Open Reduction And Internal Fixation Patients Research Articles

Similar Medium-Term Revision Rates Following Acute Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Acetabular Fractures in the Elderly.

The management of elderly acetabular fractures is complex, with high rates of conversion total hip arthroplasty (THA) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), but potentially higher rates of complications after acute THA. The California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database was queried between 2010 and 2017 for all patients aged 60 years or older who sustained a closed, isolated acetabular fracture and underwent ORIF, THA, or a combination. Chi-square tests and Student t tests were used to identify demographic differences between groups. Multivariate regression was used to evaluate predictors of 30-day readmission and 90-day complications. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards model were used to estimate the revision surgery-free survival (revision-free survival [RFS]), with revision surgery defined as conversion THA, revision ORIF, or revision THA. A total of 2,184 surgically managed acetabular fractures in elderly patients were identified, with 1,637 (75.0%) undergoing ORIF and 547 (25.0%) undergoing THA with or without ORIF. Median follow-up was 295 days (interquartile range, 13 to 1720 days). 99.4% of revisions following ORIF were for conversion arthroplasty. Unadjusted KM analysis showed no difference in RFS between ORIF and THA (log-rank test P = 0.27). RFS for ORIF patients was 95.1%, 85.8%, 78.3%, and 71.4% at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months, respectively. RFS for THA patients was 91.6%, 88.9%, 87.2%, and 78.8% at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months, respectively. Roughly 50% of revisions occurred within the first year postoperatively (49% for ORIF, 52% for THA). In propensity score-matched analysis, there was no difference between RFS on KM analysis ( P = 0.22). No difference was observed in medium-term RFS between acute THA and ORIF for elderly acetabular fractures in California. Revision surgeries for either conversion or revision THA were relatively common in both groups, with roughly half of all revisions occurring within the first year postoperatively. III.

Arthroscopic Assisted Reduction of Talus Fractures Leads to Improved Clinical Outcomes at Mid- Term Follow-Up

Introduction/Purpose: Talus fracture is an uncommon and challenging pathology to treat due to its relationship with articular cartilage, ligamentous network, and avascular nature. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic talar fracture fixation, compare to conventional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and analyze the quality and level of evidence of the included studies. Methods: A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in June 2023. Articles were included if they evaluated outcomes following arthroscopic treatment of talus fractures, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, had a minimum of 2 patients per cohort, had human patients, and had a minimum 6-month follow-up. Inclusion criteria consisted of: Studies reporting clinical data following arthroscopy for the treatment of talus fractures were included and assessed. Results: Seven studies were analyzed, including 4 case series, 1 retrospective cohort, and 2 retrospective comparative studies. 237 patients treated with arthroscopic assisted reduction were compared to 76 patients treated with ORIF. Amongst arthroscopically treated patients, the AOFAS score improved from 71.2 ± 5.2 preoperatively to 89.9 ± 4.3 postoperatively. The SF-36 score improved from 73.2 ± 30.3 preoperatively to 104.5 ± 19.3 postoperatively. In total, 6 complications (3.0%) were observed in arthroscopically treated patients, of which the most common was peri-talar osteoarthritis in 2 patients (0.84%). In comparative cohorts, ORIF patients experienced a 13.0% complication rate in 6 patients (talar necrosis, malunion, nonunion, infection, and post-traumatic arthritis), compared to 2.2% in 1 patient (malunion) in the arthroscopic cohort. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that arthroscopic assisted reduction of talar fractures results in good clinical outcomes with lower complication rates. This minimally invasive approach had lower complications than ORIF, with no cases of talar necrosis and decreased postoperative traumatic arthritis. This technique provides adequate exposure without additional osteotomy, while decreasing trauma to local anatomical trauma, minimizing the risk of postoperative complications, and improving fracture healing assessment of concomitant lesions. These findings indicate arthroscopic treatment of talus fractures is an efficacious and safe procedure with comparable or improved clinical and postoperative outcomes as compared to conventional ORIF.

