Open Reduction And Internal Fixation Group Research Articles

Double reverse traction repositor assisted closed reduction and internal fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation for treatment of lateral tibial plateau fractures among the elderly.

In elderly tibial plateau fractures (TPFs), the lateral condyles are involved frequently. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and double reverse traction repositor (DRTR) assisted closed reduction and internal fixation (CRIF) in elderly patients with lateral TPFs. From January 2015 to July 2020, we retrospectively reviewed 68 patients treated surgically at our trauma center for lateral TPFs (Schatzker type I-III). 31 patients were eventually assigned to the DRTR assisted CRIF group, whereas 37 patients were assigned to the ORIF group. The primary outcomes included surgical details, radiological assessment, follow-up knee function, and complications. The DRTR assisted CRIF group experienced a 43.6mL decrease in intraoperative blood loss (161.3ml vs 204.9ml, p = 0.033), and the operation duration was 32.1min shorter than the ORIF group (83.8min vs 115.9min, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of widening of the tibia plateau (WTP), depth of articular depression (DAD), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and posterior tibial slope angle (PTSA) immediately after surgery and at the last follow-up. No differences in malreduction (p = 0.566) or reduction loss (p = 0.623) were observed between the groups, and Lysholm and HSS scores were similar between the two groups (83.6 ± 15.8 vs 83.4 ± 5.1, p = 0.934; 89.3 ± 7.8 vs 86.9 ± 6.2, p = 0.172; respectively). However, ORIF was associated with a greater increase in postoperative complications than DRTR assisted CRIF (3.2% vs 27%, p = 0.008). Both types of internal fixation provide good radiological outcomes and knee function in the treatment of lateral TPFs in the elderly. However, DRTR assisted CRIF has the advantage of a shorter duration of surgery, less blood loss, and fewer postoperative complications, and appears to be a better treatment option for elderly patients with lateral TPFs.

Percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of medial malleolus fracture

Background: Medial malleolus fractures are common orthopedic injuries that require prompt and effective treatment. This study aimed to compare two treatment approaches, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF), for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults. Methods: This randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with isolated medial malleolus fracture who were assigned to either the ORIF or CRPF group using a simple randomization method. Surgical procedures were performed as described in the study, and post-operative management included splinting and regular clinical assessments. Results: Intraoperatively, CRPF demonstrated significantly lower operative time (33±5 min vs. 50±11 min, P &lt; 0.001) but higher X-ray exposure (33±9 vs. 25±7, P=0.014) compared to ORIF. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of delayed union, pain with movement, soft tissue infection, or time to full union. Conclusions: Both ORIF and CRPF are viable treatment options for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults. CRPF offers advantages in terms of shorter operative time but requires increased fluoroscopy usage. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures treatment: fix or replace? A retrospective study comparing both techniques.

Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures involve stem stability and they have been classically treated with revision surgery. Crucial factors such as age, clinical comorbidities and functional status are often neglected. The current study aims to compare clinical outcomes between patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or femoral stem exchange. This is a retrospective study that includes all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures in a tertiary referral hospital from 2016 to 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1. Patients treated with an ORIF and Group 2. Patients treated with stem replacement. The outcomes that were compared between groups included demographic data, functional capacity, complications and mortality. 29 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures were finally analyzed. 11 (37.9%) were treated with ORIF (Group 1) and 18 (62.1%) by stem replacement (Group 2). Surgery time (143 vs. 160min), hemoglobin drop (1.8 vs. 2.5g/dL) and hospital stance (25.5 vs. 29.6days) were shorter in Group 1. According to complications, 18.2% of patients in the ORIF group had orthopedic complications compared with 44.4% in the revision group. In the revision group, 3 cases needed a two-stage revision and one of these revisions ended up with a resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone). The first-year mortality rate was 27% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2. ORIF treatment seems to be a less aggressive and complex procedure which can lead to a faster general recovery. Revision surgery can imply a higher risk of orthopedic complications which can be severe and may require further aggressive solutions. The ORIF group mortality was similar to the proximal femur fracture rate (20-30%). In conclusion, ORIF treatment seems to be a good option especially in fragile patients with low functional demand when anatomical reduction is possible.

