Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: To compare 30-day outcomes in patients treated for a distal femur (DF) fracture with plate fixation (PF) or intramedullary nail (IMN). METHODS: Differences in rates of any adverse events (AAE), serious adverse events (SAE), infectious complications, and mortality were explored between groups in the ACS-NSQIP database. RESULTS: There were 511 PF and 44 IMN patients. The PF group and IMN groups had similar rates of AAEs (p = 0.35), SAEs (p = 0.46), infectious complications (p = 1.00), and mortality (p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: DF fractures treated with IMN have equivalent short-term outcomes compared to those treated with PF.

OBJECTIVE: There continues to be controversy over whether operative delay is necessary for patients on antiplatelet therapy, particularly for elderly patients with hip fractures. This study sought to assess current clinical practices of orthopedic surgeons regarding perioperative management of these patients. METHODS: A 12-question, Web-based survey was distributed to orthopedic surgeons via e-mail. Questions regarding timing of surgery assumed patients were on antiplatelet therapy and assessed attitudes toward emergent and nonemergent orthopedic cases as well as operative delay for specific closed fracture types. Responses were compared using unpaired, 2-tailed Student t tests for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square tests with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables. Statistical significance was defined as a P value <.05. RESULTS: Overall 67 orthopedic surgeons responded. Fifty-two percent (n = 35) of the respondents described their practice as academic. Thirty-nine percent (n = 25) of the surgeons indicated that no delay was acceptable for urgent but nonemergent surgery, and 78% (n = 50) reported no delay for emergent surgery was acceptable. Sixty-eight percent (n = 46) of respondents felt patients on antiplatelet therapy with closed hip fractures did not require operative delay. Surgeons who opted for surgical delay in hip fractures were more likely to delay surgery in other lower extremity fracture types (OR = 16.4, 95% CI 4.48-60.61, P < .001). Sixty-four percent (n = 41) of the surgeons indicated there was no protocol in place at their institution. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be wide variability among orthopedic surgeons with regard to management of patients with fracture on antiplatelet therapy. Over a quarter of surgeons continue to opt for surgical delay in patients with hip fracture. This survey highlights the need to formulate and better disseminate practice management guidelines for patients with fracture on antiplatelet therapy, particularly given the aging population in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity injuries secondary to low-energy gunshot wounds are frequently seen in the civilian populations of urban areas. Although these wounds have fewer complications than high-energy gunshot injuries, the functional and psychological damage is still significant making appropriate timely orthopaedic treatment and follow-up imperative. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to present our outcomes in the treatment of low-energy gunshot wounds in a civilian population at an urban, level one trauma center in patients treated by a standard protocol. METHODS: One hundred and thirty three patients who sustained 148 gunshot wound injuries were treated at our level one trauma center between January 1(st), 2009 and October 1(st), 2011. Following IRB approval, we extracted information from medical records regarding hospital course, length of stay and type of operative or non-operative treatment. If available, injury and post-operative radiographs were also reviewed. Patients were contacted by telephone to obtain Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) surveys, pain on a scale of 0-10 and for the determination of any adverse events related to their shooting. RESULTS: There were 125 men (94.0%) and 8 women (6.0%) with an average age of 27.1 years (range 15.2-56.3). Seventy-six patients (57.1%) did not have any health insurance upon admission. The average length of stay in the hospital was 4.5 days (range 0.0-88.0). Fifty-one gun shots (34.5%) resulted in fractures of the lower extremities. Patients underwent a total of 95 lower extremity-related procedures during their hospitalization. Twenty-two patients (16.5%) experienced a complication related to their gunshot wounds. 38% of the cohort was available for long-term functional assessment At a mean 23.5 months (range 8-48) of follow up, patients reported mean Functional and Bothersome SMFA scores of 19.6 (SD 15.9) and 10.9 (SD 15.6) suggesting that these patients have poorer function scores than the general population. These patients still had pain related to their gunshot injury with an average pain score of 2.16 (range 0-8). CONCLUSIONS: Gunshot injuries to the extremities may involve bone, soft tissue, and neurovascular structures. Execution of appropriate therapeutic methods in such situations is critical for treating surgeons given the potential for complications. At our level one trauma center, gunshot victims were predominantly young, uninsured adult men. Complications included infection, compartment syndrome, and arterial injuries. Functional data collected demonstrated that patients continued to have difficulties with ADL's at long-term follow-up.

PURPOSE: To compare and contrast postoperative complications in the geriatric population following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for (DF) fractures relative to femoral neck (FN) fractures. METHODS: Patients aged 65 years and older in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database who underwent ORIF for FN fractures or DF fractures from 2005 to 2012 were identified. Differences in rates of any adverse events (AAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), infectious complications, and mortality between groups were explored using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The DF cohort had a higher proportion of females (81.95% vs 71.35%, P < .001), were younger (79.41 +/- 7.93 vs 82.11 +/- 7.26 years old, P < .001), and had a lower age adjusted modified Charlson comorbidity index score (4.22 +/- 1.32 vs 4.49 +/- 1.35, P = .02). Cases with DF and FN did not differ in AAE (20.05% vs 20.20%, P = .94), SAE (12.03% vs 13.19%, P = .51), infectious complication (4.26% vs 4.22%, P = .97), hospital length of stay (7.32 +/- 6.73 days vs 7.02 +/- 10.67 days, P = .59), or mortality rates (4.51% vs 5.99%, P = .23). Multivariate analyses revealed that fracture type did not impact AAE (P = .28), SAE (P = .58), infectious complications (P = .83), or mortality (P = .85) rates. CONCLUSION: Postoperative morbidity and mortality of geriatric patients who sustain DF and FN fractures treated operatively were comparable. This information can be used when risk stratifying and prognosticating for elderly patients undergoing these procedures.

