The Use of the Lateral Tibial Line to Assess Ankle Alignment: A Preliminary Investigation

Category: Ankle; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Although the medial clear space (MCS) is commonly used to assess talar alignment and ankle stability, its measurement is variable with multiple reported “normal” values. We have observed that the lateral tibial shaft is a reliable landmark to assess talar alignment. The objective of the current investigation was to determine the normal relationship of the lateral tibia to the superolateral talus using a tangent drawn inferiorly from the lateral tibial shaft, which we refer to as the “lateral tibial line” (LTL). Methods: The relationship of the LTL to the superolateral talus was assessed and characterized on ninety-nine standing ankle mortise radiographs in uninjured patients. This relationship was quantified by measuring the distance (in millimeters) between the LTL and the superolateral talus. Additionally, the inter-observer reliability of the LTL measurement, determined by three reviewers, was recorded and compared to medial clear space measurements. Results: The median value for the lateral tibial line was -0.50 mm with an interquartile range of -1.4mm - 0.0mm. The LTL was within 1mm of the lateral talus in 176 of 297 reviewer measurements (59.3%). Moreover, it was either lateral to or was at most 1mm medial to the lateral talus in 90.9% of cases. The LTL measurement also demonstrated good inter-observer reliability (0.764, 95% CI: 0.670-0.834), similar to the measurement of MCS (0.742, 95% CI: 0.539-0.846). Conclusion: The LTL is easily measured with good reliability for assessing the anatomic relationship of the tibia and talus. It uncommonly fell more than 1 mm medial to the superolateral talus. In other words, it was uncommon for the talus to shift lateral to this line, as might be seen with displaced ankle fractures. These findings will hopefully serve as a standard for future studies evaluating the role of the LTL in assessing lateral displacement and stability of isolated fibula fractures

Primary Care Physicians’ Preferences Regarding Communication from Orthopaedic Providers

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Musculoskeletal consultations constitute a growing portion of primary care physician (PCP) referrals. Optimization of communication between PCPs and orthopaedists can potentially reduce the time PCPs spend in the electronic medical record (EMR). This, in turn, may help reduce burnout. However, little is known about the preferences of PCPs regarding communication from orthopaedic specialists. The current study therefore investigated the preferences of PCPs across a large health network regarding communication from orthopaedists. Methods: One hundred and seventy-five PCPs across 15 practices within our health network were surveyed. These providers universally used the Epic Systems EMR. PCPs were asked to report their years in practice, panel size, typical number of electronic clinical messages received each day, time spent in the EMR after normal clinical hours, and burnout level. Likert scales and top-box scores were used to assess the PCPs’ perceived importance of communication from orthopedists in specific clinical scenarios. PCPs were further asked to report their preferred method of communication in each scenario and overall interest in communication from orthopaedists. Regression analyses were performed to determine if any PCP characteristics are associated with communication preferences and overall PCP interest in communication from orthopaedists. Results: A total of 107 (61%) PCPs completed the survey. PCPs most commonly rated communication from orthopaedists as highly important when the orthopaedist needed information from the PCP. In this scenario, PCPs preferred to receive an Epic Staff Message. Other scenarios rated as important included: the decision for surgery, hospitalization, and a major clinical change. In these scenarios, a CC’d Chart rather than Staff Message was preferred. Increased EMR use after-hours was associated with diminished odds of having high interest in communication from orthopaedists (odds ratio=0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.48-0.88, P=0.005). Ninety-three PCPs (86.9%) reported spending at least 1 hour a day in Epic after normal clinical hours. Twenty-seven (25.2%) spent more than 3 hours. Forty-six PCPs (42.9%) reported experiencing at least one symptom of burnout. Conclusion: In the current study, there were distinct preferences among PCPs regarding clinical communication from orthopaedic surgeons. In addition, there was evidence of substantial burnout and after-hours work effort by PCPs. Our results may be helpful in optimizing communication between PCPs and orthopaedists, while also reducing time spent in the EMR by PCPs

The Fate of Delayed Unions After Isolated Ankle Fusion

Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: Despite advancements in surgical techniques, implants, and biologics, nonunion remains the most common major complication of ankle arthrodesis. While previous studies have reported delayed union or nonunion rates, few have elaborated on the clinical course of patients experiencing delayed union. We sought to better understand the trajectory of patients with delayed union by determining the rate of clinical success and failure and whether the extent of fusion on computed tomography (CT) was associated with outcomes. Methods: Delayed union was defined as incomplete ( < 75%) fusion seen on CT scan between 2 and 6 months postoperative. A total of 36 patients met inclusion criteria: isolated tibiotalar arthrodesis with delayed union. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained and patients were asked about satisfaction with their fusion. Success was defined as patients who were not revised and reported satisfaction with the procedure. Failure was defined as patients who progressed to revision or reported being not satisfied. Fusion was assessed by measuring the percent of osseous bridging across the joint on CT scan. The extent of bony bridging was categorized as absent (0%-24%), minimal (25%-49%), or moderate (50%-74%). Results: We determined the clinical outcome in 28 of the 36 eligible patients (78%) with mean follow-up of 5.6 years (range, 1.3 to 10.2 years). The majority (71%) of patients failed. A mean of 3.9 months (standard deviation, 1) elapsed between time of surgery and CT scan. Patients with minimal or moderate fusion on CT were more likely to succeed clinically than those with ‘absent’ fusion (X2 = 4.215, p = 0.040). Of those with absent ( < 25%) fusion, 11 of 12 (92%) failed. In patients with minimal or moderate fusion, 9 of 16 (56%) failed. Conclusion: We found that 71% of patients with a delayed union at roughly 4 months after ankle fusion required revision or were not satisfied. Patients with less than 25% osseous bridging on CT had an even lower rate of clinical success. These findings may help surgeons in counseling and managing patients experiencing a delayed union after ankle fusion