We have located links that may give you full text access.
Applicability of the AAOS appropriate-use criteria for distal radius fractures in surgical practice.
International Orthopaedics 2018 January
PURPOSE: The appropriate-use criteria (AUC) for distal radius fracture (DRF) was developed by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) to aid surgeons in making evidence-based treatment decisions for DRFs. The aim of our study was to cross-reference the management of operatively treated DRFs with the web-based AAOS published AUC recommendations.
METHODS: The AUC for DRF evaluates the appropriateness of ten treatment options for each of 240 mutually exclusive patient scenarios based on the combination of five factors. For every scenario, each treatment is classified as appropriate, maybe appropriate or rarely appropriate. We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts and radiographs of all adult patients ≥19 years who underwent surgery for DRFs between 1 January and 31 December 2014 and determined the rate of appropriateness of treatment in this consecutive series of patients.
RESULTS: Over the study period, 108 patients (83.3% men; mean age 39.8 years) with 113 DRFs (five bilateral) were treated surgically. The most frequent scenario was represented by a type C fracture, high-energy mechanism, normal functional demand, American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 1-3 and no associated injuries. The most frequently used treatment was volar locking plate (54.0%). Based on the AUC, treatment was appropriate for 96 cases (85.0%), maybe appropriate for 15 (13.2%), and rarely appropriate for two (1.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: A web-based electronic AUC application can be an attractive and easy decision-making aid for orthopaedic surgeons. Application of the AUC to clinical data was relatively simple, and most operatively treated DRFs were managed appropriately.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
METHODS: The AUC for DRF evaluates the appropriateness of ten treatment options for each of 240 mutually exclusive patient scenarios based on the combination of five factors. For every scenario, each treatment is classified as appropriate, maybe appropriate or rarely appropriate. We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts and radiographs of all adult patients ≥19 years who underwent surgery for DRFs between 1 January and 31 December 2014 and determined the rate of appropriateness of treatment in this consecutive series of patients.
RESULTS: Over the study period, 108 patients (83.3% men; mean age 39.8 years) with 113 DRFs (five bilateral) were treated surgically. The most frequent scenario was represented by a type C fracture, high-energy mechanism, normal functional demand, American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 1-3 and no associated injuries. The most frequently used treatment was volar locking plate (54.0%). Based on the AUC, treatment was appropriate for 96 cases (85.0%), maybe appropriate for 15 (13.2%), and rarely appropriate for two (1.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: A web-based electronic AUC application can be an attractive and easy decision-making aid for orthopaedic surgeons. Application of the AUC to clinical data was relatively simple, and most operatively treated DRFs were managed appropriately.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app