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Displaced Lisfranc Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

There is no consensus whether the primary surgical method should be open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries. The aim of our randomized controlled trial was to compare ORIF and PA for displaced Lisfranc injuries. This study was a national multicenter randomized controlled trial. Altogether 43 displaced Lisfranc injuries were enrolled in this trial. The primary outcome measure was Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) at a 24-months follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were VAS-FA pain, function, and other complaints subscales and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Scale. All outcomes were measured at 6, 12, and 24 months. We were unable to reach the planned sample size of 60 patients; thus, the study remains underpowered. The mean VAS-FA Overall score in the ORIF group was 86.5 (95% CI 77.9, 95.1) and 80.1 (95% CI 72.0, 88.1) in the PA group at the 24-month follow-up. We did not find eligible evidence of a difference in VAS-FA Overall scores (mean between-group difference 6.5 [95% CI -5.3, 18.2], Cohen d = 0.100). We did not find evidence of a difference in VAS-FA between ORIF and PA in patients with displaced Lisfranc injuries, and thus both are viable options for the initial surgical method. The trial is underpowered; however, the data may be included in a meta-analysis of similarly designed randomized controlled trials. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24 October 2016. Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Biomechanical characteristics of Sanders type II and III calcaneal fractures fixed by open reduction and internal fixation and percutaneous minimally invasive fixation

BackgroundThis work investigated the differences in the biomechanical properties of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and percutaneous minimally invasive fixation (PMIF) for the fixation of calcaneal fractures (Sanders type II and III calcaneal fractures as examples) through finite element analysis.MethodsBased on CT images of the human foot and ankle, according to the principle of three-point fixation, namely the sustentaculum tali, the anterior process and the calcaneal tuberosity were fixed. Three-dimensional finite element models of Sanders type II and III calcaneal fractures fixed by ORIF and PMIF were established. The proximal surfaces of the tibia, fibula and soft tissue were constrained, and ground reaction force and Achilles tendon force loads were added to simulate balanced standing.ResultsThe maximum stress was 80.54, 211.59 and 113.88 MPa for the calcaneus, screws and plates in the ORIF group and 70.02 and 209.46 MPa for the calcaneus and screws in the PMIF group, respectively; the maximum displacement was 0.26, 0.21 and 0.12 mm for the calcaneus, screws and plates in the ORIF group and 0.20 and 0.14 mm for the calcaneus and screws in the PMIF group, respectively. The values obtained from the simulation were within the permissible stress and elastic deformation range of the materials used in the model, and there was no significant stress concentration. The maximum stress and displacement of the calcaneus and implants were slightly lower in the PMIF group than in the ORIF group when fixing Sanders type II and III calcaneal fractures.ConclusionsThis study may provide a reference for optimising the design of implants, the development of individualised preoperative plans and the choice of clinical surgical approach.

Mid-term Results of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis after Acetabular Fracture.

The prognosis of total hip replacement (THR) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus THR following non-operative treatment of acetabular fractures is unclear. Few studies have been conducted in this regard. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to perform an assessment and compare the functional outcomes for study subjects in the ORIF and non-ORIF groups during the follow-up period compared to baseline. This longitudinal comparative study, which included 40 patients who underwent THR for either posttraumatic arthritis after fixation of an acetabular fracture or arthritis following conservative management of a fracture, was conducted for 60 months. Twenty-four patients had undergone ORIF, and 16 patients had undergone nonoperative/conservative management for acetabular fractures. Following THR, the patients were followed up for monitoring of functional outcomes for the Harris hip score (HHS) and comparison between the ORIF and non-ORIF groups was performed. The HHS showed significant improvement in both ORIF and non-ORIF groups. At the end of the mean follow-up period, no significant variation in scores was observed between the groups, i.e., ORIF group (91.61±6.64) compared to non-ORIF group (85.74±11.56). A significantly higher number of re-interventions were required for medial wall fractures and combined fractures compared to posterior fractures (P<0.05). THR resulted in improved functional outcome during follow-up in both the groups; however, the ORIF group was observed to have better functional outcome. Re-intervention was not required for any of the posterior fractures at the end of the mean follow-up period.

Distal Radius Fracture Therapy Utilization Following Traditional Open Reduction and Internal Fixation and Dorsal Bridge Plate Fixation.

