Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Significant heterogeneity in the classification and treatment of zone 3 proximal fifth metatarsal base fractures ("true Jones fractures") exists. This study compared time to clinical and radiographic healing between patients treated operatively and nonoperatively. We hypothesized that patients treated nonoperatively may demonstrate a greater time to clinical healing. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to a large, urban, academic medical center with "Jones" fractures between December 2012 and April 2022. Jones fractures were defined as fifth metatarsal base fractures occurring in the proximal metadiaphyseal region, distal to the articulation of the fourth and fifth metatarsals on the oblique radiographic view. Clinical healing was the time point at which the patient had returned to their baseline ambulatory status with no tenderness to palpation. Radiographic healing was the presence of bridging callus across at least 3 cortices. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = .331). Overall healing rate was 96% for the nonoperative group compared with 96.2% for the operative group. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:In this study, nonoperative and operative treatment of true Jones fractures were associated with equivalent clinical and radiographic healing. The rate of delayed union in true Jones fractures was lower than previously described, and there was no difference in delayed union rate between nonoperative and operative management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/UNASSIGNED:Level III, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of the present study was to evaluate differences in demographic features and clinical outcomes between patients who sustained a typical versus atypical subtrochanteric femoral fracture. METHODS:We reviewed the records for a cohort of consecutive patients who had undergone operative treatment of a subtrochanteric femoral fracture. Fractures were classified as either "typical" or "atypical" on the basis of the criteria of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). All patients were treated with a similar surgical algorithm and postoperative protocol. Groups were compared on the basis of demographic features, injury characteristics, operative quality measures, postoperative complications and outcomes, and radiographic time to healing. Comparative analyses were performed to compare the typical and atypical cohorts. RESULTS:Of 220 subtrochanteric fractures, 165 (75.0%) were classified as typical and 55 (25.0%) were classified as atypical. The atypical cohort was predominately female and more likely to have bisphosphonate usage (odds ratio [OR], 7.975; [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.994-15.922]; p < 0.001) and fractures with lower-energy mechanisms (p < 0.001). Patients in the atypical cohort were more likely to be treated with a 10-mm cephalomedullary nail (CMN) (OR, 2.100 [95% CI, 1.119-3.939]; p = 0.020), whereas patients in the typical cohort were treated more frequently with an 11-mm CMN (OR, 0.337 [95% CI, 0.168-0.674]; p = 0.002). There were no differences between the groups in terms of other operative parameters; however, anatomic fracture reduction in neutral lateral alignment was achieved more frequently in the typical cohort (OR, 0.438 [95% CI, 0.220-0.875]; p = 0.018). There were no differences between the groups in terms of hospital quality measures, mortality rates, readmission rates, or complication rates (including implant failure [broken screw or nail] and fracture nonunion) (p = 1.00). Interestingly, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of time to radiographic healing (260.30 ± 187.97 days in the typical group, compared with 246.40 ± 116.33 days in the atypical group) (OR, 0.999 [95% CI, 0.997-1.002]; p = 0.606). CONCLUSIONS:Despite differences in terms of demographic and injury characteristics, patients who sustain a subtrochanteric femur fracture can expect similar outcome profiles regardless of fracture type. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare outcomes of patients with posterior tibial plateau fractures who underwent repair indirectly with an anterior approach to those who underwent direct repair with a prone "Lobenhoffer" operative approach. METHODS:A total of 44 patients with a posterior column tibial plateau fracture that underwent repair were identified. Twenty-two patients with 22 tibial plateau fractures were fixed using a prone Lobenhoffer approach. They were compared to 22 patients treated with an indirect reduction using a supine approach for similar fracture patterns. Data collection at minimum 1 year included: patient-reported outcome scores (SMFA), patient-reported pain, knee range of motion, complications and need for reoperation. Radiographs were reviewed for knee alignment, residual depression and fracture healing. RESULTS:All demographics were similar between the groups except BMI, which was lower in the prone group (P < 0.05). Fracture type according to age, Schatzker and three-column classification was matched between cohorts. There was no difference in outcomes including: pain, radiographic knee alignment, residual articular depression, functional outcome (SMFA), complications and need for reoperations. Knee flexion at 1 year was greater in the prone group (127.8 vs. 115.8; P = 0.018). In addition, surgical time was less in the prone group (mean 73.7 min vs. 82.3 min; P = 0.015). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The Lobenhoffer approach with direct reduction of posterior fracture fragments for complex tibial plateau fractures is an excellent option for these injuries. It allowed for faster surgery with improved ultimate knee range of motion in posterior column tibial plateau fractures.

