Orthopedics

Feature Article 

Trends in Orthopedic Fracture and Injury Severity: A Level I Trauma Center Experience

Neil Tarabadkar, MD; Timothy Alton, MD; Jacob Gorbaty, BS; Sean Nork, MD; Lisa Taitman, MD; Conor Kleweno, MD

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to define the trends in fracture complexity and overall injury severity of orthopedic trauma patients at a level I trauma center. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected trauma database was performed to determine the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and AO/OTA classification of the most common fractures among all patients presenting from 1995 to 1999 and from 2008 to 2012. Inclusion criteria were lower extremity fractures of the femur and tibia and pelvic fractures within the years of interest. Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years, pathologic fractures, and insufficient medical records to determine ISS or AO/OTA classification. The total number of fractures increased from 4869 between 1995 and 1999 to 5902 between 2008 and 2012. There was an increase in the percentage of lower extremity periarticular fractures (20.7% to 23.4%, P<.001) and the percentage of pelvic and acetabular fractures (32.7% to 39.9%, P<.001) and a decrease in the percentage of lower extremity extra-articular fractures (46.6% to 36.7%, P<.001). The ratios of tibial pilon and plateau fractures relative to extra-articular tibial fractures increased from 0.29 to 0.60 (P<.001) and from 0.49 to 0.81 (P<.001), respectively. The average ISS had increased from 2008 to 2012 compared with from 1995 to 1999 (19.2 vs 15.1, P<.001). The complexity of certain lower extremity fractures and the severity of injury of patients treated at this referral institution are high and continue to increase. As US health care economics continue to change, with provider and hospital reimbursements shifting toward a patient outcomes basis with potential penalties for complications and readmissions, hospitals and providers must recognize these trends. Trauma centers must continue to measure the complexity of fracture care provided to properly risk-stratify their patient population. [Orthopedics. 201x; xx(x):xx–xx.]

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to define the trends in fracture complexity and overall injury severity of orthopedic trauma patients at a level I trauma center. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected trauma database was performed to determine the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and AO/OTA classification of the most common fractures among all patients presenting from 1995 to 1999 and from 2008 to 2012. Inclusion criteria were lower extremity fractures of the femur and tibia and pelvic fractures within the years of interest. Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years, pathologic fractures, and insufficient medical records to determine ISS or AO/OTA classification. The total number of fractures increased from 4869 between 1995 and 1999 to 5902 between 2008 and 2012. There was an increase in the percentage of lower extremity periarticular fractures (20.7% to 23.4%, P<.001) and the percentage of pelvic and acetabular fractures (32.7% to 39.9%, P<.001) and a decrease in the percentage of lower extremity extra-articular fractures (46.6% to 36.7%, P<.001). The ratios of tibial pilon and plateau fractures relative to extra-articular tibial fractures increased from 0.29 to 0.60 (P<.001) and from 0.49 to 0.81 (P<.001), respectively. The average ISS had increased from 2008 to 2012 compared with from 1995 to 1999 (19.2 vs 15.1, P<.001). The complexity of certain lower extremity fractures and the severity of injury of patients treated at this referral institution are high and continue to increase. As US health care economics continue to change, with provider and hospital reimbursements shifting toward a patient outcomes basis with potential penalties for complications and readmissions, hospitals and providers must recognize these trends. Trauma centers must continue to measure the complexity of fracture care provided to properly risk-stratify their patient population. [Orthopedics. 201x; xx(x):xx–xx.]

The cost burden of trauma care has been well documented in the literature, with trauma ranking as one of the most expensive medical situations in the United States because of the combined expenses of its immediate care and long-term follow-up.1 Orthopedic trauma is no exception, and the incidence and complexity of lower extremity fractures as well as the overall severity of polytrauma both appear to be on the rise. With the establishment of Advanced Trauma Life Support, advances in car safety design, and resuscitation efforts, polytraumatized patients often survive their injuries and are transferred to high-acuity trauma centers for definitive management. Therefore, patients arriving at level I trauma centers are presenting with injury patterns that would have proven fatal in the past.2–4

These high-energy injury mechanisms lead to multiply injured patients with associated pelvic fractures and articular fractures of the tibial plateau and pilon.5–7 According to the most frequently used classification system, these are AO/OTA B and C type fractures.8

Many of these fractures are managed in a staged fashion, with initial external fixation and soft tissue rest followed by definitive surgical intervention. This requires multiple inpatient hospital stays and is expensive.9 For more severely injured patients, trauma centers often first implement provisional “damage control orthopedics.”10–12