Background Many distal radius fractures are treated with a volar locking plate, but a minority undergo dorsal bridge plate fixation. This study's primary purpose was to compare therapy utilization following distal radius fractures treated with traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus dorsal bridge plate fixation. Secondary outcomes were time to first and last therapy visits and therapy costs. Methods Patients over 18 years old who underwent distal radius ORIF between January 2021 and August 2022 at a single regional orthopedic practice were identified. Patients who underwent post-operative hardware removal were retrospectively reviewed to identify dorsal bridge plate fixation patients. This resulted in "traditional ORIF" and "dorsal bridge plate" groups. Therapy visit number, cost, and payor(insurance type including Medicare, private insurance, worker's compensation, automobile policy, and private pay) were collected. Results In total, 1,376 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 713 of the 1,283 (55.6%) patients in the traditional ORIF group and 25 of the 44 patients (56.8%) inthe dorsal bridge plate group attended therapy at our institution. Traditional ORIF and dorsal bridge plate patients averaged 12.6(±10) and 24(±18.7) therapy visits in the one-year following ORIF, respectively. Time to last therapy visit was 90.9(±60) and 175.2(±72.1) days in the traditional ORIF and dorsal bridge plate groups, respectively. Total therapy cost was $1,219(±$1,314) and $2,015(±$1,828) in the traditional ORIF and dorsal bridge plate groups with similar out-of-pocket costs. Conclusions Dorsal bridge plate fixation patients attended a greater number of therapy sessions, had a longer time from surgery until therapy end, and had a higher therapy total cost relative to traditional ORIF, but both groups had similar patient out-of-pocket therapy costs.

Analysis of complications in 97 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures treated either by internal fixation or revision arthroplasty

IntroductionThe treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty is still a matter of debate. Revision Arthroplasty (RA) was long thought to be the treatment of choice, however several recent papers suggested that Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) is a viable option for selected B2 fractures. Complication rates of 14–26% have been reported following surgical treatment of B2 fractures. No significant difference between RA and ORIF in the complication rates nor in the functional outcome was observed.MethodWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 97 consecutive Vancouver B2 fractures treated according to the algorithm at our institution from 2007 to 2020 and recorded complications and patient specific data.ResultFrom the 97 patient, 45 fractures were treated with RA while 52 fractures were treated with ORIF. Thirteen patients in the RA group had a complication that needed revision (28%) and 11 patients in the ORIF group needed revision (21%). There was no significant difference between complication rates. The reason for failure in the 13 RA patients were infection (n = 4), stem subsidence (n = 1), refracture after a new fall (n = 3), secondary dislocation of the greater trochanter (n = 1) and dislocation (n = 4). The reason for failure in the 11 ORIF patients that were revised were infection (n = 5), persistent symptomatic stem loosening (n = 3) and refracture (n = 3) after a new fall.ConclusionORIF can be used to revise cemented and non-cemented shafts in more than half of Vancouver B2 fractures with no difference in complication rates when compared to RA. A periprosthetic fracture around the hip has a 21–28% risk of a re-operation after revision surgery with infection and re-fracture after a new fall being the most frequent cause of re-operation.

No Difference in Acute Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Fix and Replace Versus Fixation Alone in the Treatment of Geriatric Acetabular Fractures.