There has been a paradigm shift towards fixing the posterior malleolus in trimalleolar ankle fractures. This study evaluated whether a surgeon's preference to intraoperatively flip or not flip patients from prone to supine for medial malleolar fixation following repair of fibular and posterior malleoli impacted surgical outcomes. A retrospective patient cohort treated at a large urban academic center and level 1 trauma center was reviewed to identify all operative trimalleolar ankle fractures initially positioned prone. One hundred and forty-seven patients with mean 12-month follow up were included and divided based on positioning for medial malleolar fixation, prone or supine (following closure, flip and re-prep and drape). Data was collected on patient demographics, injury mechanism, perioperative variables, and complication rates. Postoperative reduction films were reviewed by orthopedic traumatologists to grade the accuracy of anatomic fracture reduction. Overall, 74 (50.3%) had the medial malleolus fixed prone, while 73 (49.7%) were flipped and fixed supine. No differences in demographics, injury details, and fracture type existed between the groups. The supine group had a higher rate of initial external fixation (p=0.047), longer operative time in minutes (p<0.001), and a higher use of plate and screw constructs for medial malleolar fixation (p=0.019). There were no differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes and complication rates. This study demonstrated that intraoperative change in positioning for improved medial malleolar visualization in trimalleolar ankle fractures results in longer operative times but similar radiographic and clinical results. The decision of operative position should be based on surgeon comfort.

OBJECTIVE:To report on demographics, injury patterns, management strategies and outcomes of patients who sustained fractures of the tibial plateau seen at a single center over a 16-year period. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective collection of data.Patients/ Participants: 716 patients with 725 tibia plateau fractures, were treated by one of 5 surgeons. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Treatment of tibial plateau fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Outcomes were obtained at standard timepoints. Complications were recorded. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: those treated in the first 5 years, those treated in the second 5 years and those treated in the most recent 6 years. RESULTS:608 fractures were followed for a mean 13.4 months (6-120) and 82% had a minimum 1-year follow up. Patients returned to self-reported baseline function at a consistent proportion during the 3 time periods. The average knee arc was 125 degrees (75 - 135 degrees) at latest follow up and did not differ over time. The overall complication rate following surgery was 12% and did not differ between time periods. Radiographs demonstrated excellent rates of healing and low rates of PTOA and improved articular reductions at healing (0.58 mm in group 3 compared to 0.94 mm in Group 1 and 1.12 mm in Group 2) (P<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients regained their baseline functional status following surgical intervention and healing. Over time the ability of surgeons to achieve a more anatomic joint reduction was seen, however this did not correlate with improved functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Assessing external validity and clinical relevance of modified radiographic union score (mRUS) to predict delayed union in closed humeral shaft fractures initially treated with conservative management. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort. SETTING/METHODS:Single urban academic level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Patients undergoing initial non-operative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture with a minimum of 3 months follow-up and at least one set of follow-up orthogonal x-rays within 12-weeks of injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the (mRUS) system for humeral shaft fractures, as well as establishing an mRUS threshold at 6- and 12-weeks post-injury to predict surgery for delayed union. RESULTS:mRUS demonstrated substantial interobserver agreement on all assessments. Intraobserver agreement was nearly perfect for all reviewers on repeat assessment. mRUS of ≤7 at 6 ± 1 weeks follow-up was associated with surgery for delayed union with an odds ratio of 4.88 (95% CI 2.52 - 9.44, p < .01), sensitivity of .286, and specificity of .924. At 12 ± 1 weeks follow-up, the same threshold demonstrated a stronger association with an odds ratio of 14.7 (95% CI 4.9 - 44.1, p < .01), sensitivity of .225, and specificity of .981. CONCLUSIONS:The mRUS for humeral shaft fractures is reliable and reproducible providing an objective way to track subtle changes in radiographs over time. An mRUS of ≤7 at 6- or 12-weeks post-injury is highly specific for delayed union. This can be helpful when counseling patients about the risk of nonunion and potential early surgical intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND:Following debridement of infected prostheses that require reconstruction with an endoprosthetic replacement (EPR), instability related to segmental residual bone defects present a challenge in management with 2-stage reimplantation. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated for revision total joint or endoprosthetic infection at the knee from 1998 to 2018. At our institution, patients with skeletal defects >6 cm following explant of prosthesis and debridement (stage 1) were managed with intramedullary nail-stabilized antibiotic spacers. Following stage 1, antimicrobial therapy included 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics and a minimum of 6 weeks of oral antibiotics. Following resolution of inflammatory markers and negative tissue cultures, reimplantation (stage 2) of an EPR was performed. RESULTS:Twenty-one patients at a mean age of 54 ± 21 years were treated for prosthetic joint infection at the knee. Polymicrobial growth was detected in 38% of cases, followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (24%) and Staphylococcus aureus (19%). Mean residual skeletal defect after stage 1 treatment was 20 cm. Prosthetic joint infection eradication was achieved in 18 (86%) patients, with a mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score of 77% and mean knee range of motion of 100°. Patients with polymicrobial infections had a greater number of surgeries prior to infection (P = .024), and were more likely to require additional debridement prior to EPR (odds ratio 12.0, P = .048). CONCLUSION:Management of large segmental skeletal defects at the knee following explant using intramedullary stabilized antibiotic spacers maintain stability and result in high rates of limb salvage with conversion to an endoprosthesis.

