Objective The duration of immobilization in distal radial fractures is disputed in the current literature. There are still no long-term superior outcomes of operative treatment in comparison to nonoperative treatment. A systematic review was initiated to assess the clinical controversy on the duration of the immobilization period for nonoperatively treated distal radial fractures. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane Library databases and a manual reference check of the identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses was executed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that compared two periods of immobilization, with reported functional, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes. Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility, and assessed methodological quality and extracted outcome data. Results The initial search yielded 3.384 studies. Twelve trials, with 1063 patients, were included in this systematic review. Grip strength and patient-reported outcome were better in patients treated by a shorter period of immobilization. There was no difference in pain, range of motion, or radiological outcome between different periods of immobilization. Owing to heterogeneity of studies, data were unsuitable for pooling. Conclusion Included studies showed that there might be a preference for a shorter period of immobilization in nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures. Therefore, shortening the period of immobilization in distal radial fractures to a maximum of three weeks should be considered. Future research should include homogeneous groups of patients to draw valid conclusions on the appropriate period of immobilization for nonoperatively treated distal radial fractures. Level of Evidence This is a Level II study. Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018085524.

Background Patients with non- or minimally displaced distal radial fractures, that do not need repositioning, are mostly treated by a short-arm cast for a period of 4 to 6 weeks. A shorter period of immobilization may lead to a better functional outcome. Purpose We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether the duration of cast immobilization for patients with non- or minimally displaced distal radial fractures can be safely shortened toward 3 weeks. Materials and Methods The primary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes measured by the Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) and Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score after 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were: PRWE and QuickDASH earlier in follow-up, pain (Visual Analog Scale), and complications like secondary displacement. Results Seventy-two patients (male/female, 23/49; median age, 55 years) were included and randomized. Sixty-five patients completed the 1-year follow-up. After 1-year follow up, patients in the 3 weeks immobilization group had significantly better PRWE (5.0 vs. 8.8 points, p = 0.045) and QuickDASH scores (0.0 vs. 12.5, p = 0.026). Secondary displacement occurred once in each group. Pain did not differ between groups (p = 0.46). Conclusion Shortening the period of immobilization in adult patients with a non- or minimally displaced distal radial fractures seems to lead to equal patient-reported outcomes for both the cast immobilization groups. Also, there are no negative side effects of a shorter period of cast immobilization. Therefore, we recommend a period of 3 weeks of immobilization in patients with distal radial fractures that do not need repositioning.

HighlightsThe slipping rib syndrome is a condition hard to recognize.By performing a hooking maneuver the diagnosis slipping rib syndrome can be made.When pain medication is not sufficient, resection of the rib can be performed.Knowledge of the syndrome can prevent unnecessary comprehensive treatment.

Background Safety in the operating room is widely debated. Adverse events during surgery are potentially dangerous for the patient and staff. The incidence of adverse events during orthopedic trauma surgery is unknown. Therefore, we performed a study to quantify the incidence of these adverse events. Primary objective was to determine the incidence of adverse events related to technical equipment and logistics. The secondary objective was to evaluate the consequences of these adverse events. Methods We completed a cross-sectional observational study to assess the incidence, consequences and preventability of adverse events related to technical equipment and logistics during orthopedic trauma surgery. During a 10 week period, all orthopedic trauma operations were evaluated by an observer. Six types of procedures were differentiated: osteosynthesis; arthroscopy; removal of hardware; joint replacement; bone grafting and other. Adverse events were divided in six categories: staff dependent factors; patient dependent factors; anaesthesia; imaging equipment; operation room equipment and instruments and implants. Adverse events were defined as any factor affecting the surgical procedure in a negative way. Results Hundred-fifty operative procedures were included. In 54% of the procedures, at least one adverse event occurred. In total, 147 adverse events occurred, with a range of 1-5 per procedure. Most adverse events occurred during joint replacement procedures. Thirty-seven percent of the incidents concerned defect, incorrect connected or absent instruments. In 36% of the procedures adverse events resulted in a prolonged operation time with a median prolongation of 10.0 min. Conclusion In more than half of orthopedic trauma surgical procedures adverse events related to technical equipment and logistics occurred, most of them could easily be prevented. These adverse events could endanger the safety of the patient and staff and should therefore be reduced. Level of evidence 4.