Background: Measurement of vital signs in hospitalized patients is necessary to assess the clinical situation of the patient. Early warning scores (EWS), such as the modified early warning score (MEWS), are generally calculated 3 times a day, but these may not capture early deterioration. A delay in diagnosing deterioration is associated with increased mortality. Continuous monitoring with wearable devices might detect clinical deterioration at an earlier stage, which allows clinicians to take corrective actions. Objective: In this pilot study, the feasibility of continuous monitoring using the ViSi Mobile (VM; Sotera Wireless) and HealthPatch (HP; Vital Connect) was tested, and the experiences of patients and nurses were collected. Methods: In this feasibility study, 20 patients at the internal medicine and surgical ward were monitored with VM and HP simultaneously for 2 to 3 days. Technical problems were analyzed. Vital sign measurements by nurses were taken as reference and compared with vital signs measured by both devices. Patient and nurse experiences were obtained by semistructured interviews. Results: In total, 86 out of 120 MEWS measurements were used for the analysis. Vital sign measurements by VM and HP were generally consistent with nurse measurements. In 15% (N=13) and 27% (N=23) of the VM and HP cases respectively, clinically relevant differences in MEWS were found based on inconsistent respiratory rate registrations. Connection failure was recognized as a predominant VM artifact (70%). Over 50% of all HP artifacts had an unknown cause, were self-limiting, and never took longer than 1 hour. The majority of patients, relatives, and nurses were positive about VM and HP. Conclusions: Both VM and HP are promising for continuously monitoring vital signs in hospitalized patients, if the frequency and duration of artifacts are reduced. The devices were well received and comfortable for most patients.

Objectives: To relate the incidence of implant failure after internal anterior fixation of the pelvic ring to functional outcome and the health-related quality of life in patients. Design: Retrospective chart and radiographic review. Setting: Level I Trauma center. Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients who were treated with symphyseal plating for traumatic symphyseal diastasis between January 2003 and December 2013. Patients were asked to complete 2 questionnaires, the SF-36 and the Majeed score. A retrospective chart and radiographic control review were performed on all patients. The following data were collected: demographic data and details regarding the pelvic surgery. Computed tomograms were used to determine fracture classification and quality of reduction. Conventional radiographic follow-up were used to detect implant failure. Results: A total of 37 patients enrolled the study. Implant failure occurred in 11 (30%) patients resulting in the identification of 2 groups, “implant failure” (n = 11) and “intact implants” (n = 26). The baseline characteristics were equal in both groups. The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that the SF-36 score was not significantly different in any of the dimensions between the both groups. Patients in the implant failure group scored higher on all of the Majeed items, including the total Majeed score, but the difference did not reach statistical significance of P < 0.05. Conclusions: Our study showed comparable results regarding the general health measured by the SF-36 for both groups and higher Majeed scores for patients with implant failure compared with patients with intact implants. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.7208.].

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Objectives: To relate the incidence of implant failure after internal anterior fixation of the pelvic ring to functional outcome and the health-related quality of life in patients. Design: Retrospective chart and radiographic review. Setting: Level I Trauma center. Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients who were treated with symphyseal plating for traumatic symphyseal diastasis between January 2003 and December 2013. Patients were asked to complete 2 questionnaires, the SF-36 and the Majeed score. A retrospective chart and radiographic control review were performed on all patients. The following data were collected: demographic data and details regarding the pelvic surgery. Computed tomograms were used to determine fracture classification and quality of reduction. Conventional radiographic follow-up were used to detect implant failure. Results: A total of 37 patients enrolled the study. Implant failure occurred in 11 (30%) patients resulting in the identification of 2 groups, “implant failure” (n = 11) and “intact implants” (n = 26). The baseline characteristics were equal in both groups. The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that the SF-36 score was not significantly different in any of the dimensions between the both groups. Patients in the implant failure group scored higher on all of the Majeed items, including the total Majeed score, but the difference did not reach statistical significance of P < 0.05. Conclusions: Our study showed comparable results regarding the general health measured by the SF-36 for both groups and higher Majeed scores for patients with implant failure compared with patients with intact implants. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Smits I, et al. Clin Orthop Surg. 2025 Oct;17(5):747-753. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24418