ackground and purposeThe lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) is a well-known and validated instrument for measurement of lower extremity function. The LEFS was developed in a group of patients with various musculoskeletal disorders, and no reference data for the healthy population are available. Here we provide normative data for the LEFS.MethodsHealthy visitors and staff at 4 hospitals were requested to participate. A minimum of 250 volunteers had to be included at each hospital. Participants were excluded if they had undergone lower extremity surgery within 1 year of filling out the questionnaire, or were scheduled for lower extremity surgery. Normative values for the LEFS for the population as a whole were calculated. Furthermore, the influence of sex, age, type of employment, socioeconomic status, and history of lower extremity surgery on the LEFS were investigated.Results1,014 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The median score for the LEFS for the whole population was 77 (out of a maximum of 80). Men and women had similar median scores (78 and 76, respectively), and younger individuals had better scores. Participants who were unfit for work had worse scores. There were no statistically significant correlations between socioeconomic status and type of employment on the one hand and LEFS score on the other. A history of lower extremity surgery was associated with a lower LEFS score.InterpretationHigh scores were observed for the LEFS throughout the whole population, although they did decrease with age. Men had a slightly higher score than women. There was no statistically significant correlation between socioeconomic status and LEFS score, but people who were unfit for work had a significantly worse LEFS score.

II.

No abstract

Background:The evidence for the treatment of acceptably reduced intra-articular distal radial fractures remains inconclusive. We therefore compared the functional outcomes of cast immobilization (nonoperative) and volar plate fixation (operative) for patients with these fractures.Methods: This multicenter randomized controlled trial enrolled patients between 18 and 75 years old with an acceptably reduced intra-articular distal radial fracture. Patients were randomized to nonoperative treatment or to operative treatment. The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score after 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire; the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire; a visual analog scale for pain; range of motion; grip strength; radiographic parameters; and complications. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.Results: A total of 96 patients were randomized, and 90 (46 in the nonoperative group and 44 in the operative group) were included in the analysis. Patients treated in the operative group had significantly better functional outcomes measured with the PRWE at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Additionally, a 28% rate of subsequent surgery was identified in the nonoperative group.Conclusions: Adult patients with an acceptably reduced intra-articular distal radial fracture have better functional outcomes for 12 months when treated operatively instead of nonoperatively. We therefore recommend surgical treatment for patients with these fractures.

Background The purpose of this study was to analyze factors associated with the decision to replant or revascularize rather than amputate an injured digit as well as factors associated with successful replantation or revascularization. Methods We reviewed 315 complete and subtotal amputations at or proximal to the distal interphalangeal joint in 199 adult patients treated over 10 years. Ninety-three digits were replanted (30 %), 51 were revascularized (16 %), and 171 were amputated (54 %), including 5 attempted replantations. Bivariate and multivariable analyses sought factors associated with replantation vs. amputation, revascularization vs. amputation, and success of replantation or revascularization. Results Factors associated with replantation rather than amputation were injury to the left hand, thumb, middle digit, and ring digit, more than one digit affected, and surgeon. Factors associated with revascularization are surgeon and shorter ischemia time. Forty-five replantations (48 %) and 41 revascularizations (80 %) were successful. Successful replantation was associated with the side of injury (left side more likely to survive), zone of injury (distal interphalangeal and interphalangeal joint more likely to survive and proximal phalanx less likely to survive), and shorter ischemia time. Success of revascularization was associated with the mechanism of injury (saw and not crush injury), multiple digits involved, and the surgeon. Conclusions The decision to replant, revascularize, or amputate a nonviable digit and the success of replantation and revascularization are related to both injury factors, such as mechanism of injury, affected digit, and zone of injury, and the surgeon.