In addition, high-energy periarticular and pelvic fractures are associated with many nonorthopedic injuries, as reflected by the Injury Severity Score (ISS). The ISS, first described in 1974, is an anatomic scoring system that gives an overall score for polytraumatized patients. Each injury is given an Abbreviated Injury Scale score and is grouped into a choice of 6 anatomic regions. The 3 body regions with the highest Abbreviated Injury Scale scores have their scores squared and added together to produce the ISS. A high ISS is often seen in polytraumatized patients with associated injuries such as damaged soft tissues, open injuries, and increased risk of infection, all of which may require extended hospital stays and repeat operations.13 Higher ISSs indicate higher morbidity and mortality rates and increased risk of perioperative complications.14

The authors hypothesized that the orthopedic patients presenting to their level I trauma center have increasingly complex lower extremity periarticular and pelvic fractures and higher ISSs compared with a decade ago.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study received institutional review board approval. The prospectively collected orthopedic trauma database of the authors' institution was queried to identify all patients sustaining lower extremity fractures of the femur, tibia, and pelvis during two 5-year time periods: between January 1995 and December 1999 and between January 2008 and December 2012. These time periods were chosen as a representation of the changing complexity of fractures presenting to the institution. No demographic data were obtained from the database. Fractures are entered into the database and coded according to the AO/OTA fracture classification system by orthopedic trauma fellows trained in this classification system.

Lower extremity fractures of the femur, tibia, and pelvis within the years of interest were included. Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years, pathologic fractures, and insufficient medical records to determine ISS or AO/OTA classification.

Using the AO/OTA classification system, the authors identified all 31 A–C (proximal femur), 32 A–C (femoral shaft), 33 A–C (distal femur), 41 A–C (proximal tibia), 42 A–C (tibial shaft), 43 A–C (distal tibia), 61 A–C (pelvic ring injuries), and 62 A–C (acetabular fractures). They then calculated the number of A, B, and C type fractures for each bone and each bone level (proximal, diaphysis, distal) that presented during the time periods to obtain the differences in fracture numbers. In addition, they compared all A type fractures vs B and C type fractures, regardless of the bone affected (ie, proximal tibia vs distal femur).

The ISS is also entered into this database. The ISS was recorded for each fracture included in this study. Patients from each time cohort were grouped into ISS “categories,” which were based on 10-point increments, to evaluate whether ISSs were increasing.

Results

There were 2 cohorts of patients: group 1 (January 1995 to December 1999) and group 2 (January 2008 to December 2012). The total number of fractures increased from 4869 to 5902 between the 2 time periods (Table). There was an increase in the percentage of lower extremity periarticular fractures (20.7% to 23.4%, P<.001) and the percentage of pelvic and acetabular fractures (32.7% to 39.9%, P<.001) and a decrease in the percentage of lower extremity extra-articular fractures (46.6% to 36.7%, P<.001).

Fracture Data for the 2 Time Periods

Table:

Fracture Data for the 2 Time Periods

Based on the AO/OTA classification, the overall complexity of fractures significantly increased between the 2 time periods (A type fractures compared with B and C type fractures; ie, extra- vs intra-articular; P=.041). Specifically, the ratio of intra-articular tibial pilon fractures relative to extra-articular tibial fractures increased from 0.29 to 0.60 (P<.001). The ratio of intra-articular tibial plateau fractures relative to extra-articular tibial fractures increased from 0.49 to 0.81 (P<.001). Thus, for each extra-articular tibial fracture, there were 1.4 intra-articular tibial fractures treated in the later cohort compared with 0.79 intra-articular tibial fractures treated in the earlier cohort.

The ratio of intra-articular distal femur fractures to femoral shaft fractures remained unchanged (0.26 to 0.22, P=.148). However, the proportion of femoral shaft fractures decreased from 17.1% to 13.2% (P<.001) of the total fractures, and extra-articular tibial fractures decreased from 19.4% to 13.9% (P<.001) between the 2 time periods.

Acetabular and unstable pelvic fractures significantly increased from 26.9% to 34.4% of the total fractures (P<.001) between the 2 time periods.

The average ISS from 2008 to 2012 had increased compared with that from 1995 to 1999 (19.2 vs 15.1), being significantly greater for each 10-point stratification of the ISS data (Pearson chi-square, P<.001) (Figure).

Injury Severity Scores based on 10-point increments by year group.

Figure:

Injury Severity Scores based on 10-point increments by year group.

