| 1. |
- Christersson, Albert, et al.
(författare)
-
Radiographic results after plaster cast fixation for 10 days versus 1 month in reduced distal radius fractures : a prospective randomised study
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1749-799X. ; 11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine whether reduced distal radius fractures can be treated with early mobilisation without affecting the radiographic results.METHODS: In a prospective randomised study, 109 patients (mean age 65.8 (range 50-92)) with moderately displaced distal radius fractures were treated with closed reduction and plaster cast fixation for about 10 days (range 8-13 days) followed by randomisation to one of two groups: early mobilisation (n = 54, active group) or continued plaster cast fixation for another 3 weeks (n = 55, control group).RESULTS: For three patients in the active group (6%), treatment proved unsuccessful because of severe displacement of the fracture (n = 2) or perceived instability (n = 1). From 10 days to 1 month, i.e. the only period when the treatment differed between the two groups, the active group displaced significantly more in dorsal angulation (4.5°, p < 0.001), radial angulation (2.0°, p < 0.001) and axial compression (0.5 mm, p = 0.01) compared with the control group. However, during the entire study period (i.e. from admission to 12 months), the active group displaced significantly more than the controls only in radial angulation (3.2°, p = 0.002) and axial compression (0.7 mm, p = 0.02).CONCLUSIONS: Early mobilisation 10 days after reduction of moderately displaced distal radius fractures resulted in both an increased number of treatment failures and increased displacement in radial angulation and axial compression as compared with the control group. Mobilisation 10 days after reduction cannot be recommended for the routine treatment of reduced distal radius fractures.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrail.gov, NCT02798614 . Retrospectively registered 16 June 2016.
|
|
| 2. |
- Knutsson, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Body mass index and risk for clinical lumbar spinal stenosis : a cohort study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Spine. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0362-2436 .- 1528-1159. ; 40:18, s. 1451-1456
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STRUCTURED ABSTRACT: Study Design. A prospective cohort study that used a Swedish nationwide occupational surveillance program for construction workers (period of registration from 1971-1992). In all, 364 467 participants (mean age at baseline 34 years) were included in the study.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether overweight and obesity are associated with a higher risk of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: During recent decades, LSS has become the most common indication for spine surgery, a change that coincides with a higher prevalence of obesity.METHODS: A diagnosis of LSS was collected through individual linkage to the Swedish National Patient Register through December 31, 2011. Poisson regression models were employed to estimate multivariable-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for LSS.RESULTS: At baseline, 65% had normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 24.99 kg/m), 29% were overweight (BMI 25 to 29.99 kg/m), 5% were obese (BMI≥30 kg/m) and 2% were underweight (BMI<18.5 kg/m). During 11,190,944 person-years of follow-up, with a mean of 31 years, 2381 participants were diagnosed with LSS. Compared with normal weight individuals, obese workers had an IRR of 2.18 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.87 to 2.53) for LSS and overweight workers had an IRR of 1.68 (95% CI, 1.54 to 1.83). Workers who were underweight halved their risk of LSS (IRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.90).CONCLUSION: Obese and overweight persons are at a higher risk of developing LSS. Further, our results indicate that obesity might be a novel explanation for the increased number of patients with clinical LSS.
