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.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The goal of this trial was to determine whether coronal plane angulation affects functional and clinical outcomes after the fixation of distal femur fractures. DESIGN/METHODS:Multicenter, randomized controlled trial SETTING: 20 academic trauma centers PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: 156 patients with distal femur fractures were enrolled. 123 patients were followed 12 months. There was clinical outcome data available for 105 patients at 3 months, 95 patients at 6 months and 81 patients at one year. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Lateral locked plating or retrograde intramedullary nailing MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Radiographic alignment, functional scoring including SMFA, Bother Index, and EQ-5D. Clinical scoring of walking ability, need for ambulatory support and ability to manage stairs. RESULTS:At 3 months, there was no difference between groups (varus, neutral or valgus) with respect to any of the clinical functional outcome scores measured. At 6 months, compared to those with neutral alignment, patients with varus angulation had a worse Stair Climbing score (4.33 vs. 2.91, p = 0.05). At 12 months, the average patient with neutral or valgus alignment needed less ambulatory support than the average patient in varus. Walking distance ability was no different between the groups at any time point. With respect to the validated patient-based outcome scores, we found no statistical difference in in the SMFA, Bother, or EQ-5D between patients with valgus or varus mal-alignment and those with neutral alignment at any time point (p > 0.05). Regardless of coronal angulation, the SMFA trended towards lower (improved) scores over time, while EQ-5D scores for patients with varus angulation did not improve over time. CONCLUSIONS:Valgus angulation and neutral angulation may be better tolerated in terms of clinical outcomes like stair climbing and need for ambulatory support than varus angulation, though patient reported outcome measures like the SMFA, Bother Index and EQ-5D show no statistical significance. Most patients with distal femur fractures tend to improve during the first year after injury but many remain significantly affected at 12 months post injury.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The authors report no conflict of interest.To determine if short-term immobilization with a rigid long arm plaster elbow splint after surgery of the arm, elbow, or forearm results in superior outcomes compared with a soft dressing with early motion. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective Randomized Control Trial. SETTING/METHODS:Academic Medical Center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA/UNASSIGNED:Patients undergoing operative treatment for a mid-diaphysis or distal humerus, elbow, or forearm fracture were consented and randomized according to the study protocol for postoperative application of a rigid elbow splint (10-14 days in a plaster Sugar Tong Splint for forearm fracture or a Long Arm plaster Splint for 10-14 for all others) or soft dressing and allowing immediate free range of elbow and wrist motion (range of motion [ROM]). OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS/UNASSIGNED:Self-reported pain (visual analog score or VAS), Healthscale (0-100, 100 denoting excellent health), and physical function (EuroQol 5 Dimension or EQ-5D) surveyed on postoperative days 1-5 and 14 were compared between groups. Patient-reported pain score (0-10, 10 denoting highest satisfaction) at week 6, time to fracture union, ultimate disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand score, and elbow ROM were also collected for analysis. Incidence of complications were assessed. RESULTS:Hundred patients (38 men to 62 women with a mean age of 55.7 years) were included. Over the first 5 days and again at postop day 14, the splint cohort reported a higher "Healthscale" from 0 to 100 than the nonsplint group on all study days ( P = 0.041). There was no difference in reported pain between the 2 study groups over the same interval ( P = 0.161 and 0.338 for least and worst pain, respectively), and both groups reported similar rates of treatment satisfaction ( P = 0.30). Physical function ( P = 0.67) and rates of wound problems ( P = 0.27) were similar. Additionally, the mean time to fracture healing was similar for the splint and control groups (4.6 ± 2.8 vs. 4.0 ± 2.2 months, P = 0.34). Ultimate elbow ROM was similar between the study groups ( P = 0.48, P = 0.49, P = 0.61, and P = 0.51 for elbow extension, flexion, pronation, and supination, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Free range of elbow motion without splinting produced similar results compared with elbow immobilization after surgical intervention for a fracture to the humerus, elbow, and forearm. There was no difference in patient-reported pain outcomes, wound problems, or elbow ROM. Immobilized patients reported slightly higher "healthscale" ratings than nonsplinted patients and, however, reported similar rates of satisfaction. Both treatment strategies are acceptable after upper extremity fracture surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to ascertain outcome differences after fixation of unstable rotational ankle fractures allowed to weight-bear 2 weeks postoperatively compared with 6 weeks. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective case-control study. SETTING/METHODS:Academic medical center; Level 1 trauma center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA/UNASSIGNED:Patients with unstable ankle fractures (OTA/AO:44A-C) undergoing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) were enrolled. Patients requiring trans-syndesmotic fixation were excluded. Two surgeons allowed weight-bearing at 2 weeks postoperatively (early weight-bearing [EWB] cohort). Two other surgeons instructed standard non-weight-bearing until 6 weeks postoperatively (non-weight-bearing cohort). OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS/UNASSIGNED:The main outcome measures included the Olerud-Molander questionnaire, the SF-36 questionnaire, and visual analog scale at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively and complications, return to work, range of ankle motion, and reoperations at 12 months were compared between the 2 cohorts. RESULTS:One hundred seven patients were included. The 2 cohorts did not differ in demographics or preinjury scores ( P > 0.05). Six weeks postoperatively, EWB patients had improved functional outcomes as measured by the Olerud-Molander and SF-36 questionnaires. Early weight-bearing patients also had better visual analog scale scores (standardized mean difference -0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.27 to -0.70, P < 0.05) and a greater proportion returning to full capacity work at 6 weeks (odds ratio = 3.42, 95% CI, 1.08-13.07, P < 0.05). One year postoperatively, EWB patients had improved pain measured by SF-36 (standardized mean difference 6.25, 95% CI, 5.59-6.92, P < 0.01) and visual analog scale scores (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.23, P < 0.01). There were no differences in complications or reoperation at 12 months ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:EWB patients had improved early function, final pain scores, and earlier return to work, without an increased complication rate compared with those kept non-weight-bearing for 6 weeks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.