Discussion

This study indicates that there has been a significant increase in the number of higher-energy periarticular injuries treated at the authors' institution, as reflected by the increase in B and C type fractures compared with A type fractures. Specifically, the ratios of pilon and tibial plateau fractures approximately doubled relative to the more simple extra-articular tibial fractures. The ISS was also found to have significantly increased. Compared with previous years at the authors' institution, the fractures being treated are more severe and complicated, and the patients with these injuries have more severe polytrauma.

High-energy partial and complete articular fractures such as distal femur, tibial plateau, and pilon, especially type B and C fractures, have been shown to have poor outcomes for reasons such as articular surface comminution, extensive soft tissue damage, and impaction.15–20 These injuries are often associated with other injuries; have high rates of infection, given the extensive amount of damage to the soft tissue envelope; and have higher risk of posttraumatic arthrosis, given the intra-articular damage. Rademakers et al21 examined 67 patients with intra-articular distal femur fractures and found a 10% complication rate. They attributed this to the extensile exposure, damaged soft tissue envelope, and long operating time. Korkmaz et al15 showed that high-energy pilon fractures with extensive articular comminution had worse outcomes than lower-energy injuries including decreased range of motion.

Pilon fractures with extensive articular comminution had worse outcomes than lower-energy injuries including decreased range of motion, whereas Williams et al22 showed that the outcomes after pilon fractures were most influenced by their pre-fracture comorbidities. As the energy increases for these fractures, the outcomes become poorer.23,24 Berkson and Virkus,23 in their review of tibial plateau fractures, pointed out that infection rates are high in type B and C plateau fractures. They cited the soft tissue trauma and devascularization at the time of injury in addition to the soft tissue dissections at the time of definitive fixation as reasons for these increased infection rates.23 With the use of the now abandoned single anterior incision with near complete soft tissue stripping (the so-called “dead bone sandwich”), infection rates of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with bicondylar fixation techniques were as high as 80% and often led to amputations.25 Although these rates have decreased as surgical technique and implant design have improved, they remain high. Ruffolo et al26 cited a 23.6% deep infection rate in their review of 138 bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Moreover, patient outcomes continue to be suboptimal. In a review by Ahearn et al,27 55 tibial plateau fractures were examined, with completed outcome measures obtained for 36 patients. The mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score was 70, the Short Form-36 physical component score was 40, and the Short Form-36 mental component score was 47. These are low outcome scores despite evidence of excellent radiographic union.

This is in stark contrast to low-energy injuries of the distal tibia such as Weber B ankle fractures or isolated medial malleolar fractures. These injuries are not associated with the same perioperative infections or postoperative arthritis and pain commonly seen with pilon fractures.28 The amount of risk assumed by the surgeon operating on a low-energy ankle fracture is much less than that assumed by the surgeon operating on a high-energy pilon fracture. Surgeons who routinely treat complicated periarticular injuries will have longer operative times, and their patients will have a longer hospital stay and an increased rate of postoperative complications (eg, infection, arthritis, revision surgery).

Acetabular and pelvic ring injuries are unique because they have historically been associated with high mortality rates.29 Open pelvic ring injuries have a high incidence of hemorrhage, abdominal trauma, and other associated injuries. Although these injuries were often fatal in the past, new resuscitative measures and specialized trauma-centered care are decreasing mortality. As a result, there are an increasing number of complex pelvic injuries requiring treatment. Consistent with this, the authors saw a significant increase in these injuries presenting to their trauma center. Morshed et al30 examined the outcomes of 829 pelvic and acetabular injuries. They found that patients with unstable pelvic ring injuries, the most severe acetabular injuries (OTA 62-B and 62-C), and combined pelvic and acetabular injuries had lower mortality rates at 90 days and at 1 year when treated at level I trauma centers.

Health care economics and health care policy are changing in the United States. There has been a large push across all of medicine to define appropriate care based on outcomes, often penalizing providers for hospital readmissions and “poor” outcomes.31 These poor outcomes remain inadequately defined and vary widely between, and even within, medical specialties. Although some currently used quality metrics such as readmissions, complications, and deaths are risk adjusted for factors such as ISS, sex, and age, they do not take into account factors such as fracture complexity, low socioeconomic status, and poor family support, which are common among patients cared for at urban level I trauma centers.32 Andrawis et al33 highlighted many of the factors, such as poor multi-institutional patient registries and no consensus on quality measures and indications for treatment, associated with difficulties in measuring outcomes in orthopedics and in health care in general.

