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

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

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

Frequent Complications and Severe Bone Loss Associated With the Repiphysis Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis

BACKGROUND: The treatment of choice for distal femur malignancies in skeletally immature patients remains controversial. An expandable endoprosthesis device (Repiphysis Limb Salvage System; Wright Medical Technology, Arlington, TN, USA) allows for limb preservation and noninvasive lengthening but has been associated with significant complications; however, the extent and implications of bone loss associated with this implant have not been reported. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Our goals were to report (1) the 2-year minimum clinical outcomes after placement of the Repiphysis expandable prosthesis for pediatric distal femur malignancies; (2) the complications associated with this prosthesis; (3) the failure rate of this prosthesis; and (4) the revision alternatives available for salvage procedures. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2010, one surgeon (SG) treated all skeletally immature patients (mean age, 10.1 years; range, 4.7–13.6 years) with distal femoral osteosarcoma using a Repiphysis expandable prosthesis. Of the 12 patients who met these criteria, two were excluded for death from disease before 2 years, and mean followup for the remaining 10 was 72 months (range, 26–119 months). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for complications and clinical outcomes, as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system. Radiographs at final followup were reviewed for bone loss and analyzed by the two senior authors (SG, WWV) to determine reconstruction options available for future revisions. RESULTS: MSTS scores averaged 67%, and we observed 37 implant-related complications requiring a total of 15 reoperations. Six patients underwent implant revisions with aseptic loosening being the predominant mode of failure; ultimately, four of these were converted to adult modular oncology prostheses, and two underwent total femoral replacements. Bone loss in this series was severe in terms of femoral length, cortical thinning, and metadiaphyseal compromise, and most patients will not have sufficient bone stock to permit future revision using standard stem fixation. CONCLUSIONS: The bone loss around the stem of this prosthesis limits subsequent revision options, often resulting in a total femoral prosthesis. Although the decision to use the Repiphysis device must be made on an individual basis, surgeons should recognize the potential for significant bone compromise limiting revision options and consider other options. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence