Influence of approach and implant on reduction accuracy and stability in Lisfranc fracture-dislocation at the tarsometatarsal joint

Background: Besides early diagnosis, an anatomical and stable reduction is paramount for obtaining a favorable outcome. The current study looked at the influence that the type of approach for tarsometatarsal injuries has on the accuracy of the reduction and the effect that the type of fixation has on stabili

The Acute Compartment Syndrome of the Lower Leg: A Difficult Diagnosis?

Three patients, two adults and one child, developed an acute compartment syndrome of the lower leg. Due to delay in diagnosis, severe complications developed, resulting in two transfemoral amputations. In the youngest patient, the lower leg was able to be saved after extensive reconstructive surgery. In most cases, acute compartment syndrome of the lower leg is seen in combination with a fracture (40%), although other causes (minor trauma or vascular surgery) are also known. Moreover, patient history (pain out of proportion to the associated injury) and physical examination are central to the diagnosis. In some cases, however, a reliable diagnosis cannot be made clinically, as in the case of unconscious, intoxicated or intubated patients, as well as small children. Under these circumstances, intra-compartmental pressure measurement can be of great assistance. After confirmation of the diagnosis, immediate fasciotomy of all lower leg compartments should be performed. The eventual outcome of this syndrome is directly related to the time elapsed between diagnosis and definitive treatment. Although the diagnosis can be difficult, delays in treatment should be avoided at all costs. The acute compartment syndrome of the lower leg is a surgical emergency and should be dealt with immediately

Combined Anterior-Posterior Surgery Versus Posterior Surgery for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Abstract: Study Design: A systematic quantitative review of the literature. Objective: To compare combined anterior-posterior surgery versus posterior surgery for thoracolumbar fractures in order to identify better treatments. Summary of Background Data: Axial load of the anterior and middle column of the spine can lead to a burst fracture in the vertebral body. The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures remains controversial. The goals of operative treatment are fracture reduction, fixation and decompressing the neural canal. For this, different operative methods are developed, for instance, the posterior and the combined anterior-posterior approach. Recent systematic qualitative reviews comparing these methods are lacking. Methods: We conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials. Results: Five observational comparative studies and no randomized clinical trials comparing the combined anteriorposterior approach with the posterior approach were retrieved. The total enrollment of patients in these studies was 755 patients. The results were expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Conclusions: A small significantly higher kyphotic correction and improvement of vertebral height (sagittal index) observed for the combined anterior-posterior group is cancelled out by more blood loss, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, higher costs and a possible higher intra- and postoperative complication rate requiring re-operation and the possibility of a worsened Hannover spine score. The surgeons’ choices regarding the operative approach are biased: worse cases tended to undergo the combined anterior-posterior approach

Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience

Contains fulltext : 110505.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, whereas most Canadian and US sites have local study coordinators and receive per patient payment. This study was aimed to assess how these different trial management strategies affected trial performance. METHODS: Details related to obtaining ethics approval, time to trial start-up, inclusion, and percentage completed follow-ups were collected for each trial site and compared. Pre-trial screening data were compared with actual inclusion rates. RESULTS: Median trial start-up ranged from 41 days (P25-P75 10-139) in the Netherlands to 232 days (P25-P75 98-423) in Canada (p = 0.027). The inclusion rate was highest in the Netherlands; median 1.03 patients (P25-P75 0.43-2.21) per site per month, representing 34.4% of the total eligible population. It was lowest in Canada; 0.14 inclusions (P25-P75 0.00-0.28), representing 3.9% of eligible patients (p < 0.001). The percentage completed follow-ups was 83% for Canadian and Dutch sites and 70% for US sites (p = 0.217). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, a central financed trial coordinator to manage all trial related tasks in participating sites resulted in better trial progression and a similar follow-up. It is therefore a suitable alternative for appointing these tasks to local research assistants. The central coordinator approach can enable smaller regional hospitals to participate in multicenter randomized controlled trials. Circumstances such as available budget, sample size, and geographical area should however be taken into account when choosing a management strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00761813

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

Influence of Approach and Implant on Reduction Accuracy and Stability in Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation at the Tarsometatarsal Joint

