Dataset Information

The Use of Ultrasound to Exclude Extremity Fractures in Adults.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether ultrasonography can be used as a diagnostic tool to exclude extremity fractures in adults.

Methods

This prospective comparative study involved 91 patients (age, ≥18 years) who had been referred by general practitioners for a conventional radiographic examination of a suspected extremity fracture. No additional clinical examination was performed. Ultrasound examination was consistently carried out prior to conventional radiographic examination, which was regarded as the gold standard. At the end of the study, the positive scans were confirmed by a specialist who was highly skilled in ultrasonography.

Results

The prevalence of fractures in the study population was 27%. Ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 92%, a specificity of 94%, a positive predictive value of 85%, a negative predictive value of 97%, a positive likelihood ratio of 15.33, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.085. There seemed to be no association between the anomalous results and patient age or the specific anatomical region of the fracture.

Conclusions

The present study indicates that ultrasonography, when performed and interpreted by experienced ultrasonographers, has high accuracy for the diagnosis of a suspected extremity fracture. No systematic differences were found between the results of radiography and ultrasonography, and ultrasonography showed a high sensitivity and specificity.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

SUBMITTER: Dossing K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6133099 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Use of Ultrasound to Exclude Extremity Fractures in Adults.

Døssing Kaj K Mechlenburg Inger I Hansen Lars Bolvig LB Søballe Kjeld K Østergaard Helle H

JB & JS open access 20170810 3

<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether ultrasonography can be used as a diagnostic tool to exclude extremity fractures in adults.<h4>Methods</h4>This prospective comparative study involved 91 patients (age, ≥18 years) who had been referred by general practitioners for a conventional radiographic examination of a suspected extremity fracture. No additional clinical examination was performed. Ultrasound examination was consistently carried out prior to conve ...[more]

PMID: 30229220

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnkle traumas are common presenting injuries to emergency departments in Australia and worldwide. The Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) are a clinical decision tool to exclude ankle fractures, thereby precluding the need for radiographic imaging in patients with acute ankle injury. Previous studies support the OAR as an accurate means of excluding ankle and midfoot fractures, but have included a paediatric population, report both the ankle and mid-foot, or are greater than 5 years old. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to update and assess the existing evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle Rule (OAR) acute ankle injuries in adults.MethodsA systematic search and screen of was performed for relevant articles dated 1992 to 2020. Prospective and retrospective studies documenting OAR outcomes by physicians to assess ankle injuries were included. Critical appraisal of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Outcomes related to psychometric data were pooled using random effects or fixed effects modelling to calculate diagnostic performance of the OAR. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 test, with Spearman's correlation test for threshold effect.ResultsFrom 254 unique studies identified in the screening process, 15 were included, involving 8560 patients from 13 countries. Sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.92), 0.25 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.26), 1.47 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.93), 0.15 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.29) and 10.95 (95% CI, 5.14 to 23.35) respectively, with high between-study heterogeneity observed (sensitivity: I2 = 94.3%, p < 0.01; specificity: I2 = 99.2%, p < 0.01). Most studies presented with low risk of bias and concern regarding applicability following assessment against QUADAS-2 criteria.ConclusionsApplication of the OAR is highly sensitive and can correctly predict the likelihood of ankle fractures when present, however, lower specificity rates increase the likelihood of false positives. Overall, the use of the OAR tool is supported as a cost-effective method of reducing unnecessary radiographic referral, that should improve efficiency, lower medical costs and reduce waiting times.

Project description:ObjectiveSurgical reduction is the leading approach to patients with lower extremity fractures. The options of anesthetic drugs during surgery are of great significance to postoperative recovery of patients. There is no consensus on the optimum anesthesia method for patients undergoing lower extremity fracture surgery. Our study is aimed at investigating the impacts of nerve block combined with general anesthesia on perioperative outcomes of the patients.MethodsIn this retrospective study, 48 patients experienced general anesthesia only, and 42 patients received never block combined with general anesthesia. The perioperative hemodynamics was recorded, including mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation of blood (SpO2), and heart rate (HR). Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were carried out to evaluate postoperative pain and cognitive status. Furthermore, adverse reactions and recovery condition were observed between the patients receiving different anesthesia methods.ResultsAt 15 minutes and 30 minutes after anesthesia, as well as 5 minutes after surgery, significant lower MAP was observed in the patients treated with general anesthesia (83.04 ± 8.661, 79.17 ± 9.427, 86.58 ± 8.913) compared to those receiving never block combined with general anesthesia (90.43 ± 4.618, 88.74 ± 6.224, 92.21 ± 4.015) (P < 0.05), and compared with general anesthesia group (68.5 ± 7.05, 69.63 ± 7.956, 72.75 ± 8.446), the combined anesthesia group (73.52 ± 9.451, 74.17 ± 10.13, 77.62 ± 9.768) showed obvious higher HR (P < 0.05). No significant difference in SpO2 was found between the two groups at multiple time points (P > 0.05). As for the score of VAS and MoCA, remarkably lower VAS and higher MoCA at 6 h, 12 h and 24 h after surgery were presented in the combined anesthesia group compared to general anesthesia group (P < 0.05). At 24 h after surgery, the two groups showed normal cognitive function (26.33 ± 0.7244 vs. 28.55 ± 0.7392). Incidence of nausea and vomiting in the combined anesthesia group was lower than that of the general anesthesia group (P < 0.05). The time to out-of-bed activity and hospital stay were shorter in the combined anesthesia group compared with general anesthesia (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe application of never block combined with general anesthesia contributed to the stability of hemodynamics, alleviation of postoperative pain and cognitive impairment, along with decrease in adverse reactions and hospital stay in the patients with lower extremity fractures.

Project description:BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:Limited studies suggest lower-extremity (LE) fractures are morbid events for nursing home (NH) residents. Our objective was to conduct a nationwide study comparing the incidence and resident characteristics associated with hip (proximal femur) vs nonhip LE (femoral shaft and tibia-fibula) fractures in the NH. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:US NHs. PARTICIPANTS:We included all long-stay residents, aged 65 years or older, enrolled in Medicare from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009 (N = 1 257 279). Residents were followed from long-stay qualification until the first event of LE fracture, death, or end of follow-up (2 years). MEASUREMENTS:Fractures were classified using Medicare diagnostic and procedural codes. Function, cognition, and medical status were obtained from the Minimum Data Set prior to long-stay qualification. Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated as the total number of fractures divided by person-years. RESULTS:During 42 800 person-years of follow-up, 52 177 residents had an LE fracture (43 695 hip, 6001 femoral shaft, 2481 tibia-fibula). The unadjusted IRs of LE fractures were 1.32/1000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27-1.38) for tibia-fibula, 3.20/1000 person-years (95% CI = 3.12-3.29) for femoral shaft, and 23.32/1000 person-years (95% CI = 23.11-23.54) for hip. As compared with hip fracture residents, non-hip LE fracture residents were more likely to be immobile (58.1% vs 18.4%), to be dependent in all activities of daily living (31.6% vs 10.8%), to be transferred mechanically (20.5% vs 4.4%), to be overweight (mean body mass index = 26.6 vs 24.0 kg/m2 ), and to have diabetes (34.8% vs 25.7%). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings that non-hip LE fractures often occur in severely functionally impaired residents suggest these fractures may have a different mechanism of injury than hip fractures. The resident differences in our study highlight the need for distinct prevention strategies for hip and non-hip LE fractures.

Dataset Information

The Use of Ultrasound to Exclude Extremity Fractures in Adults.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Publications

The Use of Ultrasound to Exclude Extremity Fractures in Adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets