Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to compare postoperative outcomes and complications between patients with distal humerus fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of their non-dominant versus dominant arm. METHODS:A retrospective review of all patients who sustained a distal humerus fracture treated operatively with ORIF at one academic institution between 2011 and 2015 was performed. Measured outcomes included complications, time to fracture union, painful hardware, removal of hardware, Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI), and elbow range of motion. Differences in outcomes between patients who underwent surgery of their dominant upper extremity and those who underwent surgery of their non-dominant extremity were assessed. RESULTS:Sixty-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Forty (58.0%) underwent ORIF of a distal humerus fracture on their non-dominant arm and 29 (42.0%) on their dominant arm. Groups did not differ with respect to demographics, injury information, or surgical management. Mean overall follow-up was 14.1 ± 10.5 months, with all patients achieving at least 6 months follow-up. The non-dominant cohort experienced a higher proportion of postoperative complications (P = 0.048), painful hardware (P = 0.018), and removal of hardware (P = 0.002). At latest follow-up, the non-dominant cohort had lower MEPI scores (P = 0.037) but no difference in elbow arc of motion (P = 0.314). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients who sustained a distal humerus fracture of their non-dominant arm treated with ORIF experienced more postoperative complications, reported a greater incidence of painful hardware, underwent removal of hardware more often, and had worse functional recovery in this study. Physicians should emphasize the importance of physical therapy and maintaining arm movement especially when the non-dominant arm is involved following distal humerus fracture repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:This study sought to investigate whether a validated trauma triage tool can stratify hospital quality measures and inpatient cost for middle-aged and geriatric trauma patients with isolated proximal and midshaft humerus fractures. Materials and Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients aged 55 and older who sustained a proximal or midshaft humerus fracture and required inpatient treatment were included. Patient demographic, comorbidity, and injury severity information was used to calculate each patient's Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged (STTGMA). Based on scores, patients were stratified to create minimal, low, moderate, and high risk groups. Outcomes included length of stay, complications, operative management, ICU/SDU-level care, discharge disposition, unplanned readmission, and index admission costs. Results/UNASSIGNED:Seventy-four patients with 74 humerus fractures met final inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight (78.4%) patients presented with proximal humerus and 16 (21.6%) with midshaft humerus fractures. Mean length of stay was 5.5 ± 3.4 days with a significant difference among risk groups (P = 0.029). Lower risk patients were more likely to undergo surgical management (P = 0.015) while higher risk patients required more ICU/SDU-level care (P < 0.001). Twenty-six (70.3%) minimal risk patients were discharged home compared to zero high risk patients (P = 0.001). Higher risk patients experienced higher total inpatient costs across operative and nonoperative treatment groups. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:The STTGMA tool is able to reliably predict hospital quality measures and cost outcomes that may allow hospitals and providers to improve value-based care and clinical decision-making for patients presenting with proximal and midshaft humerus fractures. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:Prognostic Level III.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Despite the recommendation for postoperative orthopedic follow-up after a hip fracture in elderly patients, many patients do not return for these visits. In this study, we attempt to determine if early follow-up (<4 weeks post-discharge) changes orthopedic post-operative management. Materials and Methods/UNASSIGNED:1232 patients aged > 55 years old who underwent operative fixation for hip fractures were enrolled into an orthopedic trauma registry and followed from hospitalization through one year. Demographics, comorbidities, injury severity, and hospital course data were collected. Need for readmission and orthopedic follow-up were ascertained through chart review. Results/UNASSIGNED:417 patients (33.8%) patients did not return for any follow-up and 30 (2.4%) patients died <30 days from discharge. 370 (45.5%) patients had early orthopedic follow-up ≤28 days after discharge. 317 (38.9%) patients were seen ≥29 days after discharge (late follow-up). 