MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3210120813 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.100

125 Reducing Displaced Forearm Fractures in Children: Are we following the guidelines?

2021· article· en· W3210120813 sur OpenAlexaff
Charles-Antoine Beaulieu, Evelyne D Trottier, Marie‐Claude Miron, Guy Grimard

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBone fractures and treatments
Établissements canadiensCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineForearmFluoroscopyReduction (mathematics)SedationOrthopedic surgeryRadiological weaponEmergency departmentSurgeryEmergency medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Emergency Medicine - Paediatric Background Forearm fractures account for 45% of pediatric fractures, mainly involving the distal third of the forearm. Some will be displaced, requiring a closed reduction and plaster cast immobilization. Re-displacement during follow-up is reported in 7 to 35% of the cases. Objectives To identity discrepancies between hospital guidelines and patient management for forearm fracture reduction in children aged 1 to 17. Design/Methods This retrospective case series was conducted by a medical audit committee of CHU Sainte-Justine for the purpose of improving quality of care. This project aimed to evaluate the clinical course following closed reduction of forearm fractures in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) or to the orthopedic clinic in a pediatric tertiary care centre. Children aged 1 to 17 years old presenting between January 1 and December 31 2019 were considered for this study. We selected a convenience sample of 50 consecutive cases and reviewed their medical and radiological data from first consultation through follow-ups. The management of these cases was evaluated against established hospital guidelines for primary or secondary fracture reduction (primary outcome). The angulation and displacement of fractures were measured using original imaging taken prior to reduction, and at follow-up. At their last appointment, all patients’ range of motion and angulation were assessed. Complications of sedation and immobilization were also reviewed. Descriptive statistics were performed for all variables. Results From the 106 radiologic files retrieved of closed forearm fracture reduction using fluoroscopy, a convenient sample of 50 cases was reviewed. The mean age was 7 years and 60% of them were boys. Forty-eight (96%) had an initial fracture reduction consistent with the local practice guideline for need of reduction. Sedation adverse events were noted in 10 patients (20%), most often nausea, but no severe adverse event was identified. According to the local practice guideline, 13 (26%) patients suffered re-displacement at follow-up. Of these, 3 underwent a second closed reduction, 4 had a gypsotomy, and 6 had no attempt at a second reduction. Five patients (10%) had a second reduction during follow-up, despite the displacement not meeting the local guideline criteria for reduction. Cast-related issues were reported in 14 patients (28%), with the molding technique accounting for most of the problems observed. At their final follow-up, 40 patients (80%) had an excellent or good functional outcome. In the remaining 10 (20%), the range of motion was more limited, but measurements were done for many of them following immediate cast removal. Forty patients (80%) had either a normal or near normal alignment at their final follow-up. In the remaining 10 (20%), none of these patients had an angulation greater than 20 degrees. Conclusion From this audit of patients presenting with displaced forearm fractures in a pediatric tertiary care centre, the initial management of patients was in accordance with the established guidelines of practice in 96% of cases. Re-displacements at follow-up were identified in a quarter of patients. Nonetheless, angulation and the final range of motion of the wrist were favorable shortly after cast removal. Further improvement in the management could be achieved by improving the technique of cast immobilization.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,338
Écart entre enseignants0,316 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetBone fractures and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207