Revision Surgery Risk After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Acute Total Hip Arthroplasty in Geriatric Acetabular Fractures: A Nationwide Study.

The aging population has contributed to a rising incidence of acetabular fractures in older patients, yet current evidence guiding surgical treatment is limited by small sample sizes. This study used a nationwide database to investigate outcomes in older patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus acute total hip arthroplasty (THA). The PearlDiver database was queried for patients aged 60 years and older with an acute acetabular fracture who underwent ORIF or acute THA (2010 to 2021). ORIF patients were matched 1:1 to THA patients based on age, sex, US region, insurance plan, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Patients with less than 2 years of follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome was revision surgery. Of 120,032 patients with an acetabular fracture, 3,768 (3.1%) underwent surgical treatment: 1,482 (39.3%) THA and 2,286 (60.7%) ORIF. Mean age was 71.0 ± 6.51 years. Mean follow-up duration was 5.2 ± 2.1 years. THA patients were slightly older (72.4 versus 70.2 years), had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (3.3 versus 2.7), and had a higher percentage of female patients (62.5% versus 32.2%). After matching, 962 ORIF and 962 THA patients were included. ORIF patients had longer LOS (10.7 versus 8.1 days). ORIF patients were less likely to experience joint infections and periprosthetic fractures, but more likely to experience transfusions. The overall revision surgery rate within 10 years was 14.8% in the ORIF cohort and 6.2% in the THA cohort. In the ORIF cohort, 13.5% of patients had a delayed conversion to THA. In this large national database, acute with or without internal fixation for geriatric acetabular fractures was associated with lower rates of revision surgery within 10 years when compared with a matched cohort undergoing ORIF. ORIF was associated with increased LOS, increased transfusion risk, and lower risk of joint infection and periprosthetic fracture. III.

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.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Vancouver B1 and B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Proportional Meta-Analysis.

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty, and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a common surgical treatment. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ORIF in patients with different fracture patterns (Vancouver B1 and B2). We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed from inception to August 2022. We conducted a pair-wise meta-analysis (with a fixed-effects model) on the 10 comparative studies and a proportional meta-analysis on the data from the 39 articles to determine a consensus. The outcomes were the incidence of reoperations that included osteosynthesis, irrigation/debridement and revision arthroplasty. The pair-wise meta-analysis showed similar outcomes between two groups; the risk of reoperation (odds ratio [OR]=0.82, confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.55, P=0.542), nonunion (OR=0.49; CI 0.22-1.10, P=0.085) and deep infection (OR=1.89, CI 0.48-7.46, P=0.361). In proportion meta-analysis, pooled prevalence of reoperation was 9% (95% CI, 6-12) in B1 and 8% (95% CI, 2-15) in B2 (heterogeneity between two groups (Q), P=0.772). The pooled prevalence of nonunion was same as of 4% in B1 and B2 (Q, P=0.678), and deep infection was 2% (95% CI, 1-3) in B1 and 4% (95% CI, 2-7) in B2 (Q, P=0.130). ORIF is a feasible treatment for B1 and B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, with acceptable outcomes in terms of, nonunion and infection. The results of this study would help clinicians and provide baseline data for further studies validating PFF.

Results of a differential approach to surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures in patients with osteoporosis

Objective. To conduct a comparative retrospective analysis of the anatomical and functional results of surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures AO/OTA 11-B, 11-C using different methods in patients over 50 years old with osteoporosis to justify a differential approach. Methods. The study included 102 patients aged 50 years and older with osteoporosis and proximal humerus fractures AO/OTA 11-B, 11-C. The patients were divided into three groups: I — 50 (16 men, 34 women) whom were performed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with the PHILOS plate; II — 44 (8 men, 36 women) — ORIF with the PHILOS plate and using 3D polylactide (PLA) porous implants were applied; III — 8 (2 men, 6 women) whom were performed primary reversed total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) with developed total reversible endoprosthesis. The results of treatment were evaluated according to the Constant-Murley Shoulder Score system after 3, 6, 12 months. The results. Positive results in the first group were obtained in 72.0 % of patients (the average Constant-Murley Shoulder Score after 12 months was 78.4 points); in the second — in 81.8 % (88.0 points); in the third — 75.0 % (82.0 points). A differentiated approach to the choice of surgical treatment of patients aged 50 years and older with fractures AO/OTA 11-B, 11-C is proposed. The clinical trial of the reverse total modular shoulder endoprosthesis developed by us using porous 3D titanium parts, manufactured by additive technologies, showed positive short-term results. The design features of the device increase the reliability and durability of proposed endoprosthesis. Conclusions. RTSA in the case of unstable proximal humerus fracture or in the case of metal structure migration after primary ORIF in patients with low bone mineral density is the effective surgical intervention that allows to achieve satisfactory functional results in up to 3 years.

