Dataset Information

Current practice in the management of acromioclavicular joint dislocations; a national survey in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate current practice in the management of acromioclavicular joint dislocations in the Netherlands.

Methods

A 36-item literature-based and expert consensus survey was developed. If available, one orthopaedic and one trauma surgeon for every hospital (n = 82) in the Netherlands was asked to complete the online questionnaire. Only complete data sets were included in the analysis. Descriptive analysis was performed using SPSS.

Results

Of 149 invited surgeons, 106 (71%) fully completed the survey. The diagnosis of ACJ injury was mainly based on physical examination (91%) and radiographs (95%). The vast majority of patients with ACJ injuries was treated non-operatively. The decision for operative treatment was mainly based on the surgeon's experience and available literature. Patient-related factors that contributed most to the decision to operate or not, were mainly functional needs and age. Cosmesis and gender contributed less to this decision. Rockwood II and III ACJ injuries were usually treated non-operatively, whereas Rockwood IV and V ACJ injuries were usually treated operatively. For primary and secondary operative treatment, a flexible implant was preferred over rigid fixation techniques. All respondents agreed that nonoperative treatment of Rockwood II ACJ injuries leads to satisfactory results and that secondary operative treatment is only rarely required. Also the majority of patients with Rockwood III ACJ injuries is treated non-operatively, although failure rates are considered higher.

Conclusion

This survey showed a significant individual variation on diagnosis and treatment strategies among surgeons in the Netherlands. The majority of the Dutch surgeons concern a flexible implant the best available technique for patients who require operative treatment.

SUBMITTER: De Rooij PP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8476372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a worldwide consensus among experts that guidelines and algorithms on airway management contribute to improved patient safety in anesthesia. The present study aimed to determine the current practice of airway management of German anesthesiologists and assess the safety gap, defined as the difference between observed and recommended practice, amongst these practitioners.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of implementing the guidelines on airway management practice in Germany amongst anesthesiologists and identify potential safety gaps.MethodsA survey was conducted in September 2019 by contacting all registered members of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) via email. The participants were asked about their personal and institutional background, adherence to recommendations of the current German S1 guidelines and availability of airway devices.ResultsA total of 1862 DGAI members completed the questionnaire (response rate 17%). The main outcome was that anesthesiologists mostly adhered to the guidelines, yet certain recommendations, particularly pertaining to specifics of preoxygenation and training, showed a safety gap. More than 90% of participants had a video laryngoscope and half had performed more than 25 awake intubations using a flexible endoscope; however, only 81% had a video laryngoscope with a hyperangulated blade. An estimated 16% of all intubations were performed with a video laryngoscope, and 1 in 4 participants had performed awake intubation with it. Nearly all participants had cared for patients with suspected difficult airways. Half of the participants had already faced a "cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate" (CICO) situation and one in five had to perform an emergency front of neck access (eFONA) at least once. In this case, almost two thirds used puncture-based techniques and one third scalpel-based techniques.ConclusionCurrent practice of airway management showed overall adherence to the current German guidelines on airway management, yet certain areas need to be improved.