Clinical management of open fractures is challenging and frequently requires complex reconstruction procedures. The Gustilo-Anderson classification lacks uniform interpretation, has poor interobserver reliability, and fails to account for injuries to musculotendinous units and bone. The Ganga Hospital Open Injury Severity Score (GHOISS) was designed to address these concerns. The major aim of this review was to ascertain the evidence available on accuracy of the GHOISS in predicting successful limb salvage in patients with mangled limbs. We searched electronic data bases including PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies that employed the GHOISS risk tool in managing complex limb injuries published from April 2006, when the score was introduced, until April 2021. Primary outcome was the measured sensitivity and specificity of the GHOISS risk tool for predicting amputation at a specified threshold score. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, need for plastic surgery, deep infection rate, time to fracture union, and functional outcome measures. Diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis was performed using a random effects bivariate binomial model.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus and to assess the uniformity of the classifications used for these fractures (including those around elbow and/or shoulder arthroplasties) by performing a systematic review of the literature. A systematic search was conducted using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Healthcare Databases Advance Search. For inclusion, studies had to report clinical outcomes following the management of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database.Aims
Methods
We set out to determine if there is a difference in perioperative outcomes between early and delayed surgery in paediatric supracondylar humeral fractures in the absence of vascular compromise through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A literature search was performed, with search outputs screened for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The groups of early surgery (ES) and delayed surgery (DS) were classified by study authors. The primary outcome measure was open reduction requirement. Meta-analysis was performed in the presence of sufficient study homogeneity. Individual study risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria, with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria used to evaluate outcomes independently.Aims
Materials and Methods
