Özkan Sezai, Nolte Peter A, van den Bekerom Michel P J, Bloemers Frank W
Department of Trauma Surgery, VU University Medical Center, VU University, de Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spaarne Hospital, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Feb;45(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0905-z. Epub 2018 Jan 15.
There is variability among surgeons on definitions regarding the degree of bone healing of long-bone fractures. A lack of consensus may negatively affect communication between surgeons, and lead to unintended and unwanted variability in treatment of patients suffering from abnormal healing of long-bone fractures. We aimed to identify differences between surgeons regarding their views on the degree of union of long-bone fractures.
We performed a survey among 114 surgeons who worked at 11 level I trauma centers and 68 level II/III hospitals in the Netherlands. We asked them to represent their institutional colleagues and answer questions regarding their views on the definition, factors influencing bone healing, clinical practice, views on scientific evidence, and the use or need of guidelines for non-union of long-bone fractures. A total of 26 trauma surgeons and 37 orthopedic surgeons responded (59%).
Compared to trauma surgeons, more orthopedic surgeons maintain 6 months as the timeframe for classifying a fracture without healing tendencies as a non-union fracture (50 vs 70%; P = 0.019). Compared to orthopedic surgeons, trauma surgeons use the bone scan (46 vs 19%; P = 0.027) and the PET scan (50 vs 5.4%; P < 0.001) more often, and consider medication use to be a factor influencing bone healing more often (92 vs 69%; P = 0.040). Furthermore, they utilize bone marrow aspiration (35 vs 11%; P = 0.029), reaming of long bones (96 vs 70%; P = 0.010), synthetic bone substitutes (31 vs 5.4%; P = 0.012), bone morphogenetic proteins (58 vs 16%; P = 0.001), and the Diamond concept (92 vs 8.1%) more often as treatment modalities for non-union of long-bone fractures. Surgeons agreed on that intramedullary nail osteosynthesis was the treatment option supported by the highest level of evidence. 80% of the respondents feel a need for a clinical guideline on the management of long-bone non-union.
There is no consensus among surgeons on the definition, factors influencing healing, clinical practice, and scientific evidence regarding non-union of long-bone fractures. The vast majority of surgeons believe that their practice would benefit from (inter)national guidelines on this topic, and efforts should be made to reduce surgeon-to-surgeon variability in treatment recommendations and facilitate more homogenous scientific research on non-union of long-bone fractures.
Level V.
外科医生对于长骨骨折骨愈合程度的定义存在差异。缺乏共识可能会对医生之间的沟通产生负面影响,并导致长骨骨折愈合异常患者的治疗出现意外且不必要的差异。我们旨在确定外科医生在长骨骨折愈合程度观点上的差异。
我们对荷兰11家一级创伤中心和68家二级/三级医院的114名外科医生进行了一项调查。我们要求他们代表所在机构的同事,回答有关他们对定义、影响骨愈合的因素、临床实践、对科学证据的看法以及长骨骨折不愈合指南的使用或需求等问题。共有26名创伤外科医生和37名骨科医生做出了回应(59%)。
与创伤外科医生相比,更多的骨科医生将6个月作为将无愈合倾向的骨折分类为不愈合骨折的时间框架(50%对70%;P = 0.019)。与骨科医生相比,创伤外科医生更常使用骨扫描(46%对19%;P = 0.027)和PET扫描(50%对5.4%;P < 0.001),并且更常认为药物使用是影响骨愈合的一个因素(92%对69%;P = 0.040)。此外,他们更常将骨髓抽吸(35%对11%;P = 0.029)、长骨扩髓(96%对70%;P = 0.010)、合成骨替代物(31%对5.4%;P = 0.012)、骨形态发生蛋白(58%对16%;P = 0.001)以及钻石概念(92%对8.1%)作为长骨骨折不愈合的治疗方式。外科医生一致认为髓内钉接骨术是证据级别最高的治疗选择。80%的受访者认为需要一份关于长骨不愈合治疗的临床指南。
外科医生在长骨骨折不愈合的定义、影响愈合的因素、临床实践和科学证据方面没有达成共识。绝大多数外科医生认为他们的实践将受益于关于这个主题的(国际)指南,并且应该努力减少医生之间在治疗建议上的差异,促进对长骨骨折不愈合进行更统一的科学研究。
V级