All posts by TheTraumaPro

All About Posterior Hip Dislocation

Although posterior hip dislocation is an uncommon injury, the consequences of delayed recognition or treatment can be dire. The majority are caused by head-on car crashes, and 90% of these are posterior dislocations. The femoral head is forced across the back wall of the acetabulum, either by the knee striking the dash, or by forces moving up the leg when the knee is locked. This occurs most commonly on the right side when the driver is standing on the brake pedal, desperately trying to stop.

On exam, the patient presents with the hip flexed, internally rotated and somewhat adducted. Range of motion is limited, and increasing resistance is felt when you try to move it out of position. An AP pelvic X-ray will show the femoral head out of the socket, but it may take a lateral or Judet view to tell if it is posterior vs anterior.

These injuries need to be reduced as soon as possible to decrease the chance of avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Procedural sedation is required for all reductions, since it makes the patient much more comfortable and reduces muscle tone. The ED cart needs to be able to handle both the patient’s weight and your own. I also recommend a spotter on each side of the cart.

Standing on the cart near the patient’s feet, begin to apply traction to the femur and slowly flex the hip to about 90 degrees. Then gently adduct the thigh to help jump the femoral head over the acetabular rim. You will feel a satisfying clunk as the head drops into place. Straighten the leg and keep it adducted. If you are unsuccessful after two tries, there is probably a bony fragment keeping the head out of the socket. I will show an instructional video on this technique in my next post.

Regardless of success, consult your orthopedic surgeon for further instructions. And be sure to thoroughly evaluate the rest of the patient. It takes a lot of energy to cause this injury, and it is flowing through the rest of the patient, breaking other things as well.

Video: Understanding The New COVID-19 Trauma Center Site Visit Schedule

Last month, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Committee on Trauma drastically changed the process for site visits for the coming years. The details are a bit complicated, taking into account site visits already scheduled this year, visits in 2021-2023, and focus reviews.

I’ve put together a brief video that explains all the details to help allay any confusion about the process. There is also a link to a downloadable reference sheet at the end of the video.

Enjoy, and please provide any feedback or send any remaining questions you may have.

The April 2020 Trauma MedEd Newsletter: More On Coronavirus and Trauma Professionals

The April edition of the Trauma MedEd Newsletter will be released at the end of the week. It will provide even more practical information regarding the Coronavirus pandemic for trauma professionals.

Topics covered will include:

  • The New ACS COVID Site Visit Schedule
  • COVID And Your State Trauma System
  • COVID-19 And Your PI Meeting
  • Protecting Personnel During Intubation
  • COVID-19 And Chest Tube Insertion

Subscribers will receive this issue by Friday.  All others will be able to find it via the blog next week. So subscribe now  by clicking this link right away to sign up and/or download back issues.

And please send me your comments, updates, or tips you have found helpful at your hospital! I’ll include them in the next newsletter.

Why Do Trauma Patients Get Readmitted?

Readmission of any patient to the hospital is considered a quality indicator. Was the patient discharged too soon for some reason? Were there any missed or undertreated injuries? Information from the Medicare system in the US (remember, this represents an older age group than the usual trauma patient) indicates that 18% of patients are readmitted and 13% of these are potentially preventable.

A non-academic Level II trauma center in Indiana retrospectively reviewed their admissions and readmissions over a 3 year period and excluded patients who were readmitted on a planned basis (surgery), with a new injury, and those who died. This left about 5,000 patients for review. Of those, 98 were identified as unexpected readmissions. 

There were 6 major causes for readmission:

  • Wound (23) – cellulitis, abscess, thrombophlebitis. Two thirds required surgery, and 4 required amputation. All of these amputations were lower extremity procedures in obese or morbidly obese patients.
  • Abdominal (16) – ileus, missed injury, abscess. Five required a non-invasive procedure (mainly endoscopy). Only 2 required OR, and both were splenectomy for spleen infarction after angioembolization.
  • Pulmonary (7) – pneumonia, empyema, pneumothorax, effusion. Two patients required an invasive procedure (decortication, tube placement).
  • Thromboembolic (4) – DVT and PE.  Two patients were admitted with DVT, 2 with PE, and 1 needed surgery for a bleed due to anticoagulation.
  • CNS (21) –  mental status or peripheral neuro exam change. Eight had subdural hematomas that required drainage; 3 had spine fractures that failed nonoperative management.
  • Hematoma (5) – enlargement of a pre-existing hematoma. Two required surgical drainage.

About 14% of readmissions were considered to be non-preventable by a single senior surgeon. Wound complications had the highest preventability and CNS changes the lowest. Half occurred prior to the first followup visit, which was typically scheduled 2-3 weeks after discharge. This prompted the authors to change their routine followup to 7 days.

Bottom line: This retrospective study suffers from the usual weaknesses. However, it is an interesting glimpse into a practice with fewer than the usual number patients lost to followup. The readmission rate was 2%, which is pretty good. One in 7 were considered “preventable.” Wounds and pulmonary problems were the biggest contributors. I recommend that wound and pulmonary status be thoroughly assessed prior to discharge to bring this number down further. Personally, I would not change the routine followup date to 1 week, because most patients have far more complaints that are of little clinical importance than compared to 2 weeks after discharge.

Reference: Readmission of trauma patients in a nonacademic Level II trauma center. J Trauma 72(2):531-536, 2012.