Evidence-Based Medicine in the Practice of Orthopedics and Trauma Care: Current Status and Future Challenges

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Orthopedics".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 May 2025 | Viewed by 10156

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website1 Website2
Guest Editor
Clinical Science, AO Innovation Translation Center, AO Foundation, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
Interests: epidemiologic studies; clinical epidemiology; evidence-based medicine; fracture; trauma

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Missouri Orthopaedic Institute, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65212, USA
Interests: orthopaedic surgery; elbow trauma; fractures; joint preservation and regeneration

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has made significant contributions to orthopedics and trauma care, improving patient outcomes and enhancing clinical decision-making. However, there are specific considerations and challenges in this field that impact the current status and future implementation of EBM.

Orthopedics and trauma care face unique challenges due to the diversity of musculoskeletal conditions, the complexity of injuries and the need for individualized treatment approaches. The available evidence, specifically in trauma care, is often limited; hence, the application of EBM is limited and the implementation of evidence-based guidelines and protocols across diverse healthcare settings poses challenges due to variations in resource availability and expertise. Ensuring effective knowledge translation and promoting standardized approaches will be crucial to optimize orthopedic and trauma care delivery. Additionally, the integration of patient-reported outcomes and patient preferences into evidence synthesis and clinical decision-making is vital in this field.

Looking ahead, advancements in technology, such as precision medicine, artificial intelligence, and biomechanical modeling, hold promise for the future of EBM in orthopedics and trauma care. These innovations can facilitate personalized treatment plans, improve surgical techniques and enhance rehabilitation strategies.

By harnessing the power of evidence-based approaches, this field can continue to advance and provide the best possible care for patients with musculoskeletal conditions and fractures.

Therefore, we invite outstanding research on the topic of EBM, such as guideline development and implementation, outcome research, patient engagement, implementation of technologies in clinical practice, etc., in the Special Issue on "Evidence-Based Medicine in the Practice of Orthopedics and Trauma Care: Current Status and Future Challenges".

Dr. Alexander Joeris
Dr. Gregory J. Della Rocca
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • evidence-based medicine
  • patient-reported outcomes
  • guidelines
  • trauma care
  • fracture care
  • patient engagement
  • personalized medicine

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (6 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

