Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent general or regional anesthesia for intramedullary (IM) nailing of tibial shaft fractures (TSFs). METHODS:Retrospective chart review was performed on a consecutive series of low-energy TSF patients who presented to a single academic medical center and a level 1 trauma center who underwent operative repair with a reamed IM nail. Collected information included demographics, injury information, anesthesia type (general or regional i.e. peripheral nerve block), intra-operative opiate consumption (converted to morphine milliequivalents [MME], and post-operative pain visual-analog scale [VAS] pain scores. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the type of anesthesia received and univariate analysis was performed to compare the 3 groups. RESULTS:Seventy-six patients were included, with an average age of 44.47±16.0 years. There were 38 (50 %) who were administered general anesthesia and 38 (50 %) who were administered regional anesthesia in the form of a peripheral nerve block. There were no differences between the groups with respect to demographics, medical co-morbidities, rate of open fractures or AO/OTA fracture classification. Regional anesthesia patients received less intra-operative MME than general anesthesia patients (17.57±10.6, 28.96±13.8, p < 0.001). Patients who received regional anesthesia also spent less time in the operating room, received less MME on post-operative day 1, and ambulated further on post-operative day 1, however none of these differences were statistically significant. There were no cases of missed post-operative compartment syndrome or complications related to the administration of the peripheral nerve block. CONCLUSIONS:Regional anesthesia in TSF surgery received less intra-operative opioid requirements, without any untoward effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III.

BACKGROUND:Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) carry significant morbidity following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF). This study assessed fracture complications following arthroplasty for FNF and the effect of cement fixation of the femoral component on intraoperative and post-operative PFF. METHODS:Between February 2014 and September 2021, 740 patients with a FNF who underwent arthroplasty were analyzed for demographics, surgical management, use of cement for fixation of the femoral component, and subsequent PFF. Variables were compared with Mann-Whitney or Chi-square as appropriate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess independent risk factors associated with intraoperative or post-operative PFF. RESULTS:There were 163 THAs (41% cemented) and 577 HAs (95% cemented). There were 28 PFFs (3.8%): 18 post-operative and 10 intraoperative. Fewer post-operative PFFs occurred with cemented stems (1.63% vs. 6.30%, p = 0.002). Mean time from surgery to presentation with post-operative PFF was 14 months (0-45 months). Mean follow-up time was 10.3 months (range: 0-75.7 months). In multivariate regression, use of cement and THA was independently associated with decreased post-operative PFF (cement: OR 0.112, 95% CI 0.036-0.352, p < 0.001 and THA: OR 0.249, 95% CI 0.064-0.961, p = 0.044). More intraoperative fractures occurred during THA (3.68% vs. 0.69%, p = 0.004) and non-cemented procedures (5.51% vs. 0.49%, p < 0.001). In multivariate regression, use of cement was protective against intraoperative fracture (OR 0.100, CI 0.017-0.571, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with a FNF treated with arthroplasty, cementing the femoral component is associated with a lower risk of intraoperative and post-operative PFF. Choice of procedure may be based on patient factors and surgeon preference.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whether retention of antibiotic cement delivery devices after resolution of orthopaedic infection is associated with recurrence. DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort. SETTING/UNASSIGNED:Academic medical center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA/UNASSIGNED:Patients with a fracture definitively treated with internal fixation that went on to unite and develop a confirmed fracture-related infection or osteomyelitis after a remote fracture surgery and had implantation of antibiotic-impregnated cement for infection management. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS/UNASSIGNED:Patients were divided into whom the antibiotic implants were retained (Retained Cohort) and whom the antibiotic implants were removed (Removed Cohort). Outcome measures included clinical infection resolution, infection recurrence, time to resolution of infection signs, symptoms and laboratory values, reoperation and readmission rates, and need for soft tissue coverage (local flap vs. free tissue transfer) because of recurrence. RESULTS:Of 98 patients treated for fracture-related infection in united fractures or osteomyelitis after a remote fracture surgery, 39 (39.8%) underwent implantation of antibiotic-impregnated cement delivery devices: 21 (21.4%) beads, 7 (7.1%) rods, and 11 (11.2%) blocks. Twenty patients (51.3%) comprised the Retained Cohort and 19 patients (48.7%) comprised the Removed Cohort. There were few differences in demographics ([American Society of Anesthesiology Score, P = 0.026] and [diabetes, P = 0.047]), infection location, and pathogenic profiles. The cohorts demonstrated no difference in eventual resolution of infection (100% in the Retained Cohort, 95% in the Removed Cohort, P = 0.487) and experienced similar time to clinical infection resolution, based on signs, symptoms, and laboratory values ( P = 0.360). There was no difference in incidence of subsequent infection recurrence after clinical infection resolution (1 recurrence Retained vs. 2 recurrences Removed, P = 0.605) for those considered "cured." Compared with the Retained Cohort, the Removed Cohort underwent more reoperations (0.40 vs. 1.84 reoperations, P < 0.001) and admissions after implantation ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Retention