To compare acute outcomes between patients undergoing fix and replace (FaR) versus open-reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) alone in the treatment of geriatric acetabular fractures. Retrospective Cohort Study. Single Level 2 Trauma Center. Consecutive acetabular fracture patients ≥ 55 years of age treated by two orthopaedic trauma surgeons at one tertiary care center from January 2017 to April 2022 with FaR versus ORIF were identified. Included were those with complete datasets within the 180-day global period. Excluded were patients with previous ORIF of the acetabulum or femur, or revision total hip arthroplasty. The primary outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative weight-bearing status, postoperative disposition, time to postoperative mobilization, and 90-day readmission rates. Secondary outcomes compared included demographic information, injury mechanism, surgical time, complications, revisions, and preoperative and postoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS Jr.) scores. These were compared between FaR and ORIF groups. Seventeen FaR patients (average age 74.5 ± 9.0 years) and 11 ORIF patients (average age 69.4 ± 9.6 years) met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 26.4 months (range: 6-75.6 months). More FaR group patients were ordered immediate weight-bearing as tolerated or partial weight-bearing compared with ORIF alone (70% vs. 9.0%, P = 0.03). More patients in the FaR group had pre-existing hip osteoarthritis compared with ORIF alone (71% vs. 27%, P = 0.05). Fracture classification ( P = 0.03) and Charlson Comorbidity Index ( P = 0.02) differed between the 2 groups. There were no other differences in demographics, LOS ( P = 0.99), postoperative disposition ( P = 0.54), time to postoperative mobilization ( P = 0.38), 90-day readmission rates ( P = 0.51), operative time ( P = 0.06), radiographic union ( P = 0.35), time to union ( P = 0.63), pre- ( P = 0.32) or postoperative HOOS Jr. scores ( P = 0.80), delta HOOS Jr. scores ( P = 0.28), or reoperation rates between groups ( P = 0.15). FaR and ORIF seem to be sound treatment options in the management of geriatric acetabular fractures. Patients in the FaR group achieved immediate or partial weight-bearing earlier than the ORIF group; however, time to postoperative mobilization did not differ between the two groups. The remainder of acute postoperative outcomes (LOS, postoperative disposition, and 90-day readmission rates) did not differ between the two groups. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical efficacy of internal fixation with locking compression plates in the treatment of patients with extremity fractures and the effect on the recovery of limb function.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of internal fixation with locking compression plates (LCP) in the treatment of patients with extremity fractures and the effect on the recovery of limb function. A total of 488 patients with extremity fractures admitted to our hospital from June 2019 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) group (n = 236) and internal fixation with LCP group (n = 252) according to the surgical procedure. Outcome indicators included intraoperative bleeding, operative time, length of hospital stay, pain duration, quality of life, healing time of the fracture, postoperative complications, and restoration of limb function as per the X-ray examination results and Johner-Wruhs criteria. Self-rating Depression Scale and Self-rating Anxiety Scale were used to evaluate the changes of patients' negative emotions before and after treatment. LCP group was associated with significantly less intraoperative bleeding and shorter operative time, length of hospital stays, and pain duration compared with ORIF group (P < .05). Compared with ORIF group, LCP group provided more rapid fracture healing in tibial fractures, ulnar fractures, radial fractures, and external ankle fractures (P < .05). Compared with the ORIF group, patients in the LCP group showed better quality of life in terms of physical, psychological and social functions after surgery (P < .05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the LCP group was significantly lower than that in the ORIF group (19.92% vs 7.14%, P < .001). The Self-rating Depression Scale and Self-rating Anxiety Scale scores of the LCP group were lower than those of the ORIF group (P < .05). The recovery of limb function was significantly better in the LCP group than in the ORIF group (97.22% vs 85.17%, P < .001). The overall satisfaction rate of treatment in the LCP group was higher than that in the ORIF group (92.06% vs 81.90%, P < .001). Internal fixation with LCP in patients with extremity fractures can effectively promote the recovery of limb function, reduce the incidence of complications and improve the quality of life of patients.

Comparison of complications and reoperations in AO/OTA 43.C3 pilon fractures treated with conventional ORIF versus minimally invasive hexapod ring fixation

IntroductionControversy exists regarding the optimal management of AO/OTA 43. C3 pilon fractures. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the gold standard treatment, but serious soft tissue and infectious complications have been previously reported. Minimally invasive strategies using hexapod ring fixation (HRF) with supplemental limited internal fixation have been used to reduce the incidence of complications. Previous studies have included heterogeneous types of pilon fractures, with non-comminuted injuries being more likely to be treated with ORIF and complex fractures receiving HRF treatment. To our knowledge, no studies have compared the complications and reoperation rates between ORIF and HRF exclusively for C3 fractures. MethodsRetrospective study comparing 53 patients treated for AO/OTA 43.C3 pilon fracture with ORIF or HRF in a trauma level I center with at least a two-year follow-up. Patients treated between January 2015 and January 2019 received ORIF and those treated between January 2019 and January 2021 received HRF. Complications were divided into two groups: minor (superficial infection and malalignment) and major (non-union, deep infection, and amputation). Reoperations, prevalence of ankle osteoarthritis, and requirement for ankle arthrodesis/total ankle replacement were registered. ResultsWe included 30 and 23 patients in the ORIF and HRF groups, respectively. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups, with 50% and 56,5% of the patients having complications in the ORIF and HRF groups, respectively (p:0,63). Minor complications were significantly more prevalent in the HRF group (p<0,001) whilst the ORIF group had a significantly higher rate of major complications (p<0,01). Superficial infections were highly prevalent in the HRF group (47,8%), as they were related to half-pin or K-wire infections. Deep infection was present only in the ORIF group, with 20% of the patients developing this major complication (p:0,03). Non-union rate, reoperations, ankle osteoarthritis, and the need for arthrodesis or ankle replacement showed no significant differences. ConclusionIn AO/OTA 43.C3 fractures, HRF is safe and effective, achieving high union rates with a significantly lower rate of major complications compared to ORIF. According to our results, ORIF should be used cautiously for these types of fractures, considering the increased risk of deep infection.

