PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Paul Tornetta

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Tornetta.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Gluteus medius tendon injury during reaming for gamma nail insertion.

The use of intramedullary hip screws such as the Gamma nail has become a popular option for treatment of proximal femur fractures. The manufacturer recommends that the Gamma nail be inserted at the junction of the anterior (1/3) and posterior (2/3) of the tip of the greater trochanter and on the tip in the same region that the gluteus medius inserts. The purpose of the current cadaveric study was to quantify the damage to the gluteus medius tendon secondary to reaming of the greater trochanter necessary for safe Gamma nail insertion. The gluteus medius was identified and its tendinous insertion was measured. A Kirschner wire was placed in the recommended entry point using the assistance of C-arm fluoroscopy and a 17-mm reamer was advanced over the wire. The tendon then was inspected to evaluate the amount of intrasubstance damage. In 27 of 34 specimens, the portal was contained completely within the tendinous insertion of the gluteus medius. The percentage of the tendon insertion disrupted by the reamer ranged from 14.8% to 52.5% with an average of 27%. During appropriate placement of the Gamma nail, damage to the gluteus medius tendon is unavoidable and should be recognized as a potential cause of postoperative morbidity.

Bone Nails↗
PubMed2003

Predictors of reoperation following operative management of fractures of the tibial shaft.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of likelihood of reoperation in patients with tibial shaft fractures would facilitate optimal management. Previous studies were limited by small sample sizes and noncomprehensive examination of possible risk factors. OBJECTIVE: We conducted an observational study to determine which prognostic factors were associated with an increased risk of reoperation following operative treatment in a heterogeneous population of patients with tibial shaft fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. METHODS: We identified 200 patients with tibial shaft fractures from two university-affiliated centers. Two reviewers independently abstracted data regarding 20 possible prognostic variables, reviewed preoperative and postoperative radiographs, and documented reoperations (defined as any surgical procedure </=1 year after the initial surgery that was aimed specifically at achieving bony union of the fracture, including bone grafts, implant exchanges, or débridement for infections). We chose a Cox proportion hazards model to conduct a survival analysis for time to reoperation and constructed a multivariable model to estimate the relative risk of reoperation and associated 95%confidence interval (CI) for each predictor variable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to reoperation following the initial surgery. RESULTS: Complete follow-up information was available for 192 of 200 (96%) patients. Three variables predicted reoperation: the presence of an open fracture wound (relative risk 4.32, 95% CI 1.76 to 11.26), lack of cortical continuity between the fracture ends following fixation (relative risk 8.33, 95% CI 3.03 to 25.0), and the presence of a transverse fracture (relative risk 20.0, 95% CI 4.34 to 142.86). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of three simple prognostic variables (open fracture, transverse fracture, and postoperative fracture gap) that can assist surgeons in predicting reoperation following operative treatment of tibial shaft fractures.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Elbow injury.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2003

The risk of false-positive results in orthopaedic surgical trials.

The risk of concluding that the results of a particular study are true, when, in fact, they really are attributable to chance (or random sampling error) is underappreciated by investigators. This erroneous false-positive conclusion is designated as a Type I or alpha error. The extent to which randomized trials in surgery risk Type I errors is unclear. The current authors hand-searched four orthopaedic journals, six general surgery journals, and five medical journals to identify recently published randomized trials (within the past 2 years). Information on outcomes and statistical adjustment for multiple outcomes was recorded for each study. The risk of a Type I error was calculated for each study that did not explicitly state a primary outcome measure for the main statistical comparison. One hundred fifty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for the study: 60 studies from orthopaedic journals, 49 studies from nonorthopaedic surgical journals, and 50 studies from medical journals. Of the trials that did not state a primary outcome measure, the risk of Type I errors (false-positive results) in orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic surgery journals (mean 37.3% +/- 13.3% and 37.6% +/- 10.5%, respectively) were significantly greater than medical journals (10.1% +/- 1.9%). In the current review of randomized trials in surgery and medicine, the following is reported: (1) reporting of primary outcomes in trials was inadequate; (2) one in three trials in surgery and one in 10 trials in medicine risked false-positive results; and (3) few trials in surgery and medicine considered adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Humans↗
PubMed2003

Glossary of evidence-based orthopaedic terminology.

As surgeons incorporate the philosophy of evidence-based orthopaedics into patient care, they need to become familiar with common terminology. A glossary of commonly used terms encountered among evidence-based orthopaedic practitioners is presented.

Epidemiologic Research Design↗
PubMed2003

Hierarchy of evidence: from case reports to randomized controlled trials.

In the hierarchy of research designs, the results of randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence. Randomization is the only method for controlling for known and unknown prognostic factors between two comparison groups. Lack of randomization predisposes a study to potentially important imbalances in baseline characteristics between two study groups. There is a hierarchy of evidence, with randomized controlled trials at the top, controlled observational studies in the middle, and uncontrolled studies and opinion at the bottom. This hierarchy has not been supported in two recent publications in the New England Journal of Medicine which identified nonsignificant differences in results between randomized, controlled trials, and observational studies. The current authors provide an approach to organizing published research on the basis of study design, a hierarchy of evidence, a set of principles and tools that help clinicians distinguish ignorance of evidence from real scientific uncertainty, distinguish evidence from unsubstantiated opinions, and ultimately provide better patient care.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2003

Designing, conducting, and evaluating journal clubs in orthopaedic surgery.