127 (15.6%) patients returned for isolated non-orthopedic care. There were 23 (6.2%) readmissions in the early group, 17 (5.4%) in the late group, and 24 (18.9%) in the no follow-up group (p < 0.001). Patients discharged home were more likely to present for early follow-up compared to those with late and non-orthopedic follow-up (p = 0.002), however there was no difference in readmission rates between those discharged home vs. SNFs/SARs. Discussion/UNASSIGNED:Patients who received isolated non-orthopedic follow-up within 4 weeks of surgery experienced more hospital readmissions than those with follow-up in that time period; however, these readmissions were primarily due to medical issues. There was no difference in orthopedic-related readmissions and changes in orthopedic management between groups. Patients discharged to SNFs/SARs did not present for early orthopedic as often as those discharged home. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Early orthopedic follow up after hip fracture care does not change post-operative management in these patients and has implications for value-based care. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:Prognostic Level III.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:The Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged (STTGMA) is a validated mortality risk score that evaluates 4 major physiologic criteria: age, comorbidities, vital signs, and anatomic injuries. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the addition of ASA physical status classification system to the STTGMA tool would improve risk stratification of a middle-aged and elderly trauma population. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A total of 1332 patients aged 55 years and older who sustained a hip fracture through a low-energy mechanism between October 2014 and February 2020 were included. The STTGMA and STTGMAASA mortality risk scores were calculated. The ability of the models to predict inpatient mortality was compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) by DeLong's test. Patients were stratified into minimal, low, moderate, and high risk cohorts based on their risk scores. Comparative analyses between risk score stratification distribution of mortality, complications, length of stay, ICU admission, and readmission were performed using Fisher's exact test. Total cost of admission was fitted by univariate linear regression with STTGMA and STTGMAASA. Results/UNASSIGNED:There were 27 inpatient mortalities (2.0%). When STTGMA was used, the AUROC was 0.742. When STTGMAASA was used, the AUROC was 0.823. DeLong's test resulted in significant difference in predictive capacity for inpatient mortality between STTGMA and STTGMAASA (p = 0.04). Risk score stratification yielded significantly different distribution of all outcomes between risk cohorts (p < 0.01). STTGMAASA stratification produced a larger percentage of all negative outcomes with increasing risk cohort. Total hospital cost was statistically correlated with both STTGMAASA (p < 0.01) and STTGMA (p = 0.02). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Including ASA physical status as a variable in STTGMA improves the model's ability to predict inpatient mortality and risk stratify middle-aged and geriatric hip fracture patients.

BACKGROUND:Tibial shaft fractures (TSFs) are among the most common long bone injuries often resulting from high-energy trauma. To date, musculoskeletal complications such as fracture-related infection (FRI) and compromised fracture healing following fracture fixation of these injuries are still prevalent. The relatively high complication rates prove that, despite advances in modern fracture care, the management of TSFs remains a challenge even in the hands of experienced surgeons. Therefore, the Fracture-Related Outcome Study for operatively treated Tibia shaft fractures (F.R.O.S.T.) aims at creating a registry that enables data mining to gather detailed information to support future clinical decision-making regarding the management of TSF's. METHODS:This prospective, international, multicenter, observational registry for TSFs was recently developed. Recruitment started in 2019 and is planned to take 36 months, seeking to enroll a minimum of 1000 patients. The study protocol does not influence the clinical decision-making procedure, implant choice, or surgical/imaging techniques; these are being performed as per local hospital standard of care. Data collected in this registry include injury specifics, treatment details, clinical outcomes (e.g., FRI), patient-reported outcomes, and procedure- or implant-related adverse events. The minimum follow up is 12 months. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although over the past decades, multiple high-quality studies have addressed individual research questions related to the outcome of TSFs, knowledge gaps remain. The scarcity of data calls for an international high-quality, population-based registry. Creating such a database could optimize strategies intended to prevent severe musculoskeletal complications. The main purpose of the F.R.O.S.T registry is to evaluate the association between different treatment strategies and patient outcomes. It will address not only operative techniques and implant materials but also perioperative preventive measures. For the first time, data concerning systemic perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, the influence of local antimicrobials, and timing of soft-tissue coverage will be collected at an international level and correlated with standardized outcome measures in a large prospective, multicenter, observational registry for global accessibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03598530 .