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Between Fibula Intramedullary Nail Fixation vs Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for the Surgical Management of Unstable Ankle Fractures

Category: Ankle; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: The fundamental concept of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of unstable ankle fractures was anatomical reduction and firm fixation that allow early mobilization and rehabilitation. On the other hand, ORIF of ankle fractures is associated with complications including wound dehiscence, necrosis and infection, prominent hardware and failure. Closed reduction and intramedullary fixation (CRIF) using fibula nail was emerged as additional surgical option for unstable ankle fractures especially in elderly and medical high-risk patients. We hypothesized that fibula nailing for unstable ankle fractures would have similar functional outcomes to standard ORIF. The purpose of this study is to perform a prospective randomized study to compare clinical outcomes, bone union, and postoperative complications between ORIF and CRIF using fibula nail. Methods: A total of 59 patients (32 men, 27 women) with the mean age of 50.2 years were prospectively randomized to undergo standard ORIF or fibular nailing for unstable ankle fractures: those who underwent ORIF (31 patients 14 men, 17 women) and those who underwent CRIF using fibula nail (29 patients; 18 men and 11women). Exclusion criteria of fracture characteristics were open fracture and highly comminuted fibula fractures. Functional scoring including VAS, AOFAS and FAOS were evaluated at minimum postoperative 2 years follow up. In addition, union period, reduction status of fracture and ankle mortise at postoperative CT scan, complications including wound problem and posttraumatic arthritis were evaluated. Results: The VAS, AOFAS, and all FAOS subscales were not significantly different between two group at 2 years postoperatively (all, p&gt;0.05). Significantly fewer infections and wound complication occurred in the fibula nail group. (p &lt; 0.05; ORIF group (12.9%), fibula nail group (0%)). Postoperative at fracture site of fibula was high in fibula nail group (p &lt; 0.05; ORIF group (0%), fibula nail group (13.7%)), but there were no significant differences in the status of mortise and the rate of posttraumatic arthritis (all, p&gt;0.05). Conclusion: We concluded that the fibula nail allows acceptable reduction and secure fixation of unstable ankle fracture, with low soft tissue complication rate than ORIF. Considering the property closed reduction, the fibula nail would be an excellent treatment option for patients with unstable ankle fractures when indications is well selected

Is Age a Determining Factor When Considering Arthrodesis in LisFranc Injuries? A Retrospective Cohort Analysis with Patient Reported Outcomes

Category: Trauma; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: The debate between primary arthrodesis and open reduction and internal fixation(ORIF) of LisFranc injuries continues. Most of the available literature focuses on radiographic and clinical outcomes and fails to add the patient perspective to the analysis. A small number of high-quality studies have suggested superiority of arthrodesis over ORIF in certain patient populations but, thus far, age has not been analyzed as an independent variable. Some studies mention an aversion to performing arthrodesis in young patients but no evidence is available to support this claim. In this study, we analyze the effects of age on patient reported, clinical, and radiographic outcomes in LisFranc injuries. Methods: In this IRB approved study, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted on 108 patients with a mean age of 44.6 +/- 16 years who underwent either arthrodesis or ORIF for a LisFranc injury. All patients who underwent surgery between January 2016 and January 2022 were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18, did not meet the minimum follow-up duration of 3 months, and did not have both preoperative and postoperative patient reported outcome scores. Two age categories were created based on the median age of the cohort (18-40 years old and then 40- 81 years old) and analysis was performed based these age categories. Adaptive PROMIS Depression, Physical Function, and Pain interference scores were collected. Clinical and radiographic analysis was performed using the electronic medical record and PACs system. All statistical analysis was performed by someone with an expertise in statistics. Results: 163 patients who underwent either procedure during the time period were identified but 55 patients were excluded due to incomplete data or being underage. 61 patients (average age 44.7 +/-13) underwent ORIF and 47 patients (46.1 +/-16) underwent arthrodesis for LisFranc injuries. Within the ORIF cohort 25 (41%) were 18-40 years old and within the arthrodesis cohort 19 (40%) we 18-40 years old. No differences were observed between the two groups with regard to quality of reduction, complications, or PROMIS data. Anatomic or acceptable reduction was achieved in 92% of the ORIF cohort and 96% of the arthrodesis cohort. There was an increased rate of hardware removal in the ORIF group. See the attached table for complete results. Conclusion: In this study, age was not a predictor of outcomes after Lisfranc surgery whether performing an ORIF or an arthrodesis. Outcomes, both clinical and patient reported, for young patients in this cohort did not differ statistically regardless of whether the patient underwent ORIF or arthrodesis. The results of this study suggest that younger age should not deter a surgeon from arthrodesis if this is the procedure felt to be most appropriate in a given injury. Anatomic reduction led to consistently good patient reported outcomes regardless of surgical technique used.