Background: Besides early diagnosis, an anatomical and stable reduction is paramount for obtaining a favorable outcome. The current study looked at the influence that the type of approach for tarsometatarsal injuries has on the accuracy of the reduction and the effect that the type of fixation has on stability. Methods: Consecutive patients treated surgically for an acute Lisfranc injury were included. All radiographs were reassessed for accuracy and secondary displacement following either a closed or an open approach and in terms of the type of fixation (Kirschner wires alone or a combination of screws and plates and Kirschner wires). A total of 28 patients were included. Six patients were treated with closed reduction and percutaneous fixation and 22 with open reduction internal fixation. Sixteen patients were treated with Kirschner wires only (6 closed, 10 open), 7 with screws with or without Kirschner wires, and 5 with medial plating with or without Kirschner wires. Results: In the closed reduction group, 2 of 6 (33%) reductions were considered acceptable versus 19 of 22 (86%) in the open group (P = .021). All 6 secondary displacements occurred in the Kirschner wire fixation group (37.5%) versus none in the rigid fixation group (P = .024). Conclusion: The results demonstrate that open reduction and internal fixation with screws or plate resulted in better reduction and better maintenance of reduction in both low- and high-energy Lisfranc injuries. These results should be further evaluated in light of functional outcom

In Vitro Elution of Gentamicin from CERAMENT® G Has an Antimicrobial Effect on Bacteria With Various Levels of Gentamicin Resistance Found in Fracture-related Infection

Background: Fracture-related infection is a serious complication after trauma. CERAMENT® G combines dead-space management with local release of gentamicin in a single-stage procedure. Bacterial resistance against antibiotics is increasing. The local effect of CERAMENT® G on bacteria resistant to systemically administered gentamicin is unknown. Questions/purposes:(1) What is the in vitro elution pattern of gentamicin from CERAMENT® G using a full washout model? (2) What is the in vitro antimicrobial activity (zone of inhibition) of CERAMENT® G against bacterial isolates found in fracture-related infection with different susceptibility levels toward gentamicin? Methods Elution of gentamicin from CERAMENT® G was determined in vitro over a period of 2 months. Elution experiments were performed in fivefold, with gentamicin being sampled in threefold at 19 different timepoints within 2 months. Antimicrobial activity was determined using the four most-frequently cultured bacterial species found in fracture-related infection: Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter cloacae. For each of the species, four different isolates with a different susceptibility to gentamicin were used. According to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, the susceptibility of each isolate was classified into four different groups: fully susceptible (minimum inhibitory concentration 0.064 to 4 mg/L), minimally resistant (minimum inhibitory concentration 4 to 16 mg/L), moderately resistant (minimum inhibitory concentration 8 to 96 mg/L), and highly resistant (minimum inhibitory concentration 24 to 1024 mg/L), depending on each organism. The antimicrobial activity of CERAMENT® G was determined according to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing disk protocol. The experiment was performed in fivefold for each isolate. The zone of inhibition was compared between each bacterial isolate and within each of the four separate species. Nonlinear regression statistics were calculated between the zone of interest and logarithmic minimum inhibitory concentration for each bacterial species. Results:After 24 hours, 95% of all available gentamicin was eluted, and gentamicin was still detectable after 2 months. CERAMENT® G showed antimicrobial activity against all bacterial species; only Staphylococcus aureus (with a minimum inhibitory concentration &gt; 1024 mg/L) was not susceptible. The zone of interest of the different bacterial isolates was correlated with the logarithmic minimum inhibitory concentration. Conclusion:CERAMENT® G offers a bone substitute capable of releasing high levels of gentamicin within a short period of time. This study shows that CERAMENT® G has antimicrobial activity against bacterial isolates that are resistant to gentamicin when systemically administered. This finding raises the question of whether European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing cutoff points for systemic application are useful for the use of local CERAMENT® G. Standardized experiments to determine local antibiotic antimicrobial activity in fracture-related infection treatment are needed to form guidelines for the use of local antibiotics and ultimately improve fracture-related infection treatment. Clinical Relevance:Local concentrations of gentamicin with CERAMENT® G are much higher than when systemically administered. It seems effective against certain bacterial strains that are not affected by systemically reachable concentrations of gentamicin. CERAMENT® G might still be effective when bacteria that are resistant to systemically administered concentrations of gentamicin are occulated from patients with fracture-related infection.</p