Open Reduction And Internal Fixation Treatment Research Articles

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.

Artículo traducido] Impacto económico de las fracturas periprotésicas de cadera

IntroductionHip replacement is one of the most successful operations in orthopaedic surgery. Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHF) have very serious consequences for the patient, and they also entail a very important economic impact on healthcare systems. The aim of the study was to provide the first detailed cost analysis of PPHF in a traumatology and orthopaedics service in a third level hospital in Spain. MethodsThe study included all patients admitted between 2009 and 2019 with a diagnosis of «PPHF». We assessed hospital stay cost, total cost of the operating theatre, cost of the implants used, analyses, consultations with other specialists, rehabilitation sessions, radiological tests, microbiology, blood transfusions and other surgical operations during the same admission. ResultsSeventy-eight patients were included in the study, 49 women and 29 men, with a mean age of 78.74 years (R 45–92). Sixty-nine patients received surgical treatment, 75% had open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and 25% had revision surgery. The total cost was €1 139 650.17. The average cost was €14 610.90. Significantly higher costs were incurred for revision compared to ORIF treatments, admissions that lasted more than 30 days, and patients who required more than one operation during admission. The most costly factors were the hospital stay (46%), the cost of the surgery itself (35%), and the implants (24%). ConclusionsRevision arthroplasty versus ORIF treatment, admissions lasting more than 30 days, and patients requiring more than one operation on admission incurred significantly higher costs. The average cost, from a hospital perspective, generated by a PPHF was €14 610.90. The most costly factors were, in descending order, the hospital stay, the cost of the surgery itself, and the implants. It is necessary to establish protocols and updated therapeutic algorithms in the perioperative management of PPHF in order to reduce both morbidity rates and associated costs.

Lisfranc injuries with dislocation the first tarsometatarsal joint: primary arthrodesis or internal fixation (a randomized controlled trial).

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a popular method for treatment of displaced Lisfranc injuries. However, even with anatomic reduction and solid internal fixation, treatment does not provide good outcomes in certain severe dislocations. The purpose of this study was to compare ORIF and primary arthrodesis (PA) of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint for Lisfranc injuries with the first TMT joint dislocation. Seventy-eight Lisfranc injuries with first TMT joint dislocation were finally enrolled and analyzed in a prospective, randomized trial comparing ORIF and PA. They were 50 males and females with a mean age of 40.7years and randomized to ORIF group and PA group. Outcome measures included radiographs, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports subscale, visual analog scale (VAS), and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Complications and revision rate were also analyzed. Forty patients were treated by ORIF, while PA group includes 38 cases. Patients were followed up for 37.8(range, 24-48) months. At final follow-up, the mean AOFAS midfoot score (P < 0.01), the FAAM Sports subscale (P < 0.01), the physical function score (P < 0.05), and the Bodily Pain score of SF-36 (P < 0.05) after ORIF treatment were significantly lower than PA group. The mean VAS score in ORIF group was higher (P < 0.01). In ORIF group, redislocation of the first TMT joint was observed in ten cases, and thirteen patients had pain in midfoot. No redislocation and no hardware failure were identified in PA group. PA of the first TMT joint provided a better medium-term outcome than ORIF for Lisfranc injuries with the first TMT dislocation. Possible complications and revision could be avoided by PA for dislocated first ray injuries.

Economic impact of periprosthetic hip fractures

IntroductionHip replacement is one of the most successful operations in orthopaedic surgery. Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHF) have very serious consequences for the patient, and they also entail a very important economic impact on healthcare systems. The aim of the study was to provide the first detailed cost analysis of PPHF in a traumatology and orthopaedics service in a third level hospital in Spain. MethodsThe study included all patients admitted between 2009 and 2019 with a diagnosis of “PPHF”. We assessed hospital stay cost, total cost of the operating theatre, cost of the implants used, analyses, consultations with other specialists, rehabilitation sessions, radiological tests, microbiology, blood transfusions and other surgical operations during the same admission. Results78 patients were included in the study, 49 women and 29 men, with a mean age of 78.74 years (R 45–92). 69 patients received surgical treatment, 75% had open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and 25% had revision surgery. The total cost was €1,139,650.17. The average cost was €14,610.90. Significantly higher costs were incurred for revision compared to ORIF treatments, admissions that lasted more than 30 days, and patients who required more than one operation during admission. The most costly factors were the hospital stay (46%), the cost of the surgery itself (35%), and the implants (24%). ConclusionsRevision arthroplasty versus ORIF treatment, admissions lasting more than 30 days, and patients requiring more than one operation on admission incurred significantly higher costs. The average cost, from a hospital perspective, generated by a PPHF was €14,610.90. The most costly factors were, in descending order, the hospital stay, the cost of the surgery itself, and the implants. It is necessary to establish protocols and updated therapeutic algorithms in the perioperative management of PPHF in order to reduce both morbidity rates and associated costs.

Comparative study of plating versus conservative treatment in mid shaft fractures of clavicle

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background&lt;/strong&gt;: Clavicle fractures represent up to 4% and 1% of all fractures, respectively. Historically, both fracture types have been treated conservatively with acceptable outcomes. The surgical correction of these fractures is currently being investigated as a viable alternative to conservative management.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods&lt;/strong&gt;: A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify articles comparing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with conservative treatment for clavicular fractures. Specific outcomes of interest were shoulder function, pain, strength, range of motion, and risk of non-union. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results&lt;/strong&gt;: ORIF of midshaft clavicular fractures results in increased shoulder function within 6 weeks following treatment and a decreased risk of non-union. After 1 year, there was no longer a difference in shoulder function between groups. There was no difference in pain between treatment groups. Both ORIF and conservative treatment of extraarticular scapular fractures yield comparable results in shoulder function, range of motion, and strength following treatment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions&lt;/strong&gt;: This study, early primary plate fixation of comminuted mid shaft clavicular fractures results in improved patient-oriented outcomes, improved surgeon-oriented outcomes, earlier return to function and decreased rates of non-union and malunion. &lt;/p&gt;

Minimally invasive surgery for intra-articular calcaneus fractures: a 9-year, single-center, retrospective study of a standardized technique using a 2-point distractor

BackgroundA fracture of the calcaneus can be a painful and disabling injury. Treatment modalities may be conservative or operative. Surgical treatment strategies include open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) techniques, as well as a variety of minimally invasive methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment options and post-treatment complication rates for intra-articular calcaneal fractures at the Traumacenter Linz over a 9-year period.MethodsAll patients with calcaneal fractures treated at the Traumacenter Linz between 2007 and 2015 were included in this study. The patients records were retrospectively reviewed, and the data, including demographic parameters, cause of injury, and the time between injury and operative treatment were analyzed. The number of secondary operative interventions due to soft-tissue complications, hardware removal, and the long-term arthrodesis rate were evaluated.ResultsA minimally invasive 2-point-distractor method was used in 85.8% (n = 182) of all operatively managed calcaneal fractures (n = 212) in our department. The majority of the operations (88.7%) were performed within 2 days after the accident. The secondary operation rate resulting from wound complications was 2.7% in the 2-point distractor group and 16.7% in the ORIF group. A secondary arthrodesis was performed in 4.7% (n = 9) of the subtalar joints in the entire study population.ConclusionsOur data supported the assumption that severe wound complications would be less likely to occur after minimally invasive treatment compared to ORIF treatment. The rate of secondary arthrodesis in the study cohort was comparable to that in the literature.Level of evidenceIV

Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Outcomes for Lisfranc Injuries: An Analysis of Conflicting Meta-analysis Results