Primary Arthrodesis vs Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocations: A Cost Analysis

Category: Midfoot/Forefoot; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Lisfranc fracture-dislocation is an uncommon but serious injury that currently lacks universal consensus on optimal operative treatment. Two common fixation methods are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis (PA). The objective of this study is to analyze the cost difference between ORIF and PA of Lisfranc injuries, along with the contribution of medical services to overall costs. Methods: This was a retrospective cost analysis of the MarketScan database from 2010-2020. Patients undergoing primary ORIF (CPT code 28615) versus PA (28730 and 28740) for Lisfranc fracture-dislocation were identified. The primary independent variable was ORIF versus PA of Lisfranc injury. Costs accrued due to operative management was the primary objective, and was analyzed according to net payment, total payment, coinsurance, copayment, deductible, and coordination of benefits per savings (COB/savings) amounts. Outpatient surgery setting (hospital versus ambulatory surgical center (ASC)) and requirement for secondary arthrodesis within the primary ORIF group were secondary independent variables. The utilization of and costs contributed by medical services were secondary outcomes. These included outpatient clinic visits, foot radiographs, lower extremity magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lower extremity computed tomography (CT), physical therapy (PT), and opioid prescriptions. Student’s t-test, chi-squared test, and Poisson multivariable regression were used for statistical analysis, with significance set as P &lt; 0.05. Results: From 2010 to 2020, 7,268 patients underwent operative management of Lisfranc injuries, with 5,689 (78.3%) ORIF and 1,579 (21.7%) PA. Of those undergoing initial ORIF, 22 (0.39%) were converted to secondary arthrodesis at a mean ± standard deviation of 10.2 ± 12.1 months after the index surgery. PA was independently associated with increased net payment, total payment, and coinsurance. When compared to primary ORIF, patients undergoing PA utilized more clinic and PT visits and imaging sessions. However, primary ORIF with secondary arthrodesis was associated with more clinic visits, imaging, and generated higher costs from these medical services compared to PA alone. Within hospital and ASCs, PA was associated with increased net and total payments. However, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were found to be higher in ASCs. Conclusion: Treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocation with PA is associated with higher initial costs compared to ORIF with subsequent secondary arthrodesis. Conversely, secondary arthrodesis demonstrated significantly higher costs and resource utilization compared to primary procedures. Specific cost drivers for PA and secondary arthrodesis were clinic visits and perioperative imaging.

Epidemiology & management of complex ankle fractures in the United Kingdom: A multicentre cohort study

BackgroundPatient factors are known to contribute to decision making and treatment of ankle fractures. The presence of poor baseline mobility, diabetes, neuropathy, alcoholism, cognitive impairment, inflammatory arthritis or polytrauma can result in a higher risk of failure or complications. Limited evidence is available on the optimum management for this challenging cohort of patients herein described as complex ankle fractures. This UK multicentre study assessed and evaluated the epidemiology of ankle fractures complicated by significant comorbidity and patient factors and use of specialist surgical techniques such as hindfoot nails (HFN) / tibiotalarcalcaneal (TCC) nails and enhanced open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Patients and MethodsA UK-wide collaborative study was performed of adult distal AO43/AO44 fractures, associated with 1 or more of the patient factors listed above. Primary outcomes included patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical technique and implants. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and early post-operative weight bearing instructions. Statistical analysis was performed to assess patient and fracture characteristics on outcome, including propensity matching. ResultsOne-thousand three hundred and sixty patients, with at least one of the above complex factors, from 56 centres were included with a mean age of 53.1 years. 90.2% (1227) patients underwent primary fixation which included 78.9% (1073) standard open reduction internal fixations (ORIF), 3.25% (43) extended ORIF and 8.1% (111) primary HFN / TCC. Overall wound complications and thromboembolic events were similar in the hindfoot nail group and the ORIF group (11.7% vs 10.7%). Wound complications were greater in diabetic patients versus non-diabetic patients independent of fixation method (15.8% vs 9.0%). After propensity matching for comorbidities and fracture type, overall complications were lower in the hindfoot nail (11.8%) and extended ORIF groups (16.7%), than the standard ORIF group (18.6%). ConclusionOnly a minority of complex ankle fractures are treated with specialised techniques (HFN/TCC or extended ORIF). Though more commonly used in older and frail patients their perceived advantages are often negated by a reluctance to bear weight early. These techniques demonstrated a better complication profile to standard ORIF but hindfoot nail with joint preparation for fusion was associated with more complications than hindfoot nail for fixation. Level of Evidence: III

Comparison of Modified K-wire Fixation with Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) for Unstable Colles Fracture in Elderly Patients.