Application of the correct fixation construct is critical for fracture healing and long-term stability; however, it is a complex issue with numerous significant factors. This review describes a number of common fracture types and evaluates their currently available fracture fixation constructs. In the setting of complex elbow instability, stable fixation or radial head replacement with an appropriately sized implant in conjunction with ligamentous repair is required to restore stability. For unstable sacral fractures with vertical or multiplanar instabilities, "standard" iliosacral screw fixation is not sufficient. Periprosthetic femur fractures, in particular Vancouver B1 fractures, have increased stability when using 90/90 fixation versus a single locking plate. Far cortical locking combines the concept of dynamization with locked plating to achieve superior healing of a distal femur fracture. Finally, there is no ideal construct for syndesmotic fracture stabilization; however, these fractures should be fixed using a device that allows for sufficient motion in the syndesmosis. In general, orthopaedic surgeons should select a fracture fixation construct that restores stability and promotes healing at the fracture site, while reducing the potential for fixation failure.

Preoperative planning is an essential prerequisite for the success of orthopaedic procedures. Traditionally, the exercise has involved the written down, step by step "blueprint" of the surgical procedure. Preoperative planning of the technical aspects of the orthopaedic procedure has been performed on hardcopy radiographs using various methods such as copying the radiographic image on tracing papers to practice the planned inter - ventions. This method has become less practical due to variability in radiographic magnification and increasing implementation of digital imaging systems. Advances in technology along with recognition of the importance of surgical safety protocols resulted in widespread changes in orthopaedic preoperative planning approaches. Nowa - days, perioperative "briefings" have gained particular importance and novel planning methods have started to integrate into orthopaedic practice. These methods include using software that enables surgeons to perform preoperative planning on digital radiographs and to construct 3D digital models or prototypes of various orthopaedic pathologies from a patient's CT scans to practice preoperatively. Evidence-to-date suggests that preoperative planning and briefings are effective means of favorably influencing the outcomes of orthopaedic procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the timing, indications, and "success rates of secondary interventions, dynamization and exchange nailing, in a large series of tibial nonunions" (dynamization and exchange nailing are types of secondary interventions). SETTING: Retrospective multicenter analysis from level 1 trauma hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 194 tibia fractures that underwent dynamization or exchange nailing for delayed/nonunion. INTERVENTION: Records and radiographs to characterize demographic data, fracture type, and cortical contact after tibial nailing were gathered. The radiographic union score for tibias (RUST) and the timing of intervention and time to union were calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was success of either intervention, defined as achieving union, with the need for further intervention defining failure. Other outcomes included RUST scores at intervention and union, and timing to intervention and union for both techniques. Two-tailed t tests and Fisher exact with P set at <0.05 for significance were used as indicated. RESULTS: A total of 194 tibia fractures underwent dynamization (97) or exchange nailing (97). No statistical differences were found between groups with demographic characteristics. The presence of a fracture gap (P = 0.01) and comminuted fractures (P = 0.002) was more common in the exchange group. The success rates of the interventions and RUST scores were not different when performed before versus after 6 months; therefore, data were pooled. The RUST scores at the time of intervention were not different for successful or failed dynamizations (7.13 vs. 7.07, P = 0.83) or exchanges (6.8 vs. 7.3, P = 0.37). Likewise, the time to successful versus failed dynamization (165 vs. 158 days, P = 0.91) or exchange nailing (224 vs. 201 days, P = 0.48) was not different. No cortical contact or a gap was a statistically negative factor for both exchange nails (P = 0.09) and dynamizations (P = 0.06). When combined, the success in the face of a gap was 78% versus 92% when no gap was present (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Previous literature has few reports of the success rates of secondary interventions for tibial nonunions. The indications for dynamization and exchange were similar. Comminuted fractures, and fractures with no cortical contact or "gap" present after intramedullary nailing, favored having an exchange nail performed over dynamization. Fracture gap was also found to be a negative prognostic factor for both procedures. Overall, this study demonstrates high rates of union for both interventions, making them both viable options. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Acute fractures, nonunions, and nonunions with bone defects or osteomyelitis often need bone graft to facilitate union. There are several factors to consider when it is determined that a bone graft is needed. These factors include the source of the bone graft (autograft vs. allograft), proper timing for placement of the bone graft, strategies to avoid further complications (particularly in the setting of osteomyelitis), and with the development of a variety of bone graft substitutes, whether alternatives to autograft are available and appropriate for the task at hand. Autograft bone has commonly been referred to as the "gold standard" of bone grafts, against which the efficacy of other grafts has been measured. The best timing for when to place a bone graft or substitute is also somewhat controversial, particularly after an open fracture or a potentially contaminated bed. The treatment of infected nonunions, particularly those that require a graft to facilitate healing, can be quite challenging. Typically, the infection is completely eradicated before placement of a bone graft, but achieving a sterile bed and the timing of a bone graft require strategic thinking and planning. This review outlines the benefits of autografts, the most suitable sites for harvesting bone grafts, the timing of bone graft procedures, the potential risks and benefits of grafting in the face of infection, and the currently available bone graft extenders.

Mechanical failure of the femoral component following total hip arthroplasty is a relatively uncommon complication that has been previously well-described in the literature. Modular, cementless implants have become a popular op - tion in revision total hip arthroplasty. They offer the distinct advantage of optimizing joint kinematics through varying the degree of version, offset, and leg length. We report the case of early fatigue fracture of the Restoration (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) femoral prosthesis. The following is a detailed description of this case. This report details the events sur - rounding stem failure, and the technique of reconstruction used to deal with this failure.