SummaryProximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common injuries, but previous studies have documented poor inter-observer reliability in fracture classification. This disparity has been attributed to multiple variables including poor imaging studies and inadequate surgeon experience. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether inter-observer agreement can be improved with the application of multiple imaging modalities including X-ray, CT, and 3D CT reconstructions, stratified by physician experience, for both classification and treatment of PHFs.MethodsInter-observer agreement was measured for classification and treatment of PHFs. A total of sixteen fractures were imaged by plain X-ray (scapular AP and lateral), CT scan, and 3D CT reconstruction, yielding 48 randomized image sets. The observers consisted of 16 orthopaedic surgeons (4 upper extremity specialists, 4 general orthopedists, 4 senior residents, 4 junior residents), who were asked to classify each image set using the Neer system, and recommend treatment from four pre-selected choices. The results were evaluated by kappa reliability coefficients for inter-observer agreement between all imaging modalities and sub-divided by: fracture type and observer experience.ResultsAll kappa values ranged from "slight" to "moderate" (k = .03 to .57) agreement. For overall classification and treatment, no advanced imaging modality had significantly higher scores than X-ray. However, when sub-divided by experience, 3D reconstruction and CT scan both had significantly higher agreement on classification than X-ray, among upper extremity specialists. Agreement on treatment among upper extremity specialists was best with CT scan. No other experience sub-division had significantly different kappa scores. When sub-divided by fracture type, CT scan and 3D reconstruction had higher scores than X-ray for classification only in 4-part fractures. Agreement on treatment of 4 part fractures was best with CT scan. No other fracture type sub-division had significantly different kappa scores.ConclusionsAlthough 3D reconstruction showed a slight improvement in the inter-observer agreement for fracture classification among specialized upper extremity surgeons compared to all imaging modalities, fracture types, and surgeon experience; overall all imaging modalities continue to yield low inter-observer agreement for both classification and treatment regardless of physician experience.
Antibiotic prophylaxis for clean soft tissue hand surgery is not yet defined. Current literature focuses on overall orthopedic procedures, traumatic hand surgery, and carpal tunnel release. However, a paucity of data exists regarding the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in a broader variety of soft tissue hand procedures. The goal of the current study was to evaluate the rates of surgical site infection following elective soft tissue hand surgery with respect to administration of prophylactic antibiotics.A multicenter, retrospective review was performed on 600 consecutive elective soft tissue hand procedures. Procedures with concomitant implant or incomplete records were excluded. Antibiotic delivery was given at the discretion of the attending surgeon. Patient comorbidities were recorded. Outcomes were measured by the presence of deep or superficial infections within 30 days postoperatively. The 4 most common procedures were carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, mass excision, and first dorsal compartment release. The overall infection rate was 0.66%. All infections were considered superficial, and none required surgical management. In patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis (n=212), the infection rate was 0.47%. In those who did not receive prophylaxis (n=388), the infection rate was 0.77%. These differences were not statistically significant (P=1.00).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.