There has been a push toward using outcome measures to standardize reimbursement and evaluate successful treatment. Most of this literature has involved total hip and knee arthroplasty and joint registries.33–35 Outcome metrics that are to be linked to physician and hospital reimbursement should vary, similar to the way patient injury severity and comorbidities vary. Patients cared for at level I tertiary referral centers are, in general, not the same cohort of patients cared for at local community hospitals and have different expected postoperative complication risk profiles and functional outcomes. Otherwise, a system is created in which there is no financial motivation to care for complicated injuries. In fact, providers and hospitals would be penalized for taking on the risk of caring for patients with these complicated injuries and incentivized for taking care of simple injuries for which patients will have reliably better outcomes with fewer complications.

It is also important to differentiate between various subspecialties in orthopedics and appreciate that outcome measures used for total joint arthroplasty cannot be used for orthopedic trauma. A total knee arthroplasty will have a different outcome for an otherwise healthy individual than for a patient with a type IIIB open tibia injury from high-energy trauma. There has been an administrative and social push for hospital reimbursement structures to assign “values” based on patient outcomes, not the volume of patients treated.33,36 With US health care economics changing to reimbursements based on patient outcomes, it is important to acknowledge that patients cared for at level I trauma centers are presenting with increasingly complex injury patterns and higher ISSs, predisposing them to an increased risk of complications and negative outcomes. Outcome measures considering overall patient wellness, presenting injuries, and the predisposition for complications based on these factors must be formulated for individual subspecialties.

The ISS has been shown to be a good predictor of patient outcomes. Many studies have found that the higher the ISS, the poorer the outcome for the patient.37–40 The ISS, and other morbidity and mortality score predictors such as the Case Mix Index, should continue to be incorporated into systems that measure the outcomes of the care of trauma patients.

This was a retrospective study with inherent limitations. The data were from a trauma database with a large referral area. However, the authors did not present outcomes or complication rates for these patients. In addition, no demographic data were obtained for this study. Therefore, the results may be partly related to changes in demographics in the authors' area. Also, only patients who undergo surgery are entered in the database, so fractures treated without surgery were not captured in this cohort.

Historically, ISS has been the industry standard for accurate measurement of injury severity, and it is the value calculated and reported in the authors' database. Recently, other scoring systems, such as the New Injury Severity Score and the Trauma Mortality Prediction Model, have proven to be more accurate representations of both severity and mortality prediction. The use of newer severity scoring systems may provide a more accurate clinical picture of overall patient morbidity.

In addition, the authors did not have cost data for the surgical intervention, hospitalization, or clinic follow-up.

Finally, these data may not be applicable across all hospital settings, given the unique nature of tertiary referral centers.

Conclusion

Health care economics continue to change in the United States, with provider and hospital reimbursements shifting toward a system based on patient outcomes with potential penalties for complications and readmissions. In this evolving reimbursement environment, accurate determination of the severity of fractures treated and appropriate patient risk stratification based on anticipated outcomes and complications are increasingly important. These data demonstrate that the complexity of certain lower extremity fractures and the severity of injury of patients treated at this referral institution are high and continue to increase. In the setting of increasing injury severity, the authors observed proportionally fewer diaphyseal fractures and increased periarticular, acetabular, and unstable pelvic fractures. This information should be considered in risk-stratification analyses as new reimbursement algorithms are developed.

References

  1. Velopulos CG, Enwerem NY, Obirieze A, et al. National cost of trauma care by payer status. J Surg Res. 2013; 184(1):444–449. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.068 [CrossRef]
  2. Ali J, Adam R, Butler AK, et al. Trauma outcome improves following the advanced trauma life support program in a developing country. J Trauma. 1993; 34(6):890–898. doi:10.1097/00005373-199306000-00022 [CrossRef]
  3. Schoeneberg C, Schilling M, Burggraf M, Fochtmann U, Lendemans S. Reduction in mortality in severely injured patients following the introduction of the “Treatment of patients with severe and multiple injuries” guideline of the German Society of Trauma Surgery: a retrospective analysis of a level 1 trauma center (2010–2012). Injury. 2014; 45(3):635–638. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.11.024 [CrossRef]
  4. Shafi S, Kauder DR. Fluid resuscitation and blood replacement in patients with polytrauma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 422:37–42. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000129149.15141.0c [CrossRef]
  5. Mullins RJ, Veum-Stone J, Hedges JR, et al. Influence of a statewide trauma system on location of hospitalization and outcome of injured patients. J Trauma. 1996; 40(4):536–545. doi:10.1097/00005373-199604000-00004 [CrossRef]
  6. Nathens AB, Jurkovich GJ, Cummings P, Rivara FP, Maier RV. The effect of organized systems of trauma care on motor vehicle crash mortality. JAMA. 2000; 283(15):1990–1994. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.1990 [CrossRef]
  7. McConnell KJ, Newgard CD, Mullins RJ, Arthur M, Hedges JR. Mortality benefit of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers for head-injured patients. Health Serv Res. 2005; 40(2):435–457. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0u367.x [CrossRef]
  8. Fracture and dislocation compendium: Orthopaedic Trauma Association Committee for Coding and Classification. J Orthop Trauma. 1996; 10(suppl 1):v–ix, 1–154.
  9. Stubig T, Mommsen P, Krettek C, et al. Comparison of early total care (ETC) and damage control orthopedics (DCO) in the treatment of multiple trauma with femoral shaft fractures: benefit and costs [in German]. Unfallchirurg. 2010; 113(11):923–930.
  10. Giannoudis PV, Giannoudi M, Stavlas P. Damage control orthopaedics: lessons learned. Injury. 2009; 40(suppl 4):S47–S52. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2009.10.036 [CrossRef]
  11. Scalea TM, Boswell SA, Scott JD, Mitchell KA, Kramer ME, Pollak AN. External fixation as a bridge to intramedullary nailing for patients with multiple injuries and with femur fractures: damage control orthopedics. J Trauma. 2000; 48(4):613–621. doi:10.1097/00005373-200004000-00006 [CrossRef]
  12. Taeger G, Ruchholtz S, Waydhas C, Lewan U, Schmidt B, Nast-Kolb D. Damage control orthopedics in patients with multiple injuries is effective, time saving, and safe. J Trauma. 2005; 59(2):409–416. doi:10.1097/01.ta.0000175088.29170.3e [CrossRef]
  13. Glance LG, Stone PW, Mukamel DB, Dick AW. Increases in mortality, length of stay, and cost associated with hospital-acquired infections in trauma patients. Arch Surg. 2011; 146(7):794–801. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2011.41 [CrossRef]
  14. Baker SP, O'Neill B, Haddon W Jr, Long WB. The Injury Severity Score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974; 14(3):187–196. doi:10.1097/00005373-197403000-00001 [CrossRef]
  15. Korkmaz A, Ciftdemir M, Ozcan M, Copuroğlu C, Sarıdoğan K. The analysis of the variables affecting outcome in surgically treated tibia pilon fractured patients. Injury. 2013; 44(10):1270–1274. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.06.016 [CrossRef]
  16. Watson JT, Moed BR, Karges DE, Cramer KE. Pilon fractures: treatment protocol based on severity of soft tissue injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; 375:78–90. doi:10.1097/00003086-200006000-00010 [CrossRef]
  17. Mauffrey C, Vasario G, Battiston B, Lewis C, Beazley J, Seligson D. Tibial pilon fractures: a review of incidence, diagnosis, treatment, and complications. Acta Orthop Belg. 2011; 77(4):432–440.
  18. Ovadia DN, Beals RK. Fractures of the tibial plafond. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986; 68(4):543–551. doi:10.2106/00004623-198668040-00010 [CrossRef]
  19. Lewis JA, Vint H, Pallister I. Pilot study assessing functional outcome of tibial pilon fractures using the VSTORM method. Injury. 2013; 44(8):1112–1116. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.02.019 [CrossRef]
  20. Marsh JL, Weigel DP, Dirschl DR. Tibial plafond fractures: how do these ankles function over time?J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(2):287–295. doi:10.2106/00004623-200302000-00016 [CrossRef]
  21. Rademakers MV, Kerkhoffs GM, Sierevelt IN, Raaymakers EL, Marti RK. Intra-articular fractures of the distal femur: a long-term follow-up study of surgically treated patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18(4):213–219. doi:10.1097/00005131-200404000-00004 [CrossRef]
  22. Williams TM, Nepola JV, DeCoster TA, Hurwitz SR, Dirschl DR, Marsh JL. Factors affecting outcome in tibial plafond fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 423:93–98. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000127922.90382.f4 [CrossRef]
