At present, various scar assessment scales are available, but not one has been shown to be reliable, consistent, feasible, and valid at the same time. Furthermore, the existing scar assessment scales appear to attach little weight to the opinion of the patient. The newly developed Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale consists of two numeric scales: the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (patient scale) and the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (observer scale). The patient and observer scales have to be completed by the patient and the observer, respectively. The patient scale's consistency and the observer scale's consistency, reliability, and feasibility were tested. For the Vancouver Scar Scale, which is the most frequently used scar assessment scale at present, the same statistical measurements were examined and the results of the observer scale and the Vancouver scale were compared. The concurrent validity of the observer scale was tested with a correlation to the Vancouver scale. Furthermore, the authors examined which specific characteristics significantly influence the general opinion of the patient and the observers on the scar areas. Four independent observers have each used the observer scale and the Vancouver scale to assess 49 burn scar areas of 3 x 3 cm belonging to 20 different patients. Subsequently, the patients completed the patient scale for their scar areas. The (internal) consistency of both the patient and the observer scales was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha, 0.76 and 0.69, respectively), whereas the consistency of the Vancouver scale appeared not to be acceptable (alpha, 0.49). The reliability of the observer scale completed by a single observer was acceptable (r = 0.73). The reliability of the Vancouver scale completed by a single observer was lower (r = 0.69). The observer scale showed better agreement than the Vancouver scale because the coefficient of variation was lower (18 percent and 22 percent, respectively). The concurrent validity of the observer scale in relation to the Vancouver scale is high (r = 0.89, p < 0.001). Linear regression of the general opinions on scars of the observer and the patient showed that the observer's opinion is influenced by vascularization, thickness, pigmentation, and relief, whereas the patient's opinion is mainly influenced by itching and the thickness of the scar. Such an impact of itching and thickness of the scar on the patient's opinion is an important and novel finding. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale offers a suitable, reliable, and complete scar evaluation tool.
There is good evidence from three trials that open mesh repair is superior to suture repair in terms of recurrences, but inferior when considering wound infection. Six trials yielded insufficient evidence as to which type of mesh or which mesh position (on- or sublay) should be used. There was also insufficient evidence to advocate the use of the components separation technique.
Background: Following internal fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures, tip apex distance, fracture classification, position ofthe screw in the femoral head, and fracture reduction are known predictors for screw cutout, but the reliability of these measurements is unknown. We investigated the reliability ofthe tip apex distance measurement, the Cleveland femoral head dividing system, the three-grade classification system of Baumgaertner for fracture reduction, and the AO classification system as predictors for screw cutout.
BackgroundAnemia is more often seen in older patients. As the mean age of hip fracture patients is rising, anemia is common in this population. Allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) and anemia have been pointed out as possible risk factors for poorer outcome in hip fracture patients.MethodsIn the timeframe 2005-2010, 1262 admissions for surgical treatment of a hip fracture in patients aged 65 years and older were recorded. Registration was prospective from 2008 on. Anemic and non-anemic patients (based on hemoglobin level at admission) were compared regarding clinical characteristics, mortality, delirium incidence, LOS, discharge to a nursing home and the 90-day readmission rate. Receiving an ABT, age, gender, ASA classification, type of fracture and anesthesia were used as possible confounders in multivariable regression analysis.ResultsThe prevalence of anemia and the rate of ABT both were 42.5%. Anemic patients were more likely to be older and men and had more often a trochanteric fracture, a higher ASA score and received more often an ABT. In univariate analysis, the 3- and 12-month mortality rate, delirium incidence and discharge to a nursing home rate were significantly worse in preoperatively anemic patients.In multivariable regression analysis, anemia at admission was a significant risk factor for discharge to a nursing home and readmission < 90 days, but not for mortality. Indication for ABT, age and ASA classification were independent risk factors for mortality at all moments, only the mortality rate for the 3-12 month interval was not influenced by ABT. An indication for an ABT was the largest negative contributor to a longer LOS (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.73-2.94) and the second largest for delirium (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.28-2.20).ConclusionsThis study has demonstrated that anemia at admission and postoperative anemia needing an ABT (PANT) were independent risk factors for worse outcome in hip fracture patients. In multivariable regression analysis, anemia as such had no effect on mortality, due to a rescue effect of PANT. In-hospital, 3- and 12-month mortality was negatively affected by PANT, with the main effect in the first 3 months postoperatively.
The risk not to regain prefracture mobility is highest in mobile patients without an aid. The risk of becoming immobile is higher in those having a lower prefracture mobility. Activities of daily living dependence and delirium were the main risk factors for not regaining mobility.
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.