Cargando…

A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND: There are no clearly defined guidelines for the management of distal radial physeal injuries. We aimed to identify the risk factors for patients with distal radial physeal trauma for the risk of deformity, physeal closure, and revision procedure and develop a predictive model. METHODS: T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kannan, Sudhir, Chong, Han Hong, Fadulelmola, Ahmed, Emmerson, Benjamin, McConaghie, Gregory, Lennox-Warburton, Hannah, Eardley, William, Venkatachalam, Santosh, Abraham, Alwyn, Henman, Philip
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36238139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/18632521221126926
_version_ 1784806001469292544
author Kannan, Sudhir
Chong, Han Hong
Fadulelmola, Ahmed
Emmerson, Benjamin
McConaghie, Gregory
Lennox-Warburton, Hannah
Eardley, William
Venkatachalam, Santosh
Abraham, Alwyn
Henman, Philip
author_facet Kannan, Sudhir
Chong, Han Hong
Fadulelmola, Ahmed
Emmerson, Benjamin
McConaghie, Gregory
Lennox-Warburton, Hannah
Eardley, William
Venkatachalam, Santosh
Abraham, Alwyn
Henman, Philip
author_sort Kannan, Sudhir
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are no clearly defined guidelines for the management of distal radial physeal injuries. We aimed to identify the risk factors for patients with distal radial physeal trauma for the risk of deformity, physeal closure, and revision procedure and develop a predictive model. METHODS: The retrospective study included patients less than 16 years old with displaced distal radial physeal injuries treated between 2011 and 2018 across five centers in the United Kingdom. Deformity was defined as a volar angulation of >11°, dorsal angulation of >15°, a radial inclination of <15° or >23°, or positive ulnar variance. Presence of a bony bar spanning the physis was considered physeal closure. RESULTS: This study comprised of 479 patients. In that, 32 (6.6%) patients had a second procedure. Also, 49 (10.2%) patients had closure of physis, and 28 (6%) patients had deformity at the end of follow-up. The occurrence of deformity had a strong correlation with age (p = 0.04) and immobilization duration (p = 0.003). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that age >12.5 years (p = 0.006) and sagittal angulation of >21.7° (p = 0.002) had a higher odd of deformity. Immobilization for <4.5 weeks (p = 0.01) had a higher revision rate. The nomograms showed good calibration, with a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 75%. INTERPRETATION: The nomograms provide accurate, pragmatic multivariate predictive models. Anatomical reduction is recommended in patients >12.5 years of age with >22° of dorsal angulation with cast immobilization for no less than 4.5 weeks. Any revision procedure should be performed within 11 days from the date of injury to reduce the risk of physeal damage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9551004
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95510042022-10-12 A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study Kannan, Sudhir Chong, Han Hong Fadulelmola, Ahmed Emmerson, Benjamin McConaghie, Gregory Lennox-Warburton, Hannah Eardley, William Venkatachalam, Santosh Abraham, Alwyn Henman, Philip J Child Orthop Trauma BACKGROUND: There are no clearly defined guidelines for the management of distal radial physeal injuries. We aimed to identify the risk factors for patients with distal radial physeal trauma for the risk of deformity, physeal closure, and revision procedure and develop a predictive model. METHODS: The retrospective study included patients less than 16 years old with displaced distal radial physeal injuries treated between 2011 and 2018 across five centers in the United Kingdom. Deformity was defined as a volar angulation of >11°, dorsal angulation of >15°, a radial inclination of <15° or >23°, or positive ulnar variance. Presence of a bony bar spanning the physis was considered physeal closure. RESULTS: This study comprised of 479 patients. In that, 32 (6.6%) patients had a second procedure. Also, 49 (10.2%) patients had closure of physis, and 28 (6%) patients had deformity at the end of follow-up. The occurrence of deformity had a strong correlation with age (p = 0.04) and immobilization duration (p = 0.003). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that age >12.5 years (p = 0.006) and sagittal angulation of >21.7° (p = 0.002) had a higher odd of deformity. Immobilization for <4.5 weeks (p = 0.01) had a higher revision rate. The nomograms showed good calibration, with a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 75%. INTERPRETATION: The nomograms provide accurate, pragmatic multivariate predictive models. Anatomical reduction is recommended in patients >12.5 years of age with >22° of dorsal angulation with cast immobilization for no less than 4.5 weeks. Any revision procedure should be performed within 11 days from the date of injury to reduce the risk of physeal damage. SAGE Publications 2022-10-03 2022-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9551004/ /pubmed/36238139 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/18632521221126926 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Trauma
Kannan, Sudhir
Chong, Han Hong
Fadulelmola, Ahmed
Emmerson, Benjamin
McConaghie, Gregory
Lennox-Warburton, Hannah
Eardley, William
Venkatachalam, Santosh
Abraham, Alwyn
Henman, Philip
A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study
title A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study
title_full A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study
title_fullStr A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study
title_short A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study
title_sort prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: a multicenter retrospective study
topic Trauma
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36238139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/18632521221126926
work_keys_str_mv AT kannansudhir apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT chonghanhong apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT fadulelmolaahmed apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT emmersonbenjamin apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT mcconaghiegregory apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT lennoxwarburtonhannah apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT eardleywilliam apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT venkatachalamsantosh apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT abrahamalwyn apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT henmanphilip apredictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT kannansudhir predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT chonghanhong predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT fadulelmolaahmed predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT emmersonbenjamin predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT mcconaghiegregory predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT lennoxwarburtonhannah predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT eardleywilliam predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT venkatachalamsantosh predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT abrahamalwyn predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy
AT henmanphilip predictionmodelfortreatmentdecisionsindistalradialphysealinjuriesamulticenterretrospectivestudy