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the standard treatment of unstable Colles fracture among the elderly. Modified percutaneous K-wire fixation is becoming increasingly popular in recent years. However, there is controversy concerning its appropriate use. This study aimed to compare the early safety and efficacy of the two different treatments and provide an alternative method for the treatment of unstable Colles fracture among the older population. Electronic medical records of 60 consecutive unstable Colles fractures patients who underwent surgery from June 2019 to October 2021, by modified percutaneous K-wire fixation (30 patients) or ORIF (30 patients), were reviewed retrospectively. All cases were followed up for 3 months. The outcomes of patients were assessed with operation time, intraoperative blood loss, visual analog score (VAS) for wrist joint pain, palmar tilt (PT), radial inclination (RI), radial height (RH), Gartland-Werley score, total hospitalization costs, hospital stays, postoperative complications, and patient subjective satisfaction. General patient information was also collected. Independent Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare continuous data. Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test were used to analyze the categorical data. The operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly shorter in the K-wire group than in the ORIF group (p < 0.05). Compared with the ORIF group, the VAS of the K-wire group was significantly lower at 1 and 3 days postoperatively (p < 0.05), and no significant differences were observed in VAS between the two groups preoperatively and 7 days postoperatively (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the PT, RI, and RH between the two groups preoperatively and at 1, 4, and 8 weeks postoperatively (p > 0.05). Patients in the K-wire group had significantly shorter hospital stays and lower total hospital costs (p < 0.05). All patients were followed up for 3 months, and there was no significant difference in the Gartland-Werley score between the two groups (p > 0.05). Compared with the ORIF group, postoperative complications were lower, and patient subjective satisfaction was higher in the K-wire group, but there were no significant differences (p > 0.05). Modified percutaneous K-wire fixation in the treatment of unstable Colles fracture among the elderly is a safe, effective, rapid, and minimally invasive surgical option for surgeons.

Arthroscopically assisted internal fixation for treatment of acute ankle fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Arthroscopically assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) allows for the assessment of joint congruity following anatomic reduction, identification of occult intra-articular lesions, and treatment of traumatic intra-articular pathologies. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide evidence on whether ARIF is an alternative treatment protocol for ankle fractures. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched independently by two investigators from the inception dates to October 9, 2022, for comparative studies. The risk-of-bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration for Randomized Controlled Trials and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) were used for assessing the methodological quality. Outcomes were evaluated in terms of the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale, post-operative complications, arthroscopic findings, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, and operation time. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.4 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A total of 10 trials involving 755 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that ARIF for ankle fractures was superior regarding functional outcomes and VAS scores when compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). No significant difference was noted in the post-operative complication rate and the operation time between the ARIF and ORIF groups. A high incidence of chondral or osteochondral lesions (OCLs), ligamentous injuries, and loose bodies with ankle fractures was found by ankle arthroscopy. ARIF for ankle fractures might be beneficial to offer superior functional outcomes and VAS score than ORIF. Orthopedic surgeons should take a high incidence of OCLs and ligamentous injuries into consideration for the treatment of acute ankle fractures. We believe that with the increase in surgical experience, the occurrence of post-operative complications and the extension of operation time will no longer be a potential concern for surgeons.

Proximal humerus fractures: deltopectoral open reduction and internal fixation vs deltosplit minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: which surgical approach provides superior results?

To compare the two main surgical approaches to address proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) stratified for Neer fracture types, to demonstrate which approach gives the best result for each fracture type. A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to 4 January 2022. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with deltopectoral (DP) approach and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with deltosplit (DS) approach of PHFs. Patient's demographic data, fracture type, Constant-Murley Score (CMS), operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, fluoroscopy time, and radiological outcomes were extracted. Results were stratified for each type of Neer fracture. Eleven studies (798 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. No functional difference was found in the CMS between the two groups for each type of Neer (P = n.s.): for PHFs Neer II, the mean CMS was 72.5 (s.e. 5.9) points in the ORIF group and 79.6 (s.e. 2.5) points in the MIPO group; for Neer III, 77.8 (s.e. 2.0) in the ORIF and 76.4 (se 3.0) in the MIPO; and for Neer IV, 70.6 (s.e. 2.7) in the ORIF and 60.9 (s.e. 6.3) in the MIPO. The operation time in the MIPO group was significantly lower than in the ORIF group for both Neer II (P = 0.0461) and Neer III (P = 0.0037) fractures. The MIPO with DS approach demonstrated no significant differences in the results to the ORIF with DP approach for the different Neer fractures in terms of functional results, with a similar outcome, especially for the Neer II and III fracture types. The MIPO technique proved to be as safe and effective as the ORIF approach.

