Communicating Study Results to Our Patients: Which Way Is Best?

Before we are able to communicate evidence and evidence results to patients we must first be familiar with the common ways by which results may be presented to our patients. We describe five approaches (relative risk, risk reduction, odds ratio, absolute risk difference and number needed to treat) of transforming the results of an orthopaedic study for communication with patients

Tibial Shaft Fractures:challenges in Diagnosis and Management

Tibial shaft fractures are common injuries but present substantial challenges in management. My thesis reviews major advances over time in their management including an analysis of the more severe complications of infection and compartment syndrome. I review the use of different and new techniques in management such as nailing in extension, nailing off the fracture table, and the use of reaming, as well as multiple statistical methods to evaluate the patient and injury factors associated with infection

Ipsilateral Proximal Femur and Shaft Fractures Treated With Hip Screws and a Reamed Retrograde Intramedullary Nail

Although not common, proximal femoral fractures associated with ipsilateral shaft fractures present a difficult management problem. A variety of surgical options have been employed with varying results

Henry Versus Thompson Approach for Fixation of Proximal Third Radial Shaft Fractures: A Multicenter Study

Objective: To compare the volar Henry and dorsal Thompson approaches with respect to outcomes and complications for proximal third radial shaft fractures. Design: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients/Participants: Patients with proximal third radial shaft fractures ± associated ulna fractures (OTA/AO 2R1 ± 2U1) treated operatively at 11 trauma centers were included. Intervention: Patient demographics and injury, fracture, and surgical data were recorded. Final range of motion and complications of infection, neurologic injury, compartment syndrome, and malunion/nonunion were compared for volar versus dorsal approaches. Main Outcome: The main outcome was difference in complications between patients treated with volar versus dorsal approach. Results: At an average follow-up of 292 days, 202 patients (range, 18–84 years) with proximal third radial shaft fractures were followed through union or nonunion. One hundred fifty-five patients were fixed via volar and 47 via dorsal approach. Patients treated via dorsal approach had fractures that were on average 16 mm more proximal than those approached volarly, which did not translate to more screw fixation proximal to the fracture. Complications occurred in 11% of volar and 21% of dorsal approaches with no statistical difference. Conclusions: There was no statistical difference in complication rates between volar and dorsal approaches. Specifically, fixation to the level of the tuberosity is safely accomplished via the volar approach. This series demonstrates the safety of the volar Henry approach for proximal third radial shaft fractures

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

Unilateral Sacral Fractures Demonstrate Slow Recovery of Patient Reported Outcomes Irrespective of Treatment

Objectives: To report functional outcomes of unilateral sacral fractures treated both operatively and nonoperatively Design: Prospective, multicenter, observational Setting: 16 level 1 trauma centers Patients/participants: Skeletally mature patients with unilateral zone 1 or 2 sacral fractures categorized as: displaced nonoperative (DN), displaced operative (DO), nondisplaced nonoperative (NN), nondisplaced operative (NO) Main outcome measurements: Pelvic displacement was documented on injury plain radiographs. Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores were obtained at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months following injury. Displacement was defined as greater than 5 mm in any plane at the time of injury. Results: 286 patients with unilateral sacral fractures were initially enrolled, mean age 40 and mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) 16 were included. One hundred twenty-three patients completed 2 year follow up as follows; 29 DN, 30 DO, 47 NN, and 17 NO with 56% loss to follow-up at 2 years. Highest dysfunction was seen at 3 months for all groups with mean SMFA dysfunction scores; 25 DN, 28 DO, 27 NN, 31 NO. Mean SMFA scores at 2 years for all groups were 13 DN, 12 DO, 17 NN, 17 NO. Conclusions: All groups (operative/nonoperative and displaced/non-displaced) reported worst function 3 months following injury and all but (DN) continued to recover for 2 years following injury, with peak recovery for DN seen at 1 year. No functional benefit was seen with operative intervention for either displaced or non-displaced injuries at any time point

Locked plate constructs are not necessarily stiffer than nonlocked constructs: A biomechanical investigation of locked versus nonlocked diaphyseal fixation in a human cadaveric model of nonosteoporotic and osteoporotic distal femoral fractures

Objectives:. The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of locked and nonlocked diaphyseal fixation in a model of distal femur fractures using osteoporotic and nonosteoporotic human cadaveric bone. Methods:. A supracondylar osteotomy was created to mimic a fracture (OTA/AO 33A3) in osteoporotic (n = 4) and nonosteoporotic (n = 5) cadaveric distal femurs. The left and right femurs of each pair were instrumented with a distal femoral locking plate and randomly assigned to have diaphyseal fixation with either locked or nonlocked screws. The construct was cyclically axially loaded, and construct stiffness and load to failure were evaluated. Results:. In osteoporotic bone, locked constructs were more stiff than nonlocked constructs (mean 143 vs. 98 N/mm when all time points combined, P < 0.001). However, in nonosteoporotic bone, locked constructs were less stiff than nonlocked constructs (mean 155 N/mm vs. 185 N/mm when all time points combined, P < 0.001). In osteoporotic bone, the average load to failure was greater in the locked group than in the nonlocked group (mean 1159 vs. 991 N, P = 0.01). In nonosteoporotic bone, the average load to failure was greater for the nonlocked group (mean 1348 N vs. 1214 N, P = 0.02). Bone mineral density was highly correlated with maximal load to failure (R2 = 0.92, P = 0.001) and stiffness (R2 = 0.78, P = 0.002) in nonlocked constructs but not in locked constructs. Conclusions:. Contrary to popular belief, locked plating constructs are not necessarily stiffer than nonlocked constructs. In healthy nonosteoporotic bone, locked diaphyseal fixation does not provide a stiffer construct than nonlocked fixation. Bone quality has a profound influence on the stiffness of nonlocked (but not locked) constructs in distal femur fractures

Less is more: lag screw only fixation of lateral malleolar fractures

Displaced fractures of the lateral malleolus are typically treated with plate osteosynthesis with or without the use of lag screws, and immobilisation in a plaster cast for up to 6 weeks. Fixation through a smaller incision with less metal, such as lag screw only fixation, would theoretically lead to decreased infection rates and less irritation caused by hardware. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits and success of lag screw only fixation of the lateral malleolus in non-comminuted oblique fractures of the lateral malleolus. A total of 25 patients who had non-comminuted unstable oblique fractures of their lateral malleolus that had been surgically fixed with lag screws only were retrospectively evaluated. All patients were younger than 60 years of age. Evaluation of the success of fixation, complications, resultant mobility and patient satisfaction was based on information gathered from chart reviews, X-ray findings and a standardised questionnaire based on the AOFAS Foot and Ankle Outcomes Questionnaire. These results were compared to an age-matched group of 25 consecutive patients treated with plate osteosynthesis. Of the 25 patients fixed with lag screws, nine had an unstable fracture of the lateral malleolus only, ten were bimalleolar fractures and six were trimalleolar. Eighteen patients were treated with two lag screws, and seven were treated with three lag screws. The bi- and trimalleolar fractures were treated with standard partially threaded cancellous screws. None of the lag screw-only group lost reduction. There were no documented wound infections in the lag screw group as compared to three deep infections in the plate group. Lag screw-only patients reported no palpable hardware as compared to 50% of the plate group. AOFAS scores at a mean of 12 months post-operative were similar in both groups. Lag screw only fixation of the lateral malleolus is a safe and effective method that has a number of advantages over plate osteosynthesis, in particular less soft tissue dissection, less prominent, symptomatic and palpable hardware and a reduced requirement for secondary surgical removal