Short-Term Outcomes and Long-Term Implant Survival After Inpatient Surgical Management of Geriatric Proximal Humerus Fractures.

The most common surgical options for geriatric proximal humerus fractures are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. We used a longitudinal inpatient discharge database to determine the cumulative incidence of conversion to arthroplasty after ORIF of geriatric proximal humerus fractures. The rates of short-term complications and all-cause reoperation were also compared. All patients 65 or older who sustained a proximal humerus fracture and underwent either ORIF, HA, or shoulder arthroplasty (SA) as an inpatient from 2000 through 2017 were identified. Survival analysis was performed with ORIF conversion to arthroplasty and all-cause reoperation as the endpoints of interest. Rates of 30-day readmission and short-term complications were compared. Trends in procedure choice and outcomes over the study period were analyzed. A total of 27 102 geriatric patients that underwent inpatient surgical management of proximal humerus fractures were identified. Among geriatric patients undergoing ORIF, the cumulative incidence of conversion to arthroplasty within 10 years was 8.2%. The 10-year cumulative incidence of all-cause reoperation was 12.1% for ORIF patients and less than 4% for both HA and SA patients. Female sex was associated with increased risk of ORIF conversion and younger age was associated with higher all-cause reoperation. ORIF was associated with higher 30-day readmission and short-term complication rates. Over the study period, the proportion of patients treated with ORIF or SA increased while the proportion of patients treated with HA decreased. Short-term complication rates were similar between arthroplasty and ORIF patients in the later cohort (2015-2017). The 10-year cumulative incidence of conversion to arthroplasty for geriatric patients undergoing proximal humerus ORIF as an inpatient was found to be 8.2%. All-cause reoperations, short-term complications, and 30-day readmissions were all significantly lower among patients undergoing arthroplasty, but the difference in complication rate between arthroplasty and ORIF was attenuated in more recent years. Younger age was a risk factor for reoperation and female sex was associated with increased risk of requiring conversion to arthroplasty after ORIF.

Ninety-Day Emergency Department Visits After Ankle Fracture Surgery.

Emergency department (ED) visits after orthopaedic procedures such as ankle fracture open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) have received less attention than other outcomes. This study analyzed 90-day ED visits after ankle fracture surgery in a national database to better characterize the incidence, timing, risk factors, and reasons. Ankle fractures undergoing ORIF were extracted from the PearlDiver M91Ortho 2010 to 2020Q3 data set. Patients were excluded for age younger than 18 years, presence of concomitant fractures, and <90 days of database follow-up. Patient age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score, region of the country, and insurance plan were analyzed as predictors for 90-day ED utilization using multivariate logistic regression. Incidence of readmissions and incidence, timing, risk factors, and reasons for ED visits were determined. Of 87,662 ankle fracture ORIF patients identified, ED visits were noted within 90 days of surgery for 10,087 (11.5%) while 4,030 (4.6%) were readmitted. One ED visit was noted for 6,102 patients, two visits for 2,654, three visits for 787, and more than three visits for 544. The greatest weekly incidence of ED visits was observed in weeks 1 and 2, with 2.9% and 3.1% of the entire cohort visiting in each week respectively. Factors independently associated with 90-day ED utilization included younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 per decade decrease, P < 0.001), greater Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (OR 1.40 per two-point increase, P < 0.001), and Medicaid insurance (OR 1.92, P < 0.001). In the first two postoperative weeks, 71% of ED visits were attributed to issues directly involving the surgical site while in subsequent weeks, most visits did not involve the surgical site (65%). Many patients visit the ED after ankle fracture surgery. The greatest ED utilization was during the first two postoperative weeks, and reasons for visits were defined. These findings have implications for optimizing care pathways and targeting resource allocation.