|
|
| 3. |
- Christersson, Albert, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical outcome after plaster cast fixation for 10 days versus 1 month in reduced distal radius fractures : A prospective randomized study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Surgery. - : SAGE Publications. - 1457-4969 .- 1799-7267. ; 107:1, s. 82-90
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: this study aimed to evaluate clinical results after plaster cast fixation for 10 days versus 1 month of moderately displaced and reduced distal radius fractures.Material and Methods: in a prospective randomized study, 109 patients with moderately displaced and conservatively treated distal radius fractures (age ≥50 years) were randomized 10 days after reduction to either removal of the plaster cast and immediate mobilization (active group) or to continued plaster cast fixation for another 3 weeks (control group). Grip strength, pincer strength, range of motion, and pain were assessed at 1, 4, and 12 months after reduction. Clinical outcome was evaluated using three functional assessment scores at 12 months.Results: treatment failed in 3/54 (6%) patients in the active group. one of these patients had the plaster cast reinstituted because of feelings of instability. the fractures in the other two patients displaced severely after mobilization and were therefore treated surgically. for the remaining 51 patients in the active group, the range of wrist motion was slightly better at 1 month compared with the controls, but there were no differences in grip or pincer strength or pain at the 1-month follow-up. there were no differences between the active and control group in any outcome at 4 or 12 months, including functional assessment scores at 12 months.Conclusion: treatment with mobilization 10 days after reduction of moderately displaced distal radius fractures resulted in a few treatment failures compared with none among controls. the only functional benefit for the remaining patients was a small and transient increase in range of motion at the 1-month follow-up. plaster cast removal 10 days after reduction in moderately displaced distal radius fractures is therefore not recommended.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Christersson, Albert
(författare)
-
Fractures of the distal radius : Factors related to radiographic evaluation, conservative treatment and fracture healing
- 2017
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are one of the most common injuries encountered in orthopaedic practise. Such fractures are most often treated conservatively, but surgical treatment has become increasingly common. This trend is not entirely scientifically basedThe aims of this thesis were threefold: to increase measurement precision in dorsal angulation (DA) on radiographs and computer tomographies (CTs); to assess the results after shortened plaster cast fixation time in reduced DRFs; and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of applying Augment® (rhPDGF-BB/β-TCP) in DRFs.In Paper I and Appendix 1 and 2, a semi-automatic CT-based three-dimensional method was developed to measure change in DA over time in DRFs. This approach proved to be a better (more sensitive) method than radiography in determining changes in DA in fractures of the distal radius.In Paper II, a CT model was used to simulate lateral radiographic views of different radial directions in relation to the X-ray. Using an alternative reference point on the distal radius, precision and accuracy in measuring DA was increased.Paper III and IV are based on a prospective and randomised clinical study (the GitRa trial) that compares clinical and radiographic outcomes after plaster cast removal at 10 days versus 1 month in 109 reduced DRFs. Three patients in the early mobilised group were excluded because of fracture dislocation (n=2) or a feeling of fracture instability (n=1). For the remaining patients in the early mobilised group (51/54) a limited but temporary gain in range of motion, but a slight increase in radiographic displacement were observed. Our results suggest that plaster cast removal at 10 days after reduction of DRFs is not feasible.Paper V is based on a prospective, randomised clinical study (the GEM trial) in which 40 externally fixated DRFs were randomised to rhPDGF-BB/β-TCP into the fracture gap or to the control group. Augment® proved to be convenient and safe during follow-up (24 weeks). However, because of the nature of the study design, the effect on fracture healing could not be determined. A decrease in pin infections was seen in the Augment® group, a finding we could not explain.
|
|
| 6. |
- Christersson, Albert, et al.
(författare)
-
Prospective randomized feasibility trial to assess the use of rhPDGF-BB in treatment of distal radius fractures
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1749-799X. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB (rhPDGF-BB) combined with an osteoconductive scaffold (β-TCP) has been demonstrated to increase bone formation, but rhPDGF-BB has not been studied in human fractures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and potential use of locally administered rhPDGF-BB/β-TCP (Augment®) in acute wrist fractures.METHODS: Forty patients with unstable distal radial fracture were randomized to closed reduction and external fixation alone (n = 20) or combined with injection of rhPDGF-BB/β-TCP (Augment®) into the fracture (n = 20). All patients were followed for 24 weeks. Outcome was based on adverse events, fracture displacement on radiographs, fracture healing, range of motion, grip strength, pain, and the disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score.RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events in the study, but the pin tract infection rate was significantly lower in the Augment® group. There was no difference between the groups in fracture healing time, based on number of healed cortices or fracture displacement. The Augment® group had an early temporary significant decrease in wrist flexion, but no difference in range of motion at 24 weeks. There were no differences between the two treatment groups for any other outcome variables.CONCLUSION: rhPDGF-BB/β-TCP (Augment®) is safe and convenient for local administration into wrist fractures. In this pilot study, we could not detect any reduced healing time in the Augment® group although potential efficacy should be addressed in larger studies.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The clinical trial registration number for the study protocol is BMPI-2014-02-E.
