ObjectivesTo compare re-rupture rate, complication rate, and functional outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; to compare re-rupture rate after early and late full weight bearing; to evaluate re-rupture rate after functional rehabilitation with early range of motion; and to compare effect estimates from randomised controlled trials and observational studies.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were last searched on 25 April 2018 for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures.Study selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.Data extractionData extraction was performed independently in pairs, by four reviewers, with the use of a predefined data extraction file. Outcomes were pooled using random effects models and presented as risk difference, risk ratio, or mean difference, with 95% confidence interval.Results29 studies were included—10 randomised controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The 10 trials included 944 (6%) patients, and the 19 observational studies included 14 918 (94%) patients. A significant reduction in re-ruptures was seen after operative treatment (2.3%) compared with nonoperative treatment (3.9%) (risk difference 1.6%; risk ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.60; P<0.001; I2=22%). Operative treatment resulted in a significantly higher complication rate than nonoperative treatment (4.9% v 1.6%; risk difference 3.3%; risk ratio 2.76, 1.84 to 4.13; P<0.001; I2=45%). The main difference in complication rate was attributable to the incidence of infection (2.8%) in the operative group. A similar reduction in re-rupture rate in favour of operative treatment was seen after both early and late full weight bearing. No significant difference in re-rupture rate was seen between operative and nonoperative treatment in studies that used accelerated functional rehabilitation with early range of motion (risk ratio 0.60, 0.26 to 1.37; P=0.23; I2=0%). No difference in effect estimates was seen between randomised controlled trials and observational studies.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures reduces the risk of re-rupture compared with nonoperative treatment. However, re-rupture rates are low and differences between treatment groups are small (risk difference 1.6%). Operative treatment results in a higher risk of other complications (risk difference 3.3%). The final decision on the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be based on patient specific factors and shared decision making. This review emphasises the potential benefits of adding high quality observational studies in meta-analyses for the evaluation of objective outcome measures after surgical treatment.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

No abstract

IMPORTANCENo consensus has been reached to date regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures. The international rate of operative treatment has been increasing, despite higher costs and limited functional outcome evidence to support this shift. OBJECTIVESTo compare functional, clinical, and radiologic outcomes after operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults. DATA SOURCES The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched from inception to June 15, 2019, for studies comparing operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting on the following: acute distal radius fracture with operative treatment (internal or external fixation) vs nonoperative treatment (cast immobilization, splinting, or bracing); patients 18 years or older; and functional outcome. Studies in a language other than English or reporting treatment for refracture were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Effect estimates were pooled using random-effects models and presented as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed in September 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measures included medium-term functional outcome measured with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) and the overall complication rate after operative and nonoperative treatment.RESULTS A total of 23 unique studies were included, consisting of 8 RCTs and 15 observational studies, that described 2254 unique patients. Among the studies that presented sex data, 1769 patients were women [80.6%]. Overall weighted mean age was 67 [range, 22-90] years). The RCTs included 656 patients (29.1%); observational studies, 1598 patients (70.9%). The overall pooled effect estimates the showed a significant improvement in medium-term (Յ1 year) DASH score after operative treatment compared with nonoperative treatment (MD,]; P = .005; I 2 = 84%). No difference in complication rate was observed (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]; P = .87; I 2 = 62%). A significant improvement in grip strength was noted after operative treatment, measured in kilograms (MD, 2.73 [95% CI,]; P = .04; I 2 = 79%) and as a percentage of the unaffected side (MD, 8.21 [95% CI,]; P = .007; I 2 = 76%). No improvement in mediumterm DASH score was found in the subgroup of studies that only included patients 60 years or older (MD, −0.98 [95% CI, −3.52 to 1.57]; P = .45; I 2 = 34%]), compared with a larger improvement in (continued)

No abstract

BackgroundIn recent years, there has been increasing interest in the treatment of patients with rib fractures. However, the current literature on the epidemiology and outcomes of rib fractures is outdated and inconsistent. Furthermore, although it has been suggested that there is a large heterogeneity among patients with traumatic rib fractures, there is insufficient literature reporting on the outcomes of different subgroups.MethodsA retrospective cohort study using the National Trauma Data Bank was performed. All adult patients with one or more traumatic rib fractures or flail chest who were admitted to a hospital between January 2010 and December 2016 were identified by the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision diagnostic codes.ResultsOf the 564 798 included patients with one or more rib fractures, 44.9% (n=2 53 564) were patients with polytrauma. Two per cent had open rib fractures (n=11 433, 2.0%) and flail chest was found in 4% (n=23 388, 4.1%) of all cases. Motor vehicle accidents (n=237 995, 51.6%) were the most common cause of rib fractures in patients with polytrauma and flail chest. Blunt chest injury accounted for 95.5% (n=5 39 422) of rib fractures. Rib fractures in elderly patients were predominantly caused by high and low energy falls (n=67 675, 51.9%). Ultimately, 49.5% (n=2 79 615) of all patients were admitted to an intensive care unit, of whom a quarter (n=146 191, 25.9%) required invasive mechanical ventilatory support. The overall mortality rate was 5.6% (n=31 524).DiscussionTraumatic rib fractures are a marker of severe injury as approximately half of patients were patients with polytrauma. Furthermore, patients with rib fractures are a very heterogeneous group with a considerable difference in epidemiology, injury characteristics and in-hospital outcomes. Worse outcomes were predominantly observed among patients with polytrauma and flail chest. Future studies should recognize these differences and treatment should be evaluated accordingly.Level of evidenceII/III.

IMPORTANCE The collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has garnered intense interest, but dissemination of PRO programs has been limited, as have analyses of the factors associated with successful programs. OBJECTIVE To identify factors associated with improving PRO collection rates within a large health care system using a centralized PRO infrastructure.

Prognostic level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.