Comparison of Complications and Reoperation Rates of Minimally Invasive Circular Fixation vs Conventional ORIF for AO/ASIF C3 Pilon Fractures

Category: Trauma; Ankle Introduction/Purpose: Controversy exists regarding the optimal management of AO/ASIF C3 pilon fractures because of the articular and metaphyseal comminution. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the gold standard of treatment but with soft tissue and infectious complications reported in these subtypes of fractures. Currently, minimally invasive strategies (MIS) using percutaneous articular reduction and circular external fixation have been used to diminish the incidence of complications. Comparative studies between these two approaches have favored ORIF in terms of functional results but include all types of pilon fractures with non-comminuted injuries being more likely to be treated with ORIF and complex fractures receiving MIS treatment. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing complications and reoperation rates between ORIF and MIS strategies in C3 fractures. Methods: We performed an IRB approved retrospective study comparing patients treated for AO/ ASIF C3 pilon fracture in a trauma level I center. Patients treated by our team from January 2015 through March 2021 were included to have at least one year of follow-up. Clinical and demographic data were obtained. Union rates and healing times were compared, Complications and reoperation rates were noted during the complete follow-up period. Results: We included 30 patients in the ORIF group and 20 patients in the MIS group. The union rate was 78% (23/30 patients) in the ORIF group versus 95% (19/20 patients) in the MIS group. Healing was non-significantly (p&gt;0.05) shorter in the ORIF group (5.9 months) in comparison to the MIS group (6.4 months). Complications were present in 50% of patients in the MIS group being k-wire insertion site superficial infection. These complications were considered minor and there were no major complications in this group. The ORIF group presented significantly (p&lt;0.05) fewer complications (17%) but all considered major. Seven patients presented non-union (five patients were considered septic). Six patients had deep wound infections with one of these patients requiring a below-knee amputation. ORIF patients needed a mean of 2.7 (r:1-14) surgeries against 1.5 (r:1-3) procedures of the MIS group. Conclusion: MIS treatment of C3 pilon fractures has equivalent healing times for union that ORIF whilst having a higher complication rate being mostly minor superficial infection. On the other hand, ORIF presented fewer complications but all of them were considered major as non-union and deep infection. ORIF patients required more surgical procedures than the MIS group. In AO/ASIF C3 fractures MIS should be considered as a valid strategy for dealing with these challenging injuries achieving a high union rate. ORIF should be used cautiously in patients with C3 fractures, especially in the context of compromised soft tissue.

Association of Radial Head Fracture Treatment With Long-Term Function.

Radial head fractures are often associated with poor outcomes. Both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and radial head arthroplasty (RHA) might be considered in operative cases. This study aimed to compare long-term patient-reported functional outcomes among patients with operatively treated radial head fractures. A cross sectional study conducted at a Level I trauma center was used to identify patients with a radial head fracture who underwent ORIF or RHA between 2006 and 2018, and agreed to complete a survey in 2020. The primary outcome measure was the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) score. Seventy-six patients participated in the study. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between groups. QuickDASH scores were similar for both groups (ORIF: mean = 15.7, SD = 18.4; RHA: mean = 22.8, SD = 18.6; mean difference = 0.2 [-9.0 to 9.3], P = .97). Nineteen (37%) ORIF patients and 12 (48%) RHA patients reported a need for pain medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.8 [0.3-2.4], P = .70). Thirteen (25%) ORIF patients and 6 (24%) RHA patients required additional surgery (adjusted OR = 1.7 [0.5-6.2], P = .39). A subgroup analysis of multi-fragmentary fractures revealed similar findings. Patient-reported outcomes, which included a subgroup analysis of multi-fragmentary fractures, were similar between ORIF and RHA groups at an average of 7.5 years from surgery. Reconstructing the radial head might not result in worse outcomes than RHA when both options are employed according to the best judgment of the operating surgeon.