15 pages, 1052 KiB  
Article
Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Traumatic Craniomaxillofacial Injuries: Development of the AO CMF Injury Symptom Battery
by Sally E. Jensen, Nan E. Rothrock, Leilani Lacson-Soltysiak, Alexis Olsson and Edward Ellis
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(23), 7156; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13237156 - 26 Nov 2024
Viewed by 686
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Traumatic craniomaxillofacial (CMF) injuries are associated with various symptoms/concerns that affect patients’ quality of life. The assessment of outcomes from the patient perspective has been limited by the absence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures tailored to this patient population. To address this [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Traumatic craniomaxillofacial (CMF) injuries are associated with various symptoms/concerns that affect patients’ quality of life. The assessment of outcomes from the patient perspective has been limited by the absence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures tailored to this patient population. To address this need, we employed a mixed methods, multi-step process to first identify the most important symptoms/concerns and then use this information to construct a PRO symptom battery. Methods: CMF clinicians and patients who had sustained traumatic CMF injuries participated in semi-structured interviews to elicit the symptoms/concerns considered the most important. The data were analyzed using an iterative coding procedure and symptom/concern frequency was tabulated. The findings were used to develop a conceptual model of the most important symptoms to include in a PRO battery. Existing items were modified as needed and new items were drafted to ensure adequate coverage of the symptoms. Results: The resulting AO CMF Injury Symptom Battery includes four modules specific to the injury site (oral, ocular, nasopharyngeal, ear) and five universal modules (pain/sensation, cognitive, cosmetic, psychosocial, and injury impact). Conclusions: The AO CMF Injury Symptom Battery offers promise for assessing symptoms only patients can report on in clinical research and practice. Ongoing research will examine the battery’s psychometric properties. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 611 KiB  
Article
Towards Standardized Assessment of Outcomes in Back Pain—Validation of Linking Studies Between Disease-Specific and Generic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
by Claudia Hartmann, Gregor Liegl, Matthias Rose and Felix Fischer
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(21), 6524; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13216524 - 30 Oct 2024
Viewed by 1123
Abstract
Background: Comparing outcomes across different health measurement tools is essential where various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used. In spinal surgery, where recent studies show that over 30 different PROMs are applied, this need becomes even more pressing. Although several statistical transformations [...] Read more.
Background: Comparing outcomes across different health measurement tools is essential where various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used. In spinal surgery, where recent studies show that over 30 different PROMs are applied, this need becomes even more pressing. Although several statistical transformations between the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the PROMIS Profile 29 have been proposed, validation studies on conversion equations and cross-walk tables remain limited. In this study, we examined the agreement between observed ODI scores and those predicted from the PROMIS Profile 29 in a large sample of patients with low back pain, collected from routine clinical care. Methods: We compared the performance of regression and linking models at both the individual and group levels. Using Bland–Altman plots, we assessed the mean difference, 95% limits of agreement, root mean squared error (RMSE), and standardized mean differences (Cohen’s d) between predicted and observed ODI scores. Results: While group-level agreement was satisfactory, with negligible effect sizes, individual prediction accuracy was relatively poor. Additionally, regression models showed inconsistent performance across the ODI score range, though incorporating more domains marginally improved predictions. Conclusions: The equipercentile linking approach demonstrated stable agreement across all ODI scores, making it the preferred method. Future regression models should account for nonlinear relationships between PROMs to enhance prediction accuracy. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 418 KiB  
Article
Risk Factor Analysis for Growth Arrest in Paediatric Physeal Fractures—A Prospective Study
by Nikki Hooper, Liam Johnson, Nicole Banting, Rubini Pathy, Emily K. Schaeffer, Jeffrey N. Bone, Bryn O. Zomar, Ash Sandhu, Caitlyn Siu, Anthony P. Cooper, Christopher Reilly and Kishore Mulpuri
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(10), 2946; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102946 - 16 May 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1645
Abstract
Background: Fractures through the physis account for 18–30% of all paediatric fractures, leading to growth arrest in up to 5.5% of cases. We have limited knowledge to predict which physeal fractures result in growth arrest and subsequent deformity or limb length discrepancy. The [...] Read more.
Background: Fractures through the physis account for 18–30% of all paediatric fractures, leading to growth arrest in up to 5.5% of cases. We have limited knowledge to predict which physeal fractures result in growth arrest and subsequent deformity or limb length discrepancy. The purpose of this study is to identify factors associated with physeal growth arrest to improve patient outcomes. Methods: This prospective cohort study was designed to develop a clinical prediction model for growth arrest after physeal injury. Patients ≤ 18 years old presenting within four weeks of injury were enrolled if they had open physes and sustained a physeal fracture of the humerus, radius, ulna, femur, tibia or fibula. Patients with prior history of same-site fracture or a condition known to alter bone growth or healing were excluded. Demographic data, potential prognostic indicators, and radiographic data were collected at baseline, during healing, and at one- and two-years post-injury. Results: A total of 332 patients had at least six months of follow-up or a diagnosis of growth arrest within six months of injury. In a comparison analysis, patients who developed growth arrest were more likely to be older (12.8 years vs. 9.4 years) and injured on the right side (53.0% vs. 45.7%). Initial displacement and angulation rates were higher in the growth arrest group (59.0% vs. 47.8% and 47.0% vs. 38.8%, respectively), but the amount of angulation was similar (27.0° vs. 28.4°). Rates of growth arrest were highest in distal femoral fractures (86%). Conclusions: The incidence of growth arrest in this patient population appears higher than the past literature reports at 30.1%. However, there may be variances in diagnostic criteria for growth arrest, and the true incidence may be lower. A number of patients were approaching skeletal maturity, and any growth arrest is likely to have less clinical significance in these cases. Further prospective long-term follow-up is required to determine risk factors, incidence, and true clinical impact of growth arrest when it does occur. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

14 pages, 546 KiB  
Review
Wearable Sensors in Other Medical Domains with Application Potential for Orthopedic Trauma Surgery—A Narrative Review
by Carolina Vogel, Bernd Grimm, Meir T. Marmor, Sureshan Sivananthan, Peter H. Richter, Seth Yarboro, Andrew M. Hanflik, Tina Histing and Benedikt J. Braun
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(11), 3134; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113134 - 27 May 2024
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1834
Abstract
The use of wearable technology is steadily increasing. In orthopedic trauma surgery, where the musculoskeletal system is directly affected, focus has been directed towards assessing aspects of physical functioning, activity behavior, and mobility/disability. This includes sensors and algorithms to monitor real-world walking speed, [...] Read more.
The use of wearable technology is steadily increasing. In orthopedic trauma surgery, where the musculoskeletal system is directly affected, focus has been directed towards assessing aspects of physical functioning, activity behavior, and mobility/disability. This includes sensors and algorithms to monitor real-world walking speed, daily step counts, ground reaction forces, or range of motion. Several specific reviews have focused on this domain. In other medical fields, wearable sensors and algorithms to monitor digital biometrics have been used with a focus on domain-specific health aspects such as heart rate, sleep, blood oxygen saturation, or fall risk. This review explores the most common clinical and research use cases of wearable sensors in other medical domains and, from it, derives suggestions for the meaningful transfer and application in an orthopedic trauma context. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