The first record of a journal club was that founded in 1875 by Sir William Osler at McGill University for the purchase and distribution of periodicals to which he could not afford to subscribe as an individual. Evidence-based medicine is becoming an accepted educational paradigm in medical education at various levels. An analysis of the literature related to journal clubs in residency programs in specialties other than orthopaedic surgery reveals that the three most common goals were to teach critical appraisal skills (67%), to have an impact on clinical practice (59%), and to keep up with the current literature (56%). The implementation of the structured article review checklist has been found to increase resident satisfaction and improves the perceived educational value of the journal club without increasing resident workload or decreasing attendance at the conference. Periodic evaluation of the conference and the institution of appropriate changes ensures that the journal club remains a valuable and successful part of the training program.

Curriculum↗
PubMed2003

Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings.

BACKGROUND: Oral presentations at national and international meetings offer an excellent forum for the dissemination of current research findings. However, publication rates of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts at international meetings have ranged from 11% to 78%, which suggests that at least 32% of the abstracts presented are never published as complete articles in peer-reviewed journals. In an effort to identify the reasons that surgeons had not had a paper published following presentation of their work at an international orthopaedic meeting, we conducted a survey of a cross section of authors of orthopaedic papers presented at a national meeting. METHODS: We retrieved all abstracts from the 1996 scientific program of the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. A computerized Medline and PubMed search established whether the abstract had been subsequently published as a full-text article. The authors of the abstracts that had not been subsequently published were surveyed to identify the reasons for the failure to publish. RESULTS: A total of 465 abstracts were presented at the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 1996. We surveyed the authors of 306 abstracts for which we were unable to locate a subsequent full-text publication on Medline. One hundred and ninety-nine investigators (65%) responded to the questionnaire. At the time of the survey, seventy-two manuscripts had been published, thirty-two had been submitted and rejected, fourteen were under consideration by journals, seven had been accepted for publication or were in press, and three were not recalled by the investigator. In addition, seventy-one abstracts (35.7%) of the 199 had not been submitted for publication. The authors of those abstracts were asked to indicate one or more reasons why they had not submitted a manuscript for publication. Thirty-three investigators (46.5%) indicated that they lacked sufficient time for research activities, twenty-two (31.0%) reported that the study presented at the meeting in 1996 was still in progress, fourteen (19.7%) believed that the responsibility for writing the manuscript belonged to someone else, and twelve (16.9%) reported that difficulties with co-authors who would not participate had impeded the completion of the manuscript. Nine investigators (12.7%) responded that the pursuit of publication was a low priority. CONCLUSIONS: In a survey of investigators who had not had a full-text article published after presenting the abstract at a national meeting, we found that the failure to publish was due to one of three main reasons: (1) they did not have enough time to prepare a manuscript for publication (the reason most frequently given); (2) almost one-third of the studies that had not been submitted for publication were ongoing; and (3) relationships with co-authors sometimes presented a barrier to final publication. Thorough preparation before the study and the establishment of stricter guidelines to limit the presentation of preliminary data at national and international meetings may improve publication rates.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2003

The validity of claims made in orthopaedic print advertisements.

PURPOSE: Orthopaedic surgeons are frequently presented with advertisements for orthopaedic and medical products in which companies make claims of clinical and scientific fact. This study was designed to evaluate the statements made in orthopaedic print advertisements and determine whether they are supported by scientific data. METHODS: Fifty statements from fifty advertisements were chosen at random from six peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals. The companies that placed the advertisements were contacted to provide supporting data for the statement of clinical or scientific fact. Three senior orthopaedic surgeons evaluated the data for quality and support. A high-quality study was defined as a study that could be published in the peer-reviewed literature. A well-supported statement was defined as a statement with enough supporting evidence to be used in clinical practice. The evaluating surgeons were blinded to product and company identification. RESULTS: The supporting data were from a published source for eighteen claims (36%), from a presentation at a public forum or a scientific meeting for twelve claims (24%), or were "data on file" only at the company for twelve claims (24%). Interobserver agreement among the surgeons evaluating the advertisements for quality and support was good (the average intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.72). Of the fifty claims, twenty-two were considered unsupported by scientific data, seventeen were classified as possibly supported, seven were well supported, and four were from companies that did not respond despite three requests. Claims that were supported by published data were significantly more likely to be rated as well supported (p < 0.001). All twelve claims that were supported purely by "data on file" at the company were considered to be poorly supported. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic surgeons should interpret claims made in orthopaedic print advertisements with caution. Approximately half of the claims are not supported by enough data to be used in a clinical decision-making process.