A Multicenter Comparison of Open Versus Arthroscopic Fixation for Pediatric Tibial Spine Fractures

Background:When operative treatment is indicated, tibial spine fractures can be successfully managed with open or arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation.Hypothesis/Purpose:We hypothesized both approaches can lead to satisfactory outcomes for fracture healing, but that open treatment without preoperative advanced imaging can potentially lead to missed concomitant injuries.Methods:We performed an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study of pediatric tibial spine fractures presenting between January 1, 2000 and January 31, 2019 at 10 institutions. Patients were categorized into two cohorts based on treatment: arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Surgical outcomes, the incidence of concomitant injuries, and surgeon demographics were compared between groups.Results:There were 477 patients with tibial spine fractures who met inclusion criteria, 420 of whom (88.1%) were treated with ARIF, while 57 (11.9%) were treated with ORIF. Patients treated with ARIF were more likely to have an identified concomitant injury (41.4%) compared to those treated with ORIF (24.6%, p=0.021). Patients treated with ARIF were also more likely to have pre-treatment MRI (41.7% vs. 22.8%, p =0.010). Most concomitant injuries (74.5%) required surgical intervention. The most common treatment complications included arthrofibrosis (6.9% in ARIF patients, 7.0% in ORIF patients, p=1.00) and subsequent ACL injury (2.1% in ARIF patients and 3.5% in ORIF, p=0.86). The rate of complications, return to the operating room, and failure to return to full range of motion were similar between groups. Twenty surgeons with sports subspecialty training completed 85.0% of ARIF cases; the remaining 15.0% were performed by 12 surgeons without additional sports training. The majority (56.1%) of ORIF cases were completed by 14 surgeons without sports subspecialty training.Conclusion:This is the largest study comparing ARIF to ORIF in pediatric tibial spine fractures. This study demonstrated no difference in outcomes or nonunion following ARIF or ORIF for pediatric tibial spine fractures. There were significantly higher rates of concomitant injuries in patients treated with ARIF, however, these patients also had a higher rate of pre-treatment MRI. The majority of these concomitant injuries (74.5%) required surgical intervention. Pre-treatment MRI should be considered in the workup of tibial spine fractures to increase identification of concomitant injury. Concomitant injuries may be missed in tibial spine fractures treated with an open approach, especially in cases where preoperative advanced imaging is not obtained. Surgeon preference and training may impact treatment approach and identification and treatment of concomitant injury.

Comparison of Supraclavicular Regional Nerve Block Versus Infraclavicular Regional Nerve Block in Distal Radial Open Reduction and Internal Fixation: A Retrospective Case Series.

BackgroundThe management of pain in patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of distal radius fractures (DRFs) remains an area of debate for anesthesiologists due to a variety of block options and no definitive superior technique among these modalities. In this retrospective case series, we compare the efficacy of supraclavicular versus infraclavicular regional nerve blocks for surgical patients undergoing distal radial ORIF operations to determine if one approach was superior.MethodologyThis retrospective case series included patients undergoing ORIF of a DRF at a tertiary academic medical center between April 28, 2016, and August 23, 2021. In total, 54 patients undergoing ORIF of a DRF provided written consent for the nerve block(s) on the day of surgery. Of these 54 patients, 54 (100%) underwent primary procedures. Of the 54 primary ORIF patients, 28 (52%) received the supraclavicular block, while 26 (48%) received the infraclavicular nerve block.ResultsThe infraclavicular and supraclavicular groups did not significantly differ regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists, weight, or body mass index. The primary (intraoperative opioid use) and secondary (postoperative opioid use, postoperative nausea and vomiting in the post-anesthetic care unit, highest and average pain scores, and time to discharge) outcomes data were included in the study. The infraclavicular and supraclavicular groups did not significantly differ in any of the assessed outcomes except for time to discharge.ConclusionsThe supraclavicular block approach for distal radius ORIF offers an effective and non-inferior alternative to the infraclavicular block approach concerning effective analgesia and safety.