14 pages, 400 KiB  
Systematic Review
Intramedullary Screw versus Locking Plate Fixation for Traumatic Displaced Proximal Fifth Metatarsal Fractures: A Systematic Review
by Yu-Chieh Lo, Ting-Han Tai, Yu-Min Huang and Chih-Yu Chen
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(13), 3952; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133952 - 5 Jul 2024
Viewed by 1599
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Intramedullary screw fixation (IMS) and locking plate fixation (LPF) are currently recommended treatments for proximal fifth metatarsal fractures (PFMF). However, treating comminuted or small displaced avulsion PFMF with IMS poses challenges due to complications. A novel alternative fixation method, the locking compression [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Intramedullary screw fixation (IMS) and locking plate fixation (LPF) are currently recommended treatments for proximal fifth metatarsal fractures (PFMF). However, treating comminuted or small displaced avulsion PFMF with IMS poses challenges due to complications. A novel alternative fixation method, the locking compression plate for distal ulna hook plate fixation (LPF), has been introduced recently for distal ulna fractures and has shown improved clinical results. This scoping review aims to assess whether LPF yields superior outcomes, such as postoperative AOFAS scores and rate of postoperative complications, compared to IMS in PFMF treatment. Methods: This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, or case series involving patients with PFMF who underwent plate fixation or screw fixation. The primary outcome was the postoperative American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score. Studies were sourced from databases including PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, with the search conducted up to February 2024. The Systematic Review protocol was registered in the CRD PROSPERO database (CRD42024532593). Results: Ten studies were included, comprising 3 cohort studies, 1 case–control study, and 6 case series, with a total of 309 patients (158 with LPF and 142 with IMS). The postoperative AOFAS scores showed no significant difference between LPF and IMS in treating PFMF. However, LPF demonstrated efficient surgical procedures and enhanced functional outcomes. Complications were minimal in both groups, with no significant difference in the rate of postoperative complications. Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference in AOFAS scores between LPF and IMS, LPF demonstrated efficient surgical procedures and enhanced functional outcomes, making it a reasonable alternative method for PFMF. Effective shared decision-making (SDM) with patients becomes paramount in choosing the optimal surgical approach. In the surgical landscape, thoughtful deliberation, patient engagement, and adherence to biomechanical principles are crucial for achieving successful outcomes in the treatment of PFMF. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 6877 KiB  
Systematic Review
Doctor, When Should I Start Walking? Revisiting Postoperative Rehabilitation and Weight-Bearing Protocols in Operatively Treated Acetabular Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by Vincenzo Giordano, Robinson Esteves Pires, Luiz Paulo Giorgetta de Faria, Igor Temtemples, Tomas Macagno, Anderson Freitas, Alexander Joeris and Peter V. Giannoudis
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(12), 3570; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13123570 - 18 Jun 2024
Viewed by 2447
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Management of acetabular fractures is aimed at anatomically reducing and fixing all displaced or unstable fractures, as the accuracy of fracture reduction has been demonstrated to strongly correlate with clinical outcomes. However, there is a noticeable gap in the [...] Read more.
Background and Objectives: Management of acetabular fractures is aimed at anatomically reducing and fixing all displaced or unstable fractures, as the accuracy of fracture reduction has been demonstrated to strongly correlate with clinical outcomes. However, there is a noticeable gap in the literature concerning the perioperative and postoperative care of patients with acetabular fractures, which ultimately can be potential risk factors for adverse outcomes and permanent disabilities. This study aimed to systematically review the available literature regarding rehabilitation practices, including weight-bearing protocols, across time points in surgically treated acetabular fracture patients and correlate these practices with functional outcomes. Methods: We systematically reviewed the Medline and PubMed databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies with adult patients (19+ years), publications from the last 10 years, articles focusing on rehabilitation or mentioning any aspect related to rehabilitation (such as weight-bearing or muscle training), and describing the surgical management of acute, isolated acetabulum fractures. Specific information was collected, including the fracture classification, time to surgery, surgical approach, surgical time, blood loss, fixation strategy, quality of reduction, postoperative rehabilitation protocol, complication rate, type(s) of complication, and outcome measurement(s). The choice(s) of surgical approach, surgical time, blood loss, and fixation strategy were stratified based on the fracture classification. The complication rate and type(s) of complication were calculated for all studies. Fractures were classified based on the Letournel classification. Results: A total of 494 articles were identified from the initial search, of which 22 (1025 patients) were included in the final review. The most common rehabilitation protocol favored isometric quadriceps and abductor strengthening exercises starting on the first postoperative day, with passive hip movement at 1–3 days postoperatively and active hip movement ranging from the first postoperative day to 4 weeks postoperatively. Partial weight-bearing with a walker or a pair of crutches was permitted from 1 to 12 weeks after surgery, and full weight-bearing was allowed depending on the patient’s general condition and fracture healing state (generally at the end of 3 months). In only three studies did the patients start bearing weight in the early postoperative period (≤1 week). Meta-regression analysis was not performed due to the discrepancy between studies that reported a weight-bearing protocol ≤1 week and >1 week postoperatively. Conclusions: Our study suggests that an accelerated postoperative rehabilitation protocol, including early permissive weight-bearing, does not appear to increase the risk of loss of reduction or the rate of complications after surgical treatment of acetabular fractures. However, a proper meta-analysis was not possible, and the heterogeneity of the included studies did not allow us to conclude anything about the potential biomechanical and clinical benefits nor the negative effects related to this rehabilitation regimen in terms of functional results. There is an inconsistent use of PROMs for objectively calculating the effect size of the accelerated protocol compared with restricted weight-bearing regimes. We pose the need for higher-level evidence to proof our hypothesis. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop