Biomedical subjects

William T Obremskey

Publications and source records attributed to William T Obremskey.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Hardware removal: indications and expectations.

Although hardware removal is commonly done, it should not be considered a routine procedure. The decision to remove hardware has significant economic implications, including the costs of the procedure as well as possible work time lost for postoperative recovery. The clinical indications for implant removal are not well established. There are few definitive data to guide whether implant removal is appropriate. Implant removal may be challenging and lead to complications, such as neurovascular injury, refracture, or recurrence of deformity. When implants are removed for pain relief alone, the results are unpredictable and depend on both the implant type and its anatomic location. Current literature does not support the routine removal of implants to protect against allergy, carcinogenesis, or metal detection. Surgeons and patients should be aware of appropriate indications and have realistic expectations of the risks and benefits of implant removal.

Device Removal↗

PubMed2005

Unstable pertrochanteric femoral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fractures in the trochanteric region of the femur are classified as AO/OTA 31-A, as they are extracapsular. This report analyzes the relatively rare 31-A3 fracture, which has also been referred to as an "intertrochanteric femur fracture with subtrochanteric extension," "reverse obliquity intertrochanteric femur fracture," "unstable intertrochanteric femur fracture," or a "subtrochanteric femur fracture." The A3 fracture is characterized by having a fracture line exiting the lateral femoral cortex distal to the vastus ridge. Possible fixation constructs include compression hip screws, intramedullary hip screws, trochanteric intramedullary nails, cephalomedullary antegrade intramedullary nails, and 95 degrees plates. Most reports investigating 31-A fractures do not describe the 31-A3 fracture. For this analysis, only reports clearly indicating that the fracture treated was a 31-A3 were included. It should be understood that this approach therefore excludes reports on generic "subtrochanteric fractures" or "intertrochanteric fractures," some of which may have been 31-A3 fractures. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of fixation technique for the AO/OTA 31-A3 fracture on rates of union, infection, risk of reoperation, and functional outcomes.

Fracture Fixation, Internal↗

PubMed2005

Functional outcome after treatment of lower-extremity nonunions.

BACKGROUND: The results for nonunion surgery usually have been judged in terms of bony union, time to union, infection rate, range of motion for the adjacent joints, and muscle strength. The goal of this study was to assess the improvement of patient-oriented physical and mental functional outcomes. METHODS: The functional status of 23 patients with nonunion of the lower extremity was assessed using the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. The SF-36 subscores were compared with preoperative values and with the average values for the U.S. population. RESULTS: Of the 23 patients, 21 healed. The functional status for nonunions of the lower extremity was greatly improved 1 year after operative intervention in this study. Nevertheless, the results show that it did not reach the level of the average U.S. population. CONCLUSION: The results of this study can be used to guide patients' expectations regarding the functional outcome of treatment for a nonunion of the lower extremity.

Femoral Fractures↗

PubMed2005

Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals.

BACKGROUND: The American edition of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS-A) has included a level-of-evidence rating for each of its clinical scientific papers published since January 2003. The purpose of this study was to assess the type and level of evidence found in nine different orthopaedic journals by applying this level-of-evidence rating system. METHODS: We reviewed all clinical articles published from January through June 2003 in nine orthopaedic journals. Studies of animals, studies of cadavera, basic-science articles, review articles, case reports, and expert opinions were excluded. The remaining 382 clinical articles were randomly assigned to three experienced reviewers and two inexperienced reviewers, who rated them with the JBJS-A grading system. Each reviewer determined whether the studies were therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, or economic, and each rated the level of evidence as I, II, III, or IV. Reviewers were blinded to the grades assigned by the other reviewers. RESULTS: According to the reviewers' ratings, 70.7% of the articles were therapeutic, 19.9% were prognostic, 8.9% were diagnostic, and 0.5% were economic. The reviewers graded 11.3% as Level I, 20.7% as Level II, 9.9% as Level III, and 58.1% as Level IV. The kappa values for the interobserver agreement between the experienced reviewers and the inexperienced reviewers were 0.62 for the level of evidence and 0.76 for the study type. The kappa values for the interobserver agreement between the experienced reviewers were 0.75 for the level of evidence and 0.85 for the study type. The kappa values for the agreement between the reviewers' grades and the JBJS-A grades were 0.84 for the level of evidence and 1.00 for the study type. All kappa values were significantly different from zero (p < 0.0001 for all). The percentage of articles that were rated Level I or II increased in accordance with the 2003 journal impact factors for the individual journals (p = 0.0061). CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic journals with a higher impact factor are more likely to publish Level-I or II articles. The type and level of information in orthopaedic journals can be reliably classified, and clinical investigators should pursue studies with a higher level of evidence whenever feasible.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2004

Comparison of intramedullary nailing of distal third tibial shaft fractures: before and after traumatologists.