A Multicenter Comparison of Open Versus Arthroscopic Fixation for Pediatric Tibial Spine Fractures.

When operative treatment is indicated, tibial spine fractures can be successfully managed with open or arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF). The purpose of the study is to evaluate short-term treatment outcomes of tibial spine fractures in patients treated with both open and arthroscopic fracture reduction. We performed an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study of pediatric tibial spine fractures presenting between January 1, 2000 and January 31, 2019 at 10 institutions. Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts based on treatment: ARIF and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Short-term surgical outcomes, the incidence of concomitant injuries, and surgeon demographics were compared between groups. There were 477 patients with tibial spine fractures who met inclusion criteria, 420 of whom (88.1%) were treated with ARIF, while 57 (11.9%) were treated with ORIF. Average follow-up was 1.12 years. Patients treated with ARIF were more likely to have an identified concomitant injury (41.4%) compared with those treated with ORIF (24.6%, P=0.021). Most concomitant injuries (74.5%) were treated with intervention. The most common treatment complications included arthrofibrosis (6.9% in ARIF patients, 7.0% in ORIF patients, P=1.00) and subsequent anterior cruciate ligament injury (2.1% in ARIF patients and 3.5% in ORIF, P=0.86). The rate of short-term complications, return to the operating room, and failure to return to full range of motion were similar between treatment groups. Twenty surgeons with sports subspecialty training completed 85.0% of ARIF cases; the remaining 15.0% were performed by 12 surgeons without additional sports training. The majority (56.1%) of ORIF cases were completed by 14 surgeons without sports subspecialty training. This study demonstrated no difference in outcomes or nonunion following ARIF or ORIF, with a significantly higher rate of concomitant injuries identified in patients treated with ARIF. The majority of identified concomitant injuries were treated with surgical intervention. Extensive surgical evaluation or pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging should be considered in the workup of tibial spine fractures to increase concomitant injury identification. Level III.

Medial Epicondyle Apophyseal Avulsion Fractures in Youth Throwers: A Severe Variant of Little League Elbow (132)

Objectives:Medial epicondyle apophyseal avulsion fractures sustained during throwing represent an understudied, severe variant of medial epicondyle apophysitis, or ‘Little League elbow’. The current study sought to characterize presenting features, treatment options, and clinical results of a large cohort of pre-adolescent and adolescent patients who presented with these fractures.Methods:Skeletally immature athletes with medial epicondyle apophyseal avulsion fractures sustained during throwing from 2003-2017 at a tertiary-care pediatric referral center were identified. Exclusion criteria were fractures sustained during non-throwing activity or prior elbow fracture. Medical records and radiographic images were reviewed for study variables. Treatment decisions were made independently by fellowship-trained pediatric orthopaedic surgeons or sports medicine physicians on a case-by-case basis. Patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were compared to those treated non-operatively, and all fracture patients were compared to a larger control group of patients diagnosed with medial epicondyle apophysitis/Little League elbow with no fracture.Results:During the study period, a total of 317 patients were diagnosed with Little League elbow due to medial epicondyle apophyseal overuse injury, 50 of whom (16%) sustained a discreet, radiographically confirmed epicondyle fracture sustained during a single throw. Median age of the fracture cohort at presentation was 13.1 years (range 8 years – 16 years). Forty-nine fracture patients (98%) were male baseball pitchers and one (2%) was a male football quarterback. Fracture patients had significantly higher median BMI (21.3 kg/m2 vs. 19.2kg/m2, p=0.004) than the apophysitis control group, but there was no significant difference in age. Of the 37 patients with documentation regarding pre-injury symptoms, 31 patients (84%) described pre-existing medical elbow pain prior to their acute injury, while 6 (16%) denied pain prior to the inciting throw. Of the 12 patients (24%) with documented shoulder exams at presentation, 5 (42%) demonstrated glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD). Twenty-three patients (46%) were treated with ORIF (22 single screw fixation; 1 suture anchor fixation), while 27 (54%) were treated non-operatively. Median fracture displacement was significantly greater in operative patients than non-operative patients (5.0mm vs. 3.0mm, p=<.001), with all ‘minimally displaced’ (<4mm) fractures undergoing non-operative treatment (Figure 1). Multivariable analysis determined that for each additional mm of displacement, the odds of surgical intervention increased by 6.4 times (OR=6.36; 95% CI=1.83-22.07; p=.004), when controlling for age and BMI. All patients returned to their throwing sport (RTS) at a median of 12.8 weeks post-diagnosis, but 13 (26%) developed recurrent elbow pain, with no significant difference in in RTS time or recurrence rate between treatment cohorts. Nine of twenty-two (41%) screw ORIF patients underwent secondary implant removal, with no significant difference in this rate between those with or without a washer.Conclusions:Medial epicondyle apophyseal avulsion fractures in youth throwers represent a severe variant of Little League elbow, constituting approximately 16% of cases within the condition’s spectrum. These fractures may be effectively treated with either non-operative measures, particularly minimally displaced fractures <4mm, or ORIF, though >40% of operative patients may require implant removal. A large majority of patients reported medial elbow pain prior to fracture, suggesting this severe presentation of Little League elbow may be preventable.

