BACKGROUND: Ankle decision rules are developed to expedite patient care and reduce the number of radiographs of the ankle and foot. Currently, only three systematic reviews have been conducted on the accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Foot Rules (OAFR) in adults and children. However, no systematic review has been performed to determine the most accurate ankle decision rule.OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to examine which clinical decision rules are the most accurate for excluding ankle fracture after acute ankle trauma.METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE. The sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of the included studies were calculated. A meta-analysis was conducted if the accuracy of a decision rule was available from at least three different experimental studies.RESULTS: Eighteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. These included six ankle decision rules, specifically, the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Tuning Fork Test, Low Risk Ankle Rule, Malleolar and Midfoot Zone Algorithms, and the Bernese Ankle Rules. Meta-analysis of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), OAFR, Bernese Ankle Rules, and the Malleolar Zone Algorithm resulted in a negative likelihood ratio of 0.12, 0.14, 0.39, and 0.23, respectively.CONCLUSION: The OAR and OAFR are the most accurate decision rules for excluding fractures in the event of an acute ankle injury.
DOCUMENT
Background: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. Methods: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. Discussion: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether dynamic balance, measured with the anterior component of the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT-ANT), is a risk factor for ankle injuries in physical education teacher education (PETE) students.DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective monocentre study in first-year PETE students.PARTICIPANTS: A total of 196 subjects, of which 137 men (70%) and 59 women (30%).OUTCOME MEASURES: This study consisted of measures of the SEBT-ANT at baseline (September 2015) and an injury registration procedure during a follow-up period (September 2015-June 2016). The association between the SEBT-ANT score and subsequent ankle injury was analysed with generalised estimating equations analysis at the leg level.RESULTS: Men and women had an average SEBT-ANT score of, respectively, 65.1% and 67.7% of leg length. In 20 (15%) subjects, the first injured body site involved the ankle. Across all participants, a below average SEBT-ANT score was not associated with increased ankle injury odds (OR OR=2.43, 95% CI: 0.94 to 6.29, p=0.07). In men, a below average SEBT-ANT score indicated sevenfold increased odds for ankle injury (OR=7.06, 95% CI: 1.43 to 34.92, p=0.02). In women, this relationship was not significant (OR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.19 to 2.71, p=0.62).CONCLUSIONS: Below average normalised SEBT-ANT scores were associated with sevenfold likelihood for ankle injuries in men. In contrast, no relationship was found for the SEBT-ANT score and ankle injuries in woman. These results may provide directions for the implementation of screening tools, as part of an injury prevention programme, to identify male PETE students with an increased likelihood for ankle injuries.
DOCUMENT