Anthony V Christiano1, Carl M Cirino2, Hannah C K Elsevier2, Jeremy D Podolnick2, David A Forsh2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave Levy Pl, Box 1188, New York, NY, 10029, USA. anthony.christiano@mountsinai.org. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave Levy Pl, Box 1188, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical utility of second-physician review of radiographs obtained after reduction of distal radius and ankle fractures. METHODS: Fifty consecutive ankle and distal radius fractures requiring reduction were reviewed. The time from post-reduction radiograph to second-physician interpretation was obtained. The second-physicians' interpretation was evaluated for clinically influential information. Patients requiring a repeat reduction were identified, and the timing of the repeat reduction radiograph was compared with the timing of the second-physician interpretation of the initial post-reduction radiograph. RESULTS: The mean time of second-physician interpretation for post reduction ankle radiographs was 6 h and 47 min (range 4 min to 43 h and 3 min). Eleven of 50 (22%) interpretations of post reduction ankle radiographs commented on acceptability of reduction. The mean time of second-physician interpretation for post reduction distal radius radiographs was 5 h and 34 min (range 8 min to 22 h and 59 min). Seven of 50 (14%) interpretations of post reduction distal radius radiographs commented on acceptability of reduction. Three distal radius (6%) and 8 ankle fractures (16%) required repeat reduction. Repeat reductions were completed in 10/11 cases (91%) before the second-physician review of the initial post reduction radiograph was obtained. In only 1 case of repeat reduction was the second-physician review of the post reduction radiograph available before repeat reduction was attempted. CONCLUSION: The timing and quality of second-physician review of post-reduction radiographs offers little utility to the clinical management of ankle and distal radius fractures.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical utility of second-physician review of radiographs obtained after reduction of distal radius and ankle fractures. METHODS: Fifty consecutive ankle and distal radius fractures requiring reduction were reviewed. The time from post-reduction radiograph to second-physician interpretation was obtained. The second-physicians' interpretation was evaluated for clinically influential information. Patients requiring a repeat reduction were identified, and the timing of the repeat reduction radiograph was compared with the timing of the second-physician interpretation of the initial post-reduction radiograph. RESULTS: The mean time of second-physician interpretation for post reduction ankle radiographs was 6 h and 47 min (range 4 min to 43 h and 3 min). Eleven of 50 (22%) interpretations of post reduction ankle radiographs commented on acceptability of reduction. The mean time of second-physician interpretation for post reduction distal radius radiographs was 5 h and 34 min (range 8 min to 22 h and 59 min). Seven of 50 (14%) interpretations of post reduction distal radius radiographs commented on acceptability of reduction. Three distal radius (6%) and 8 ankle fractures (16%) required repeat reduction. Repeat reductions were completed in 10/11 cases (91%) before the second-physician review of the initial post reduction radiograph was obtained. In only 1 case of repeat reduction was the second-physician review of the post reduction radiograph available before repeat reduction was attempted. CONCLUSION: The timing and quality of second-physician review of post-reduction radiographs offers little utility to the clinical management of ankle and distal radius fractures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ankle fracture; Distal radius fracture; Post-reduction; Second physician review