Distal femoral replacement versus ORIF for severely comminuted distal femur fractures.

Distal femoral replacement (DFR) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) are surgical options for comminuted distal femur fractures. Comparative outcomes of these techniques are limited. The aims of this study were to compare implant survivorship, perioperative factors, and clinical outcomes of DFR vs. ORIF for comminuted distal femur fractures. Ten patients treated with rotating hinge DFRs for AO/OTA 33-C fractures from 2005 to 2015 were identified and matched 1:2 based on age and sex to 20 ORIF patients. Patients treated with DFR and ORIF had similar ages (80 vs. 76years, p = 0.2) and follow-up (20 vs. 27months, p = 1.0), respectively. Implant survivorship, length of stay (LOS), anesthetic time, estimated blood loss (EBL), ambulatory status, knee range of motion (ROM), and Knee Society scores (KSS) were assessed at final follow-up. Survivorship free from any revision at 2years was 90% and 65% for the DFR and ORIF groups, respectively (p = 0.59). Survivorship free from any reoperation at 2years was 90% for the DFR group and 50% for the ORIF group (p = 0.16). Three ORIF patients (15%) went on to nonunion and two went on to delayed union. Mean EBL and LOS were significantly higher for the DFR group: 592mL vs. 364mL, and 13 vs. 6.5days, respectively. Knee ROM (p = 0.71) and KSSs (p = 0.36) were similar between groups. Comminuted distal femur fractures treated with DFR trended toward lower revision and reoperation rates, with similar functional outcomes when compared to ORIF. We noted a trend toward increased EBL and LOS in the DFR group. Level IV.

Outcomes of operatively treated interprosthetic femoral fractures.