BACKGROUND:Giant cell tumors (GCTs) are treated with resection curettage and adjuvants followed by stabilization. Complications include recurrence, fracture, and joint degeneration. Studies have shown treatment with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) may increase the risk of joint degeneration and fracture. Other studies have suggested that subchondral bone grafting may reduce these risks. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:Following standard intralesional resection-curettage and adjuvant treatment, is the use of bone graft, with or without supplemental PMMA, (1) associated with fewer nononcologic complications; (2) associated with differences in tumor recurrence between patients treated with versus those treated without bone grafting for GCT; and (3) associated with differences in Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores? METHODS:Between 1996 and 2014, 49 patients presented with GCT in the epiphysis of a long bone. Six patients were excluded, four who were lost to followup before 12 months and two because they presented with displaced, comminuted, intraarticular pathologic fractures with a nonreconstructable joint surface. The remaining 43 patients were included in our study at a mean followup of 59 months (range, 12-234 months). After resection-curettage, 21 patients were reconstructed using femoral head allograft with or without PMMA (JB) and 22 patients were reconstructed using PMMA alone (FRP, KSB); each surgeon used the same approach (that is, bone graft or no bone graft) throughout the period of study. The primary study comparison was between patients treated with bone graft (with or without PMMA) and those treated without bone graft. RESULTS:Nononcologic complications occurred less frequently in patients treated with bone graft than those treated without (10% [two of 21] versus 55% [12 of 22]; odds ratio, 0.088; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.47; p = 0.002). Patients with bone graft had increased nononcologic complication-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% CI, 1.39-15.12; p = 0.012). With the numbers available, there was no difference in tumor recurrence between patients treated with bone graft versus without (29% [six of 21] versus 32% [seven of 22]; odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.1936-2.531; p = 0.586) or in recurrence-free survival among patients with bone graft versus without (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.30-2.98; p = 0.920). With the numbers available, there was no difference in mean MSTS scores between patients treated with bone graft versus without (92% ± 2% versus 93% ± 1.4%; mean difference 1.0%; 95% CI, -3.9% to 6.0%; p = 0.675). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with PMMA alone, the use of periarticular bone graft constructs reduces postoperative complications apparently without increasing the likelihood of tumor recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, therapeutic study.

This computed tomography study examined the reliability of the linea aspera as a rotational landmark in tumor endoprosthetic replacement by determining its cross-sectional location on the femur.

BACKGROUND:Orthopaedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties, resulting in many applicants going unmatched. Many unmatched applicants pursue a preliminary internship or research fellowship, but whether these activities make them more successful in subsequent match cycles has not been studied. OBJECTIVE:To determine the effectiveness of activities during the intervening period on match success in a subsequent cycle. METHODS:After reviewing rank order lists for our program and National Resident Matching Program correspondence from 1994 to 2013, we identified 198 of 1216 ranked applicants (16.3%) who did not initially match. Of these, 57 applicants who matched through the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program did not reapply to orthopaedics or trained overseas. RESULTS:Of 141 reapplicants, 56 matched into orthopaedic surgery, with 87.5% (P < .001) matching at a program in the same region where they had either completed their medical degree or postgraduate year, and 37.5% matching at their home institution (P < .001). Successful reapplicants after a research fellowship had a significantly higher number of publications than unsuccessful reapplicants (P < .05). There was no significant difference in success after research or internship (P = .80) and no significant difference in success rates for US versus international reapplicants (P =  .43). CONCLUSIONS:Success of reapplication into orthopaedic surgery may be less dependent on the route taken during the interim period, and more dependent on developing relationships with faculty at a local or regional institution.