We hypothesized that less malalignment and complications occur with intramedullary nailing of distal third tibia fractures (42A, B, C) after the implementation of orthopedic trauma surgeons to this level II community hospital. We also hypothesized that patients with < or =5 degrees of malalignment have poorer function as measured by the MODEMS functional outcome scale. Two cohorts of distal third tibia fractures were identified by discharge diagnosis or by the Orthopaedic Trauma Association database. Group I (n = 39) patients were stabilized with an intramedullary nail by community orthopedic surgeons. Group II (n = 18) patients were treated by orthopedic trauma surgeons. In Group I (community), 9 (23%) patients treated by the community surgeons exhibited >5 degrees of angulation in at least one direction. Five (13%) of these patients displayed angulation in more than one direction, and 3 of these patients exhibited >10 degrees of angulation. In Group II (trauma) 1 (5%) patient had >5 degrees angulation in any plane (P < .05). No differences were noted in time to union, nonunion, delayed union, hardware failure or infections between the two groups. Functional outcomes were assessed using the MODEMS lower limb module. In comparison of the patients with and without significant angulation, the P value for bodily pain was 0.042. Patients treated by the community orthopedic surgeons had a higher incidence of malalignment, as compared to those treated by orthopedic trauma specialists.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Internal fixation versus arthroplasty of comminuted fractures of the distal humerus.

BACKGROUND: A comminuted distal humerus fracture in an older patient is a difficult clinical problem. Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) carries the risks of nonunion, loss of fixation, infection, and stiffness. Arthroplasty carries the risks of loosening, infection, and periprosthetic fracture. Both procedures are technically challenging, and complications following these procedures are frequent. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate best available evidence to assist in guiding clinical decision making for ORIF versus arthroplasty of intraarticular distal humeral fractures in elderly patients. HIGHEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: 1. Case series of internal fixation or arthroplasty of acute interarticular distal humerus fractures in the elderly (level IV). 2. Review of expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal or controlled research (level V). STUDY IDENTIFICATION: 1. Computerized data search 1969-2003, Cochrane Database, OVID Search Engine. 2. Reviews of bibliographies of selected articles.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Change over time of SF-36 functional outcomes for operatively treated unstable ankle fractures.

OBJECTIVE: Ankle fractures are one of the most common operatively treated lower extremity fractures. Several studies indicate that patients often have residual effects after this injury. The purpose of this study is to use the SF-36 questionnaire at two times to assess patients' functional recovery and residual effects after operative stabilization of an unstable ankle fracture. DESIGN: Twenty adult patients with an isolated unstable ankle fracture (OTA 44B/C) who had operative stabilization completed an SF-36 questionnaire when they were released from orthopaedic follow-up at approximately four months from injury. These same patients again completed the SF-36 at a longer follow-up, twenty months on average. Both SF-36 scores were compared with U.S. population norms. SETTING: Level II Community Hospital. INTERVENTION: Internal fixation of unstable ankle fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SF-36 questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients had significant improvement (p < 0.5) in all domains of the SF-36 questionnaire at the later follow-up, except for general health, which was unchanged. Patients still had significant differences in SF-36 scores compared with the U.S. population at the time of release from routine follow-up. The scores of all the domains of the SF-36 at the later follow-up were not significantly different from U.S. population norms except for the domain of physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that patients have significant improvement in functional outcome after release from orthopaedic follow-up but have a residual physical effect at twenty months after injury. These data are important to guide a patient's expectations after this injury and are also important in considering medicolegal and workers' compensation issues. Patients continue to have improvement in function after we have routinely released them from orthopaedic follow-up. Maximal medical improvement appears to be longer than four months from this injury.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Mechanical strength and wear of used EBI external fixators.

Thirty-one EBI external fixators (Dynafix; EBI, Parsippany, NJ) subjected to one or two clinical uses underwent static mechanical testing identical to that performed on new devices prior to market approval. No fixator exhibited catastrophic mechanical failure. For all fixators tested, the mean load to failure was not significantly different from that of identical testing of new devices. Although loss of material from serrated joints was observed in some joints, mechanical strength was not affected. Additional testing of fixators of a variety of designs is necessary to expand on the results of this investigation. The results of this study represent a first step in validating the safety of external fixator component reuse.

Equipment Failure↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A modified judet approach to the scapula.

Operative treatment of scapula fractures is uncommon, but is indicated for significantly displaced fractures or intra-articular fractures. This modified Judet approach for exposure of scapula fractures combines several important goals: 1) exposure of all bony elements of the scapula which have adequate bone stock for internal fixation; 2) minimal trauma to the rotator cuff musculature; and 3) protection of the major neurologic structures (suprascapular nerve superiorly and axillary nerve laterally). The main advantage of the exposure is limiting muscular dissection, which can potentially improve rehabilitation and limit morbidity of the operation.

Fracture Fixation↗