of antibiotic-impregnated cement delivery devices in patients with orthopaedic infection after fractured bones that have healed was not associated with infection recurrence. Additional surgical intervention with the sole purpose of removing antibiotic delivery devices may not be warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To quantify the rate of union and time to clinical and radiographic healing in Zone 2 proximal fifth metatarsal (MT) fractures and compare these outcomes between Zone 2 fractures treated operatively and nonoperatively. DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING/UNASSIGNED:Academic Level I Trauma Center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA/UNASSIGNED:Patients with fifth MT fractures who presented between December 2012 and April 2022 and confirmed to have Zone 2 fractures (defined as fractures entering the proximal 4-5 MT articulation on the oblique radiographic view) were included in the study analysis in either the operative or nonoperative cohort. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS/UNASSIGNED:Nonunion, time to clinical healing by, and time to radiographic healing between operative and nonoperative treatment. RESULTS:Among the 499 included patients, 475 patients (95.2%) were initially treated nonoperatively and 24 patients (4.8%) were treated operatively. Both groups were similar in demographics. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with nonunions between groups (6.1% in the nonoperative group vs. 3.8% in the operative group, P = 1.000). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between groups with respect to the time to clinical healing (9.9 ± 8.3 weeks for the nonoperative group vs. 15.4 ± 15.0 weeks for the operative group, P = 0.117) or the time to radiographic healing (18.7 ± 12 weeks for the nonoperative group vs. 18.5 ± 16.6 weeks for the operative group, P = 0.970). CONCLUSIONS:Zone 2 fifth MT base fractures were successfully treated with nonoperative management. There was no evidence in this study that operative treatment leads to significantly faster clinical or radiographic healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes following reverse obliquity (RO) intertrochanteric hip fractures based on the use of short cephalomedullary nails (CMNs) compared to long CMNs for fixation. METHODS:An IRB-approved prospectively collected hip fracture registry at an urban academic medical center was queried for all AO/OTA 31A3.1-3 reverse obliquity intertrochanteric (RO) fractures. One hundred and seventy patients with age > 55 years old and minimum 6-month follow-up were identified for analysis. Data was collected for patient demographics, injury details, intraoperative radiographic parameters, perioperative physiologic parameters, hospital quality measures, and outcomes including radiographic time to healing, need for reoperation, nonunion, and mortality. Comparative analyses were conducted between cohorts. Additional multivariable binary logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate for factors independently associated with short and long nail usage. RESULTS:The mean age of the entire cohort was 80.91±10.09 years: 103 patients had a long CMN implanted, and 67 patients had a short CMN implanted. There were no demographic differences or differences in radiographic time to healing, rates of mortality, readmission, nonunion, and need for reoperation. Univariable analysis revealed that short CMN had lower intraoperative blood loss (111.19±83.97 mL vs 176.72±161.45 mL, p = 0.002), decreased need for transfusion (37% vs. 55 %, p = 0.022), and shorter procedures (118.67±57.87 min vs. 148.95±77.83 min, p = 0.002. Multivariable analysis revealed that short nail usage was associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss, decreased need for transfusion, and shorter operative times. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Nail length does not affect healing or hospital quality outcomes in the treatment of RO hip fractures. The use of short CMNs for these fractures did correlate with lower intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and need for blood transfusion, with non-inferior outcomes and similar hospital quality measures when compared to long CMNs.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures (FNF) with various prophylactic anticoagulants utilized to decrease risk. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and perioperative outcomes associated with aspirin for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty for FNF. METHODS:Medical records of 1,220 patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) at an urban academic center from 2011 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), VTE, 90-day hospital encounters, and discharge disposition, were collected. Outcomes for patients prescribed aspirin (n = 214) were compared to those prescribed non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis (n = 1006) using propensity score matching. RESULTS:Patients who received aspirin had higher rates of THA (36.0 vs 26.7%; p = 0.008). There were no significant risk-adjusted differences in the incidence of VTE (0.5 vs 0.5%, p = 1.000) and 90-day readmissions (10.4 vs 12.3%, p = 0.646) between patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis, respectively. Patients prescribed non-aspirin agents had higher rates of non-home discharge (73.9 vs 58.5%; p < 0.001) and longer LOS (143.5 vs 124.9 h; p = 0.005). Sub-analysis of patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin prophylaxis based on comorbidity scores demonstrated no difference in VTE incidence for low (0.0 vs 1.6%, p = 1.000) and high scores (0.0 vs 0.0%, p = 1.000), respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Aspirin is not associated with increased incidence of VTE after HHA or THA for FNF. Aspirin prophylaxis should be considered in hip fracture patients to mitigate bleeding risk, particularly those with low to intermediate VTE risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, Retrospective study.

