Intramedullary Nailing of Periarticular Fractures

Plate fixation has historically been the preferred surgical treatment method for periarticular fractures of the lower extremity. This trend has stemmed from difficulties with fracture reduction and concerns of inadequate fixation with intramedullary implants. However, the body of literature on management of periarticular fractures of the lower extremities has expanded in recent years, indicating that intramedullary nailing of distal femur, proximal tibia, and distal tibia fractures may be the preferred method of treatment in some cases. Intramedullary nailing reliably leads to excellent outcomes when performed for appropriate indications and when potential difficulties are recognized and addressed

Costs and Complications of Single Stage Fixation Versus Two-Stage Treatment of Select Bicondylar Tibial Plateau Fractures

Objectives: To determine the differences in costs and complications in patients with bicondylar tibial plateau (BTP) fractures treated with one stage definitive fixation compared to two stage fixation following initial spanning external fixation. Design: Retrospective cohort study Setting: Level one trauma center Patients/Participants: Patients with OTA 41-C (Schatzker 6) treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Intervention: Definitive treatment with ORIF either acutely (one stage) or delayed following initial spanning external fixation (two stage). Main Outcome Measures: Wound healing complications, implant costs, hospital charges, PROMIS outcome measures. Results: 105 patients were identified over a three-year period, of which 52 met inclusion criteria. There were 28 patients in the One-Stage group and 24 patients in the Two-Stage group. Mean follow-up was 21.8 months, and 87% of patients had at least 12 months follow-up. The mean number of days to definitive fixation was 1.2 in the One-Stage group and 7.8 in the Two-Stage group. There were no differences between groups with respect to wound healing or any other surgery-related complications. Functional outcomes (PROMIS) were similar between groups. Mean implant cost in the Two-Stage group was $10,821 greater than the One-Stage group, mostly due to the costs of external fixation. Median hospital inpatient charges in the Two-Stage group exceeded the One-Stage group by over$68,000 for all BTP fractures and by $61,000 for isolated BTP fractures. Conclusions: Early single stage treatment of BTP fractures is cost effective, and is not associated with a higher complication rate than two stage treatment in appropriately selected patients. Level of Evidence: Level III- Retrospective cohort stud

Locking Plate Fixation in a Series of Bicondylar Tibial Plateau Fractures Raises Treatment Costs Without Clinical Benefit

Objectives: To compare outcomes and costs between locking and nonlocking constructs in the treatment of bicondylar tibial plateau (BTP) fractures. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Level 1 academic trauma center. Patients: All patients that presented with complete articular, BTP fractures (AO/OTA 41-C and Schatzker 6) between 2013-2015 were screened (n=112). Patients treated with a mode of fixation other than plate-and-screw were excluded. 56 patients with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included in the analysis. Intervention: Operative fixation of BTP fractures with locking (n=29) or nonlocking (n=27) implants. Main outcome measurements: Implant cost, patient reported outcomes (PROMIS physical function and pain interference), clinical, and radiographic outcomes. Results: There were no differences between the two groups with respect to demographics, injury characteristics, radiographic outcomes (change in alignment) or clinical outcomes (PROMIS, reoperation, nonunion, infection). Implant costs were significantly greater in the locking group compared to the nonlocking group (mean L $4453; mean NL$2569; p<0.01). Conclusions: This study demonstrated improved value of treatment (less cost with no difference in clinical outcome) with nonlocking implants for bicondylar tibial plateau fractures when dual plate fixation strategies are performed. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Results of Low Distal Femur Periprosthetic Fractures

Objectives- To compare retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in very distal periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF) to determine if RIMN is an acceptable option for these fractures that are often considered too distal for IMN due to limited bone stock. Design- Retrospective comparative series Setting- Level One trauma center Patients- Patients treated with fracture fixation for a very distal PDFF, defined as the fracture extending to the anterior flange of the implant or distal. Fifty-six patients met inclusion criteria, with eight excluded for less than twelve months of follow-up. Intervention- Fracture fixation with RIMN or ORIF Main Outcome Measurements- The primary outcome was unplanned return to surgery. Secondary outcomes included fracture union, radiographic alignment, Visual Analog Score (VAS) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI). Results- Mean follow up was 27 months. Twelve patients were treated with ORIF and 36 with RIMN. Twenty-one fractures were at the flange and 27 extended distal to the flange. There were no differences between fixation methods with respect to reoperation, deep infection, nonunion, malunion, VAS pain score, and PROMIS PI score. Mean PROMIS PF score was higher in the RIMN group compared to ORIF. There were five reoperations in the RIMN group (14%) and three in the ORIF group (25%). Conclusion- This is the largest series, to our knowledge, of a subset of very distal PDFFs. The results suggest that RIMN may be an acceptable treatment option for these very difficult fractures

Predictors of Improved Early Clinical Outcomes After Elective Implant Removal

Objectives: To determine preoperative factors predictive of improvement in pain and function after elective implant removal. We hypothesized that patients undergoing orthopaedic implant removal to relieve pain would have significant improvements in both pain and function. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Level I Trauma Center. Patients/Participants: One hundred eighty-nine patients were enrolled after consenting for orthopaedic implant removal to address residual pain. One hundred sixty-three were available for 3-month follow-up. Main Outcome Measurement: Preoperative and postoperative outcome measures including Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores were compared. Preoperative scores, surgeon prediction of pain improvement, and palpable implants were analyzed as predictors of outcomes. Results: Median PROMIS physical function and pain interference scores and visual analogue scale significantly improved by 6, 8, and 2 points, respectively (P < 0.001 for all). Worse preinjury scores predicted improvement in respective postoperative outcomes (P < 0.001 for all). Surgeon prediction of improvement was associated with improved PROMIS pain interference (P = 0.005), patient subjective assessment of pain improvement (P = 0.03), and subjective percent of pain remaining at 3 months (P = 0.02). Implant superficial palpability was not predictive for any postoperative outcomes. Conclusions: Although the primary indication for implant removal in this population was pain relief, many patients also had a clinically relevant improvement in physical function. In addition, patients who start with worse global indices of pain and function are more likely to improve after implant removal. This suggests that implant-related pain directly contributes to global dysfunction

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article