  23. Berkson EM, Virkus WW. High-energy tibial plateau fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006; 14(1):20–31. doi:10.5435/00124635-200601000-00005 [CrossRef]
  24. Kennedy JC, Bailey WH. Experimental tibial-plateau fractures: studies of the mechanism and a classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1968; 50(8):1522–1534. doi:10.2106/00004623-196850080-00002 [CrossRef]
  25. Young MJ, Barrack RL. Complications of internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures. Orthop Rev. 1994; 23(2):149–154.
  26. Ruffolo MR, Gettys FK, Montijo HE, Seymour RB, Karunakar MA. Complications of high-energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dual plating through two incisions. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29(2):85–90. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000203 [CrossRef]
  27. Ahearn N, Oppy A, Halliday R, et al. The outcome following fixation of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B(7):956–962. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.32837 [CrossRef]
  28. Hong CC, Roy SP, Nashi N, Tan KJ. Functional outcome and limitation of sporting activities after bimalleolar and trimalleolar ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2013; 34(6):805–810. doi:10.1177/1071100712472490 [CrossRef]
  29. Demetriades D, Karaiskakis M, Toutouzas K, Alo K, Velmahos G, Chan L. Pelvic fractures: epidemiology and predictors of associated abdominal injuries and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2002; 195(1):1–10. doi:10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01197-3 [CrossRef]
  30. Morshed S, Knops S, Jurkovich GJ, Wang J, MacKenzie E, Rivara FP. The impact of trauma-center care on mortality and function following pelvic ring and acetabular injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97(4):265–272. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.00008 [CrossRef]
  31. Bernstein J. Not by bread alone: shortcomings of the pay-for-performance approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472(2):405–409. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3417-5 [CrossRef]
  32. Calvillo-King L, Arnold D, Eubank KJ, et al. Impact of social factors on risk of readmission or mortality in pneumonia and heart failure: systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2013; 28(2):269–282. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2235-x [CrossRef]
  33. Andrawis JP, Chenok KE, Bozic KJ. Health policy implications of outcomes measurement in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(11):3475–3481. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3014-7 [CrossRef]
  34. Drake BG, Callahan CM, Dittus RS, Wright JG. Global rating systems used in assessing knee arthroplasty outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 1994; 9(4):409–417. doi:10.1016/0883-5403(94)90052-3 [CrossRef]
  35. Dawson J, Jameson-Shortall E, Emerton M, et al. Issues relating to long-term follow-up in hip arthroplasty surgery: a review of 598 cases at 7 years comparing 2 prostheses using revision rates, survival analysis, and patient-based measures. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15(6):710–717. doi:10.1054/arth.2000.7109 [CrossRef]
  36. Dawson J, Carr A. Outcomes evaluation in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83(3):313–315. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.83B3.12148 [CrossRef]
  37. Sampalis JS, Boukas S, Nikolis A, Lavoie A. Preventable death classification: interrater reliability and comparison with ISS-based survival probability estimates. Accid Anal Prev. 1995; 27(2):199–206. doi:10.1016/0001-4575(94)00056-R [CrossRef]
  38. Chaput CD, Torres E, Davis M, Song J, Rahm M. Survival of atlanto-occipital dissociation correlates with atlanto-occipital distraction, Injury Severity Score, and neurologic status. J Trauma. 2011; 71(2):393–395. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181eb6a31 [CrossRef]
  39. Costa G, Tomassini F, Tierno SM, et al. The prognostic significance of thoracic and abdominal trauma in severe trauma patients (Injury Severity Score > 15). Ann Ital Chir. 2010; 81(3):171–176.
  40. Rezende R, Avanzi O. The importance of Injury Severity Score (ISS) in the management of thoracolumbar burst fracture [in Portuguese]. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2009; 36(1):9–13. doi:10.1590/S0100-69912009000100004 [CrossRef]

Fracture Data for the 2 Time Periods

Fracture Description1995–19992008–2012P
Fractures, Total No.48695902N/A
Lower extremity periarticular fractures20.7%23.4%<.001a
Pelvic and acetabular fractures32.7%39.9%<.001a
Lower extremity extra-articular fractures46.6%36.7%<.001a
Intra-articular pilon fractures to extra-articular tibial fractures29.5%60.7%<.001a
Intra-articular tibial plateau fractures to extra-articular tibial fractures49.2%81.7%<.001a
Intra-articular distal femur fractures to femoral shaft fractures26.1%22.4%.148
Authors

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Conor Kleweno, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, 325 9th Ave, Box 359796, Seattle, WA 98104 ( ckleweno@uw.edu).

Received: March 03, 2017
Accepted: November 30, 2017

10.3928/01477447-20180103-01

Advertisement

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents
Advertisement