OBJECTIVES:To evaluate monetary trends in government (Medicare) reimbursement rates for 20 commonly used orthopedic trauma surgical procedures over a 20-year period. METHODS:The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was queried for the 20 common Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in orthopaedic trauma, and reimbursement data were extracted. All monetary data were adjusted for inflation to 2020 US dollars (USD) using changes to the US Consumer Price Index. Both the average annual and the total percentage change in reimbursement and in Relative Value Units were calculated for all included procedures. RESULTS:After adjusting for inflation, the average reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 30.0% from 2000 to 2020. Total Relative Value Units during this time increased by 4.4% on average. Procedures about the foot and ankle demonstrated the greatest decrease in the mean adjusted reimbursement at -42.6%, whereas procedures about the shoulder and upper extremity demonstrated the smallest mean decrease at 23.7% during the study period. From 2000 to 2020, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all included procedures decreased by an average of 1.5% each year. CONCLUSION:To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively evaluate trends in procedural Medicare reimbursement for orthopaedic trauma. When adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for included procedures has steadily decreased from 2000 to 2020. Increased awareness and consideration of these trends will be important for policy makers, hospitals, and surgeons to assure continued access to meaningful surgical orthopaedic trauma care in the United States.

BACKGROUND:Nonunion of fractures about the proximal humerus represents a rare and complex problem. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes following proximal humerus fracture (PHF) nonunion repair using a plate and screw construct with a direct comparison to those experienced following operative fixation of acute PHF using a plate and screw construct. METHODS:Two separate patient cohorts were included in this study. The first consisted of 16 patients diagnosed with a non-united PHF who underwent operative nonunion repair treated with a standard algorithmic approach. The comparison group consisted of 173 patients who achieved union following initial open reduction and internal fixation of an acute PHF treated with a proximal humerus locking plate construct. All patients had at least 12 months of postoperative follow-up. Outcomes were assessed for both groups using American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and postoperative shoulder range of motion (ROM). Statistical analyses were used to compare these outcome measures between the two cohorts. RESULTS:The nonunion repair cohort consisted of eleven surgical neck nonunions and five nonunions of both the surgical neck and greater tuberosity. Ten patients had undergone surgical treatment for their original fracture, while six were initially treated non-operatively. All patients had Boileau type 3 sequelae of their proximal humerus fracture. Union was achieved in all patients at a mean of 5.4 months following nonunion repair. Complications included hardware failure requiring revision in two patients (12.5%) and avascular necrosis requiring conversion to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty following union in one patient (6.3%). The nonunion repair and acute fracture cohorts did not differ with respect to mean ASES scores, VAS pain scores, or active shoulder ROM at any postoperative time point. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Surgical repair of PHF nonunion is a viable treatment strategy that can lead to consistent bony healing with outcomes comparable to those of patients who achieve fracture union following initial surgical repair of an acute proximal humerus fracture. Surgeons should be cognizant of mechanical considerations that may lead to early failure.

