0.00-0.82). CONCLUSION: The results emphasize that patients and observers differ in their assessment of an individual's level of disability in performing items related to activities of daily living. Therefore, caution should be used when data collected by a proxy observer is used to substitute self-reported data.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2006

Outcomes of patients with orthopaedic trauma admitted to level 1 trauma centres.

BACKGROUND: Although orthopaedic trauma results in significant disability and substantial financial cost, there is a paucity of large cohort studies that collectively describe the functional outcomes of a variety of these injuries. The current study aimed to investigate the outcomes of patients admitted with a range of orthopaedic injuries to adult Level 1 trauma centres. METHODS: Patients were recruited from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR), which included all patients with orthopaedic trauma admitted to the two adult Level 1 trauma centres in Victoria (Australia). Patients were categorised into three groups; isolated orthopaedic injuries, multiple orthopaedic injuries and orthopaedic and other injuries. Demographic and injury data were collected from the medical record and hospital/trauma databases, and functional outcome instruments were given at 6 months post-injury. RESULTS: Of the 1303 patients recruited for VOTOR over a 12-month period, 1181 patients were eligible for the study and a response rate of 75.6% was obtained at 6 months post-injury. Patients reported ongoing pain (moderate-severe: 37.2%), disability (79.5%) and inability to return to work (35.2%). Poorer outcomes were evident in patients with orthopaedic and other injuries than those with single or multiple orthopaedic injuries alone. CONCLUSION: A large percentage of patients have ongoing pain and disability and a reduced capacity to return to work 6 months after orthopaedic trauma. Further research into the long-term outcomes of patients with orthopaedic injuries is required to identify patient subgroups and specific injuries and procedures that result in high morbidity.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Biomodeling as an aid to spinal instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective trial. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a new method of spinal stereotaxy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Biomodeling has been found to be helpful for complex skeletal surgery. Frameless stereotaxy has been used for spinal surgery but has significant limitations. A novel stereotactic technique using biomodels has been developed. METHODS: Twenty patients with complex spinal disorders requiring instrumentation were recruited. A three-dimensional CT scan of their spine was performed, and the data were transferred via a DICOM network to a computer workstation. ANATOMICS BIOBUILD software was used to generate the code required to manufacture exact acrylate biomodels of each spine using rapid prototyping. The biomodels were used to obtain informed consent from patients and to simulate surgery. Simulation was performed using a standard power drill to place trajectory pins into the spinal biomodel. Acrylate drill guides were manufactured using the biomodels and trajectory pins as templates. The biomodels and drill guides were sterilized and used intraoperatively to assist with surgical navigation and the placement of instrumentation. RESULTS: The biomodels were found to be highly accurate and of great assistance in the planning and execution of the surgery. The ability to drill optimum screw trajectories into the biomodel and then accurately replicate the trajectory was judged especially helpful. Accurate screw placement was confirmed with postoperative CT scanning. The design of the first two templates was suboptimal as the contact surface area was too great and complex. Approximately 20 minutes was spent before surgery preparing each biomodel and template. Operating time was reduced, as less reliance on intraoperative radiograph was necessary. Patients stated that the biomodels improved informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have developed a novel method of spinal stereotaxy using exact plastic copies of the spine manufactured using biomodeling technology. Biomodel spinal stereotaxy is a simple and accurate technique that may have advantages over frameless stereotaxy.

Humans↗
PubMed2005

Functional outcome of tibial plateau fractures treated with the fine-wire fixator.

OBJECTIVE: To review the functional outcome of patients with complex tibial plateau fractures treated with fine-wire fixation. DESIGN: Retrospective review with follow-up of patients in outpatient clinic. SETTING: Tertiary trauma center. PATIENTS: All patients who had fine-wire fixation for tibial plateau fractures between 1996 and January 2001 were reviewed. INTERVENTIONS: Fine-wire fixation with/without limited internal fixation for complex tibial plateau fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knee range of motion, adequacy of articular surface reduction, mechanical axis, Knee Society Clinical Rating Scale and Short-Form 36 Health Questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighteen of twenty-one eligible patients were available for follow-up. There were 14 Shatzker VI and 4 V fractures. Seven fractures were open. Average follow-up was 28.2 months. All fractures united. There were three cases of delayed union, all progressed to union following additional procedures and bone grafting. There were no cases of osteomyelitis, septic arthritis or deep vein thrombosis. Seven patients had Knee Society Clinical Rating Scores of good/excellent (38.9%), and 11 had fair/poor scores (61.1%). Abnormal mechanical axes and multiple co-morbid injuries were associated with poorer outcomes. Although SF-36 scores were lower in the study group compared to matched population norms, 15 of 18 patients had full or partial return to pre-injury levels of functioning. CONCLUSION: Fine-wire fixation with limited internal fixation is a satisfactory method of managing complex high-energy fractures of the tibial plateau where soft tissue injury and bony comminution make traditional techniques of open reduction and internal fixation unsuitable.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: a review.

Orthopaedic injuries are common among trauma patients and can result in long-term problems. Considerable data are available regarding functional outcomes following lower extremity trauma. There is, however, a paucity of data available for upper extremity trauma patients. Whilst currently available instruments appear to assess outcomes of relevance in trauma populations, the reliability, validity and responsiveness of these instruments have not been evaluated in the upper extremity trauma population. This paper reviews instruments designed for patient self-evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity, and instruments used in an orthopaedic trauma population to assess functional recovery following injury. The Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (MFA), Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Scale (ASES-s), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Elbow Scale (ASES-e), Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE), and the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) were reviewed. Until research is published outlining the evaluation of assessment instruments in upper extremity orthopaedic populations, authors will need to conduct their own validation studies before investigating outcomes in specific trauma populations.

Arm Injuries↗
PubMed2005

Does the presence of an upper extremity injury affect outcomes after major trauma?

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information about the impact of upper extremity (UE) injuries on patient outcomes, particularly after major trauma. METHODS: Data were obtained from a statewide trauma registry. Cases were defined as major trauma cases (Injury Severity Score > 15) with (UE group) and without (no-UE group) an associated upper extremity injury. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Major trauma patients with UE injury were 1.5 times (p = 0.011) more likely than the no-UE group to have a length of stay greater than 7 days. After adjusting for age, mechanism of injury, and Injury Severity Score, UE injury was not an independent predictor of discharge destination. CONCLUSION: In major trauma patients, the presence of an upper extremity injury is a significant predictor of length of stay, indicating a greater complexity and cost of care associated with this group of major trauma patients.

Accidental Falls↗
PubMed2005

Choosing outcome assessment instruments for trauma registries.

While trauma registries have the potential to collect detailed information about patient outcomes, the most commonly reported outcome, mortality, only represents the outcome from a small proportion of the total trauma population. If trauma registries are to progress to routine monitoring of outcomes in trauma survivors, instruments that measure relevant outcomes in the remainder of the trauma population must be identified and implemented. This report provides an overview of the specific needs of trauma registries with respect to assessing patient outcomes other than mortality. The use of previously recommended outcome assessment instruments is discussed, with a focus on the utility of these instruments for use in routine monitoring of trauma outcomes other than mortality through trauma registries.

Abbreviated Injury Scale↗