A novel and superior Lasso-plate technique in treatment for coronoid process fracture in the terrible triad of elbow

The treatment of ulna coronal process fractures in the terrible triad of elbow, especially type I and II Regan–Morrey coronoid fractures, still have been controversial. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the novel Lasso-plate technique to have a more reliable fixation and a well clinical outcomes for type I and II Regan–Morrey coronoid fractures in a terrible triad of the elbow (TTE). Patients with simple TTE, closed fracture, aged > 18 years, duration of injury < 2 weeks, type I and II Regan–Morrey coronoid process fracture fixed by the Lasso-plate technique or ORIF were enrolled in the study. Total 144 patients with type I and II Regan–Morrey coronoid fracture in TTE were included in the Lasso-plate group or ORIF (open reduction and internal fixation) group in the Xi’an Honghui Hospital from January 2017 to December 2020. Eighty-six patients in Lasso-plate group underwent surgery using a novel Lasso-plate technique. And other 58 patients in ORIF group underwent surgery using ORIF. The data of two groups, including the X-ray films, Computed tomography (CT), the range of elbow motion, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and the surgical complications, were extracted from the hospital’s patient records. All patients in both groups were followed up at least 12 months. The mean operation time (88.2 ± 12.3 min) in Lasso-plate group is shorter than that of ORIF group (109.1 ± 13.0 min). There was one patient with injury of deep branch of radial nerve and one patient with superficial surgical incision infection in Lasso-plate group. There were two patients with surgical incision infection in ORIF group. There were three heterotopic ossifications in Lasso-plate group and eight heterotopic ossifications in ORIF group. There were 5 elbow joints stiffness in Lasso-plate group and 12 in ORIF group. At 12 months follow up, the mean range of flexion–extension motion in Lasso-plate group was 122.9° ± 13.4° versus 113.2° ± 18.1° in ORIF group (p < 0.01), the mean 89.7 ± 5.6 MEPS in Lasso-plate group versus mean 83.7 ± 6.1 MEPSin ORIF group. The fixation of coronoid process fracture in TTE by the Lasso-plate technique, especially type I and II Regan–Morrey coronoid fracture, could be easier to master and operate, could provide the sufficient stability of elbow joint to enable early functional exercise, along with a better clinical outcome, a lower surgical complication. For the treatment of TTE, we recommend the fixation of type I and II Regan–Morrey coronoid fracture with the Lasso-plate technique, which would result in a better clinical outcome.

Hindfoot nailing without joint preparation for ankle fractures in extremely elderly patients: Comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes with standard ORIF

IntroductionTibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) nailing without joint preparation has been indicated as an alternative to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of unstable fragility ankle fractures. We hypothesized that primary hindfoot nailing without joint preparation, and immediate weight bearing can provide a safe and effective treatment for unstable fragility fractures of the ankle compared to ORIF. MethodsA retrospectively single-center cohort was reviewed for all surgically treated ankle fractures in patients aged 75 years and older between 2016 and 2021. The cases were grouped by the surgical technique: ORIF or TTC nailing. Diagnosis and treatment were validated by a review of the radiographs and the patients’ charts. Primary outcomes included complication rates and revision rates. The PROMs questionnaires included the Foot and Ankle-Ability Measure (FAAM-ADL) and the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS). ResultsForty-six cases met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Eighteen in the TTC group and 28 in the ORIF group. The average follow-up was 46.4 months (Median 49.5, SD ± 25.3). The mean age of the TTC group was significantly higher (88.6 versus 81.8, p < 0.001). The mean surgery duration and length of stay were similar. The complication rates were 50.0 % in the ORIF group (28.6 % major) versus 22.2 % in the TTC group (5.6 % major), (p = 0.060). The revision rates were 28.6 % and 11.1 % in the ORIF and TTC groups respectively (p = 0.161). The FAAM-ADL was higher in the ORIF group (62.6 % versus 32.4 %, p = 0.020), as well as the OMAS (60.0 versus 32.8, p = 0.029). ConclusionTTC nailing without joint preparation for unstable fragility fractures of the ankle in the extremely elderly provided a better complication profile compared to traditional ORIF. However, PROMs were inferior.