|
|
| 7. |
- Fritzell, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Recurrent Versus Primary Lumbar Disc Herniation Surgery: Patient-reported Outcomes in the Swedish Spine Register Swespine
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0009-921X .- 1528-1132. ; 473:6, s. 1978-1984
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common indication for lumbar spine surgery. The proportion of patients having a second surgery within 2 years varies in the literature between 0.5% and 24%, with recurrent herniation being the most common cause. Several studies have not found any relevant outcome differences between patients undergoing surgery for primary LDH and patients undergoing reoperation for a recurrent LDH, but these studies have limitations, including small sample size and retrospective design. We (1) compared patient-reported outcomes between patients operated on for primary LDH and patients reoperated on for recurrent LDH within 1 year after index surgery and (2) determined risk factors for worse outcomes. We obtained data from the Swedish National Spine Register, Swespine, where patient-reported outcomes are collected using mailed protocols at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years after surgery. Of the 13,562 patients identified who underwent LDH between January 2000 and May 2011, 13,305 (98%) underwent primary surgery for LDH and 257 (2%) underwent reoperation for a recurrent LDH within the first year. Patient-reported outcomes at 1 to 2 years were available for 8497 patients (63%), 8350 of 13,305 (63%) in the primary LDH group and 147 of 257 (57%) in the recurrent LDH group (p = 0.068). We compared leg and back pain (VAS: 0-100), function (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]: 0-100), quality of life (EQ-5D: -0.59 to 1.0), patient satisfaction, and global assessment of leg pain between groups. We also analyzed rsik factors for worse global assessment and satisfaction. Mean (95% CI) differences in improvement between groups favoring patients with primary LDH were VAS leg pain 9 (4-14), ODI 6 (3-9), and EQ-5D 0.09 (0.04-0.15). While statistically significant, these effect sizes may be lower than the minimal clinically important differences often referred to. Percentage of satisfied patients was 79% and 58% in the primary and recurrent LDH groups, respectively (p < 0.001), and percentage of patients with no or better leg pain (global assessment) was 74% and 65%, respectively (p = 0.008). Reoperation for recurrent LDH represented the largest independent risk for dissatisfaction; this factor and smoking represented similar risks for less improvement in leg pain. Repeat surgery for a recurrent LDH was performed with good probability for improvement, although not as good as for primary LDH surgery, and patients undergoing repeated surgery were less satisfied. Studies on risk factors for recurrence are warranted. Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
|
|
| 8. |
- Försth, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
- 2016
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 374:15, s. 1413-1423
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND The efficacy of fusion surgery in addition to decompression surgery in patients who have lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis, has not been substantiated in controlled trials.METHODS We randomly assigned 247 patients between 50 and 80 years of age who had lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two adjacent vertebral levels to undergo either decompression surgery plus fusion surgery (fusion group) or decompression surgery alone (decompression-alone group). Randomization was stratified according to the presence of preoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis (in 135 patients) or its absence. Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures, a 6-minute walk test, and a health economic evaluation. The primary outcome was the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) 2 years after surgery. The primary analysis, which was a per-protocol analysis, did not include the 14 patients who did not receive the assigned treatment and the 5 who were lost to follow-up.RESULTS There was no significant difference between the groups in the mean score on the ODI at 2 years (27 in the fusion group and 24 in the decompression-alone group, P = 0.24) or in the results of the 6-minute walk test (397 m in the fusion group and 405 m in the decompression- alone group, P = 0.72). Results were similar between patients with and those without spondylolisthesis. Among the patients who had 5 years of follow-up and were eligible for inclusion in the 5-year analysis, there were no significant differences between the groups in clinical outcomes at 5 years. The mean length of hospitalization was 7.4 days in the fusion group and 4.1 days in the decompression-alone group (P< 0.001). Operating time was longer, the amount of bleeding was greater, and surgical costs were higher in the fusion group than in the decompression-alone group. During a mean follow-up of 6.5 years, additional lumbar spine surgery was performed in 22% of the patients in the fusion group and in 21% of those in the decompression-alone group.CONCLUSIONS Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression surgery plus fusion surgery did not result in better clinical outcomes at 2 years and 5 years than did decompression surgery alone.
|
|
| 9. |
- Försth, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Does fusion improve the outcome after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? : a two-year follow-up study involving 5390 patients
- 2013
-
Ingår i: The Bone & Joint Journal. - 2049-4408. ; 95-B:7, s. 960-965
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Whether to combine spinal decompression with fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis remains controversial. We performed a cohort study to determine the effect of the addition of fusion in terms of patient satisfaction after decompressive spinal surgery in patients with and without a degenerative spondylolisthesis. The National Swedish Register for Spine Surgery (Swespine) was used for the study. Data were obtained for all patients in the register who underwent surgery for stenosis on one or two adjacent lumbar levels. A total of 5390 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed a two-year follow-up. Using multivariable models the results of 4259 patients who underwent decompression alone were compared with those of 1131 who underwent decompression and fusion. The consequence of having an associated spondylolisthesis in the operated segments pre-operatively was also considered. At two years there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two treatment groups for any of the outcome measures, regardless of the presence of a pre-operative spondylolisthesis. Moreover, the proportion of patients who required subsequent further lumbar surgery was also similar in the two groups. In this large cohort the addition of fusion to decompression was not associated with an improved outcome.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