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.

This study's purpose is to determine if patients treated for hip fracture at highest risk for poor functional outcomes, shorter time to death, and death within 1-year can be predicted at the time of admission. We hypothesized that the Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged (STTGMA) tool can be used to predict risk of these variables. Between February 2019-July 2020, 544 patients ≥ 55-years-old were treated for hip fracture [AO/OTA 31A/B, 32A/C]. Each patient's demographics, functional status, and injury details were used to calculate their respective risk (STTGMA) score at time of admission. Patients were divided into risk quartiles by STTGMA score. Patients were contacted by phone to complete EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ5D-3L) questionnaires on functional status. Comparative analyses were conducted on outcomes and EQ5D-3L questionnaire results. 439 patients (80.7%) had at least 1-year follow-up. 82 patients (18.7%) died within 1-year after hospitalization. Mean STTGMA score was 1.67% ± 4.49%. The highest-risk cohort experienced a 42x (p < 0.01) and 2.5x (p = 0.01) increased rate of 1-year mortality compared to the minimal- and low-risk groups respectively. The highest-risk cohort had the shortest time to death (p = 0.015). The highest-risk cohort had the lowest EQ5D index (p < 0.01) and VAS scores (p < 0.01) along with the highest rate of 30 day readmission (p < 0.01) and the longest length of stay (p < 0.01). The STTGMA tool provides important prognostic information for middle-aged and geriatric hip fracture patients that can help modulate care levels. This information is useful when counseling patients, their families, and caregivers on expected outcomes.

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:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the specific course and complication profile following the development of FRI in the upper extremity. METHODS:An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted on a consecutive series of operatively managed patients within an academic medical center between 1/2010 and 6/2022. Included patients met the following criteria: (1) upper extremity fracture definitively treated with internal fixation (2) development of criteria for suggestive or confirmatory FRI (as per the FRI Consensus Group) and (3) age ≥ 18 years. Baseline demographics, medical history, injury information, infection characteristics, hospital quality measures, and outcomes were recorded. A 3:1 propensity-matched control cohort of patients without FRI was obtained using the same dataset. Univariable analysis was performed to compare the outcomes (rate of nonunion, time to bone healing, need for soft tissue coverage, patient reported joint stiffness at final follow-up) of the FRI vs Non-FRI cohorts. RESULTS:Of 2827 patients treated operatively for an upper extremity fracture, 43 (1.53%) met criteria for suggestive of confirmatory FRI. The successful propensity match (43 FRI, 129 Non-FRI) revealed no differences in demographics, baseline health status, or fracture location. FRI patients underwent more reoperations (p < 0.001), experienced an increased rate of removal of hardware (p < 0.001), and were admitted more frequently following index operation (p < 0.001). The FRI cohort had higher rates of fracture nonunion (p = 0.003), and a prolonged mean time to bone healing in months (8.37 ± 7.29 FRI vs. 4.14 ± 5.75 Non-FRI, p < 0.001). Additionally, the FRI cohort had a greater need for soft tissue coverage throughout their post-operative fracture treatment (p = 0.014). While there was no difference in eventual bone healing (p = 0.250), FRI patients experienced a higher incidence of affected joint stiffness at final follow-up (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients who develop an FRI of the upper extremity undergo more procedures and experience increased complications throughout their treatment, specifically increased joint stiffness. Despite this, ultimate outcome profiles are similar between patients who experience FRI and those who do not following operative repair of an upper extremity fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.