BACKGROUND:The number of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSAs) performed annually has increased, and the indications for RTSA have expanded beyond rotator cuff arthropathy to include treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures. No studies exist comparing clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes in patients receiving RTSA for the treatment of acute fracture vs. those undergoing the procedure for degenerative conditions. This study was designed to fill the void in this knowledge gap. We hypothesized that patients undergoing RTSA for fracture treatment would experience worse clinical outcomes than those undergoing elective RTSA. METHODS:A prospectively collected database was queried for patients undergoing RTSA between 2007 and 2016. Patients were sorted based on the indication for RTSA: treatment of acute proximal humeral fracture vs. "elective" treatment of degenerative conditions of the shoulder. Baseline demographic characteristics, intraoperative and perioperative complications, and clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes were collected. Only patients with ≥2 years' follow-up were included. Final outcomes were compared between the fracture and elective groups. RESULTS:In total, 1984 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 1876 in the elective group and 108 in the fracture group. Compared with the elective RTSA group, the group undergoing RTSA for fracture treatment was older, was female dominant, and was less likely to have undergone a previous operation on the ipsilateral shoulder. RTSA for fracture was associated with a longer hospital length of stay and greater intraoperative blood loss. The incidence of postoperative adverse events was 7.1% in the elective group vs. 4.6% in the fracture group. Functional outcomes did not differ beyond 1 year or at mean final follow-up > 40 months. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite differences in patient demographic characteristics, the outcome and complication profiles are similar between patients undergoing RTSA for acute fracture and those indicated for the treatment of degenerative conditions of the shoulder.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent soft tissue flap coverage during treatment of a tibia fracture nonunion. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. SETTING/METHODS:Academic medical center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:157 patients were treated for a fracture nonunion following a tibia fracture over a 15-year period. Sixty-six had sustained an open tibial fracture initially and 25 of these patients underwent soft tissue flaps for their open tibia fracture nonunion. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Manipulation of soft tissue flaps, either placement or elevation for graft placement in ununited previously open tibial fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Bony healing, time to union, ultimate soft tissue status, postoperative complications, and functional outcome scores using the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA). This group was compared to a group of open tibial fracture nonunions that did not undergo soft tissue transfer. RESULTS:Bony healing was achieved in 24/25 patients (96.0%) who received flaps at a mean time to union of 8.7 ± 3.3 months compared to 39/41 patients (95.1%) at a mean 7.5 ± 3.2 months (p > 0.05) in the non-coverage group. Healing rate and time to union did not differ between groups. At latest follow-up, the flap coverage group reported a mean SMFA index of 17.1 compared to an SMFA index of 27.7 for the non-coverage group (p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS:Utilization of soft tissue flaps in the setting of open tibia shaft nonunion repair surgery are associated with a high union rate (>90%). Coverage with or manipulation of soft tissue flaps did not result in improved bony healing rate or time to union compared to those who did not require flaps. However, soft tissue flap coverage was associated with higher functional scores at long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND:Historically, clavicle fracture repairs have been performed under general anesthesia. However, in the last few years, the combination of an interscalene brachial plexus block and a modified superficial cervical plexus block has been described to provide adequate anesthesia for clavicle fracture surgery, with the added benefit of postoperative analgesia. Members of our anesthesiology department began utilizing this block with sedation for a subset of patients undergoing clavicle fracture fixation in March, 2013. METHODS:This study is a retrospective review of patients who underwent clavicle fracture repair at a single institution between June, 2014 and November, 2017. The decision for type of anesthesia (regional vs. general) was made jointly by the patient, anesthesiologist, and surgeon. Demographic data, relevant perioperative times, and intraoperative pain medication consumption were recorded, and comparisons were made in these variables between the regional and general groups. RESULTS:A total of 110 patients with 110 fractures were included. Fifty-two patients received regional anesthesia only with the combined block, while 58 patients received general anesthesia with an interscalene brachial plexus block. There were no major anesthetic-related complications noted in any patients, and there were no cases in which regional anesthesia had to be converted to general anesthesia because of block failure. Anesthesia start time was significantly longer in the general anesthesia group (29 vs. 20 minutes, p=0.022), as was total case time (164 vs. 131 minutes, p<0.001). Patients in the general group required significantly more intraoperative fentanyl administration (207 vs. 141 mcg, p=0.002). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Regional anesthesia using a combined brachial plexus and modified superficial cervical plexus is a reliable, efficacious technique. The combined block appears to be a reasonable alternative to general anesthesia with interscalene brachial plexus block, and may have benefits with regards to anesthesia start time and total case time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.