Advertising↗
PubMed2003

Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal choice for the stabilization of displaced femoral neck fractures remains controversial, with alternatives including arthroplasty and internal fixation. Our objective was to determine the effect of arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, bipolar arthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty), compared with that of internal fixation, on rates of mortality, revision, pain, function, operating time, and wound infection in patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture. METHODS: We searched computerized databases for randomized clinical trials published between 1969 and 2002, and we identified additional studies through hand searches of major orthopaedic journals, bibliographies of major orthopaedic textbooks, and personal files. Of 140 citations initially identified, fourteen met all eligibility criteria. Three investigators independently graded study quality and abstracted relevant data, including information on revision and mortality rates. RESULTS: Nine trials, which included a total of 1162 patients, provided detailed information on mortality rates over the first four postoperative months, which ranged from 0% to 20%. We found a trend toward an increase in the relative risk of death in the first four months after arthroplasty compared with the risk in the first four months after internal fixation (relative risk, 1.27). At one year, the relative risk of death was 1.04. The risk of death after arthroplasty appeared to be higher than that after fixation with a compression screw and side-plate but not higher than that after internal fixation with use of screws only (relative risk = 1.75 and 0.86, respectively; p < 0.05). Fourteen trials that included a total of 1901 patients provided data on revision surgery. The relative risk of revision surgery after arthroplasty compared with the risk after internal fixation was 0.23 (p = 0.0003). Pain relief and the attainment of overall good function were similar in patients treated with arthroplasty and those treated with internal fixation (relative risk, 1.12 for pain relief and 0.99 for function). Infection rates ranged from 0% to 18%, and arthroplasty significantly increased the risk of infection (relative risk, 1.81; p = 0.009). In addition, patients who underwent arthroplasty had greater blood loss and longer operative times than those who were treated with internal fixation. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with internal fixation, arthroplasty for the treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture significantly reduces the risk of revision surgery, at the cost of greater infection rates, blood loss, and operative time and possibly an increase in early mortality rates. Only larger trials will resolve the critical question of the impact on early mortality.

Arthroplasty↗
PubMed2003

Treatment of closed tibial fractures.

Closed tibial shaft fractures are common injuries that remain challenging to treat because of the wide spectrum of fracture patterns and soft-tissue injuries. Understanding the indications for surgical and nonsurgical treatment of these fractures is essential for good outcomes. Although cast treatment of stable tibial shaft fractures has traditionally been successful and continues to be widely used, recent clinical studies have shown that intramedullary nails may be more advantageous for fracture healing and function than casting. Surgical treatment (intramedullary nailing, plate fixation, or external fixation) of closed tibial shaft fractures varies depending on multiple factors. Metaphyseal fractures are well suited for plates, although newer intramedullary nail designs provide the option of intramedullary nailing of proximal or distal metaphyseal tibia-fibula fractures. External fixators are well suited for skeletally immature patients with unstable fracture patterns or for patients with unacceptably small intramedullary canals. Interlocking intramedullary nails are the treatment of choice for most unstable tibia-fibula shaft fractures.

Bone Plates↗
PubMed2002

High-energy tibial shaft fractures.

High-energy tibial fractures are common injuries that are managed by most practicing orthopaedic surgeons. Many methods of treatment are available. This article reviews the options for skeletal stabilization, the risks and benefits of each, and the necessary concepts that effect outcome.

Bone Plates↗
PubMed2002

Percutaneous pin placement in the medial calcaneus: is anywhere safe?

OBJECTIVE: To redefine the medial calcaneal anatomic safe zone for pin placement with respect to reproducible palpable landmarks. DESIGN: Anatomic study. SETTING: Medical school anatomy laboratory. INTERVENTIONS: Thirty-three fresh-frozen adult cadaveric feet were used. Three palpable anatomic landmarks were identified on each ankle and labeled as Point A (posteroinferior medial calcaneus), Point B (inferior medial malleolus), and Point C (navicular tuberosity). The medial neurovascular bundle was carefully dissected, and the medial calcaneal nerve, the most posterior branch of the lateral plantar nerve, the lateral plantar nerve, the medial plantar nerve, and the posterior tibial artery were identified. These structures were recorded at the point at which they transected a line from Point A to B and from Point A to C. Based on the findings of the first thirty-three feet, two pins were placed percutaneously into the medial calcaneus of ten additional feet. Pin 1 was placed one half the distance from Point A to B. Pin 2 was placed one third the distance from Point A to C. The neurovascular structures were then dissected and identified in relation to the pin position. RESULTS: The medial calcaneal, most posterior branch of the lateral plantar, and lateral plantar nerves are at significant risk for abutting the pins or being directly injured at the margins of these relative safe zones. CONCLUSION: The medial calcaneus provides a small window for safe percutaneous pin placement. Posterior to the halfway point from Point A to B and posterior to the one-third mark from Point A to C remain the relatively safest regions; a more posterior placement in the safe zone is safest. Careful blunt dissection and the use of cannulas may help to avoid neurovascular injury.

Ankle Injuries↗