The prevalence of ipsilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising in concert with life expectancy, putting more patients at risk for interprosthetic femur fractures (IPFFs). Our study aimed to assess treatment methodologies, implant survivorship, and IPFF clinical outcomes. A total of 76 patients treated for an IPFF from February 1985 to April 2018 were reviewed. Prior to fracture, at the hip/knee sites respectively, 46 femora had primary/primary, 21 had revision/primary, three had primary/revision, and six had revision/revision components. Mean age and BMI were 74 years (33 to 99) and 30 kg/m2 (21 to 46), respectively. Mean follow-up after fracture treatment was seven years (2 to 24). Overall, 59 fractures were classified as Vancouver C (Unified Classification System (UCS) D), 17 were Vancouver B (UCS B). In total, 57 patients (75%) were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); three developed nonunion, three developed periprosthetic joint infection, and two developed aseptic loosening. In all, 18 patients (24%) underwent revision arthroplasty including 13 revision THAs, four distal femoral arthroplasties (DFAs), and one revision TKA: of these, one patient developed aseptic loosening and two developed nonunion. Survivorship free from any reoperation was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66.9% to 90.6%) and 77% (95% CI 49.4% to 90.7%) in the ORIF and revision groups at two years, respectively. ORIF patients who went on to union tended to have stemmed knee components and greater mean interprosthetic distance (IPD = 189 mm (SD 73.6) vs 163 mm (SD 36.7); p = 0.546) than nonunited fractures. Patients who went on to nonunion in the revision arthroplasty group had higher medullary diameter: cortical width ratio (2.5 (SD 1.7) vs 1.3 (SD 0.3); p = 0.008) and lower IPD (36 mm (SD 30.6) vs 214 mm (SD 32.1); p < 0.001). At latest follow-up, 95% of patients (n = 72) were ambulatory. Interprosthetic femur fractures are technically and biologically challenging cases. Individualized approaches to internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty led to an 81% (95% CI 68.3% to 88.6%) survivorship free from reoperation at two years with 95% of patients ambulatory. Continued improvements in management are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J2021;103-B(7 Supple B):122-128.

Operative Management of closed fracture shaft humerus: comparative study between MIPPO anterior bridge platting Vs conventional ORIF

Aim: Operative treatment of shaft humerus fracture continues to evolve. MIPPO is one of such emerging operative procedure which does give excellent results over conventional ORIF platting. We are comparing overall functional outcome and surgical complexity of MIPPO (Minimal Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis) vs conventional ORIF (Open Reduction and Internal Fixation) by posterior approach in this study. Materials and Methods: A retrospective clinical study was done on 50 patients with shaft humerus fractures treated with MIPPO anterior bridge plating and posterior platting by trained single surgeon at a tertiary trauma care centre in the Department of Orthopaedics, BJ medical college, Civil hospital Ahmedabad between October 2016 and May 2018. Follow up data was collected and patients were called for clinical and radiological evaluation. Results: 24 of the 25 (96%) MIPPO patients and 22 of the 25 (88%) ORIF patients achieved union. Average union times for the MIPPO and ORIF groups were 19.3 and 16.1 weeks respectively. At the end functional outcome of both the technique is as follows: the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS; range 95–100) were 90% in 20 cases (n = 20) operated with conventional ORIF posterior plating and 20 cases operated with MIPPO plating which is excellent scores. Two cases operated with ORIF posterior plating and three cases with MIPPO plating are showing a good MEPS score. Conclusions: Even though MIPPO is surgically demanding, fracture hematoma is not disturbed in it therefore it gives better and fast union than conventional ORIF. Keywords: Conventional ORIF, MIPPO platting, Fracture, Humerus.

Arthrodesis or Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Meta-analysis.

The purpose of this study is to determine if arthrodesis, compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), produces favorable American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and to determine if differences in complication, revision surgery, and secondary arthrodesis rates exist for patients with Lisfranc fracture/dislocation injuries. Searches were performed in PubMed using the keywords "Lisfranc fracture," "metatarsal fracture," "ORIF," "open reduction internal fixation," "arthrodesis," and "fusion." These criteria left 183 articles for review. Exclusions left 21 articles and 2 translations of Chinese abstracts. Data analysis was performed using Student's 2-sample t test for samples of equal variance, and chi-square test for goodness of fit. The t test revealed a significant difference (P = .03) between the average AOFAS score for patients who underwent primary arthrodesis (84.7 ± 6.14) compared with those who were treated with ORIF (78.9 ± 5.09). There was no significant difference for the average VAS scores (P = .33) of the arthrodesis and ORIF groups. The complication rate of arthrodesis patients was significantly lower than ORIF patients (P = .04), and the rates of revision surgery (P = .22) and secondary arthrodesis (P = .53) were not significant between the groups. The results of this study indicate that arthrodesis may be a better surgical option than ORIF, due to the higher functional scores and the lower complication rate.Levels of Evidence: Level III: A meta-analysis.