BACKGROUND: A recent prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) for comparison of medial and lateral entry pins with lateral entry pins for treatment of Gartland type 3 supracondylar humerus fractures (SCHF) was published, validating the national trend toward treatment of this injury with only lateral entry pins. But have surgeons actually changed their practice as a result of these recent data? The purpose of this study was to compare pin configuration, loss of reduction and rate of nerve injuries before and after the RCT. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with Gartland type 3 SCHF who were treated before the RCT (April 2000 to April 2003: 141 patients) and after the trial (April 2006 to April 2009: 126 patients). Eight surgeons were included. Patient demographic data, pin configuration, neurovascular status, and radiographic results were compared. Comparisons between the pretrial cohort and the posttrial cohort as a group as well as for each individual surgeon were performed. Comparisons included the choice of pin configuration, incidence of loss of radiographic reduction, iatrogenic nerve injuries, return to the operating room, and infection before and after the clinical trial. RESULTS: There was a statistically different pin configuration in the pretrial group compared with the posttrial group (P<0.0001) with the posttrial group having a much higher percentage of bicolumnar lateral entry only pins. Five out of 8 surgeons individually had a statistically significant change in their practice pattern for pin configuration. There was no difference from pretrial to posttrial in loss of radiographic reduction, infection rate, iatrogenic nerve injuries, or return to the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Data showing change in surgeon practice have been relatively sparse. In this group of surgeons who participated in an RCT, there was a statistically significant change in pin configuration for treatment of Gartland type 3 SCHF after the results of the RCT were known. The change in clinical practice did not have an effect on outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A recent prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) for comparison of medial and lateral entry pins with lateral entry pins for treatment of Gartland type 3 supracondylar humerus fractures (SCHF) was published, validating the national trend toward treatment of this injury with only lateral entry pins. But have surgeons actually changed their practice as a result of these recent data? The purpose of this study was to compare pin configuration, loss of reduction and rate of nerve injuries before and after the RCT. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with Gartland type 3 SCHF who were treated before the RCT (April 2000 to April 2003: 141 patients) and after the trial (April 2006 to April 2009: 126 patients). Eight surgeons were included. Patient demographic data, pin configuration, neurovascular status, and radiographic results were compared. Comparisons between the pretrial cohort and the posttrial cohort as a group as well as for each individual surgeon were performed. Comparisons included the choice of pin configuration, incidence of loss of radiographic reduction, iatrogenic nerve injuries, return to the operating room, and infection before and after the clinical trial. RESULTS: There was a statistically different pin configuration in the pretrial group compared with the posttrial group (P<0.0001) with the posttrial group having a much higher percentage of bicolumnar lateral entry only pins. Five out of 8 surgeons individually had a statistically significant change in their practice pattern for pin configuration. There was no difference from pretrial to posttrial in loss of radiographic reduction, infection rate, iatrogenic nerve injuries, or return to the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Data showing change in surgeon practice have been relatively sparse. In this group of surgeons who participated in an RCT, there was a statistically significant change in pin configuration for treatment of Gartland type 3 SCHF after the results of the RCT were known. The change in clinical practice did not have an effect on outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Authors: I Georgescu; S Gavriliu; A Pârvan; A Martiniuc; E Japie; R Ghiță; I Drăghici; Ş Hamei; I Ţiripa; T El Nayef; D Dan Journal: J Med Life Date: 2013-06-25
Authors: Juliëtte J C M van Munster; Amir H Zamanipoor Najafabadi; Nick P de Boer; Wilco C Peul; Wilbert B van den Hout; Peter Paul G van Benthem Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.240