Category:Midfoot/ForefootIntroduction/Purpose:The superiority of Primary arthrodesis (PA) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in Lisfranc injuries has been debated for decades. In recent years, researchers have attempted to use meta-analyses to reach a definitive conclusion. However, they have reached uncertain and contradicting conclusions when comparing these treatment options, which has led to more confusion. The goal of this paper is to navigate the primary source data of each meta-analyses to determine why different conclusions were reached and provide surgeons with more clarity on the comparable outcomes of PA and ORIF treatment options in Lisfranc injuries.Methods:A systematic literature review was conducted by searching for ‘meta-analysis’ AND ‘Lisfranc’ with keywords such as ‘ORIF’ OR ‘open reduction’ OR ‘Arthrodesis’ OR ‘fusion’. Five meta-analysis articles discussing PA and ORIF in Lisfranc injuries were identified. Study outcomes were extracted from each article for comparison. Contradicting conclusions were identified, and the primary sources used by each meta-analysis was analyzed.Results:All meta-analyses agreed that PA had lower rates of hardware removal and that there is no significant difference between PA and ORIF when considering revision surgery, anatomic reduction, postoperative infection, total complications, and patient satisfaction. However, contradicting conclusions were reached regarding functional patient outcomes such as return to duty, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score.Conclusion:PA has favorable rates of hardware removal compared to ORIF, while no difference between PA and ORIF was found for revision surgery, anatomic reduction, postoperative infection, total complications, and patient satisfaction.While certain meta-analyses had contradicting conclusion as to which treatment option is favorable for returning to duty, AOFAS score, and VAS score, it was determined there was no significant difference in PA and ORIF for return to work and VAS score. Repeat meta- analysis with truly equivocal outcomes would be necessary to reach a valid conclusion for return to full activity and AOFAS midfoot scores.

Demographics, Treatment, and Cost of Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: Fixation Versus Revision.

Introduction:Periprosthetic femur fractures (PPFX) are complications of both total hip and knee arthroplasty and may be treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or revision arthroplasty. Differences in treatment and fracture location may be related to patient demographics and lead to differences in cost. Our study examined the effects of demographics and treatment of knee and hip PPFXs on length of stay (LOS) and cost.Methods:Of all, 932 patients were identified with hip or knee PPFXs in the National Inpatient Sample from January 2013 to September 2015. Age, gender, race, mortality, comorbidity level, LOS, total cost, procedure type, geographic region, and hospital type were recorded. A generalized linear regression model was conducted to analyze the effect of fracture type on LOS and cost.Results:Differences in gender (66% vs 83.7% female, P < .01), comorbidities (fewer in hips, P < .01), and costs (US$30 979 vs US$27 944, P < .01) were found between the hip and knee groups. Knees had significantly higher rates of ORIF treatment (80.7% vs 39.1%) and lower rates of revision arthroplasties (19.3% vs 60.9%) than hip PPFXs (P < .01). Within both groups, patients with more comorbidities, revision surgery, and blood transfusions were more likely to have a longer LOS and higher cost.Conclusion:Periprosthetic femur fractures patients are not homogenous and treatment varies between hip and knee locations. For knee patients, those treated with ORIF were younger, with fewer comorbidities than those treated with revision. Conversely, hip patients treated with ORIF were older, with more comorbidities than those treated with revision. Hips had higher costs than knees, and cost correlated with revision arthroplasty and more comorbidities. In both hip and knee groups, longer LOS was associated with more comorbidities and being treated in urban teaching hospitals. Total cost had the strongest associations with revision procedures as well as number of comorbidities and blood product use.

What’s New in Orthopaedic Trauma

What’s New in Orthopaedic Trauma

Open versus closed treatment for unilateral mandibular extra-capsular condylar fractures: A meta-analysis

PurposeTo compare the functional outcomes between open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction (CR) for unilateral mandibular extra-capsular condylar fractures in patients over 12 years old. Materials and methodsA comprehensive electronic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted up to October 31, 2018. The evaluated functional outcomes included malocclusion, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain, protrusion, laterotrusion, maximum inter-incisal opening and lateral deviation during maximum inter-incisal opening. ResultsFourteen studies appeared to meet the inclusion criteria. Statistically significant differences between ORIF and CR treatment were observed for the outcomes of malocclusion (P = 0.001), maximum inter-incisal opening (P = 0.0008), lateral deviation during maximum inter-incisal opening (P = 0.007) and laterotrusion (P < 0.0001), but not for the outcomes of protrusion (P = 0.33) and TMJ pain (P = 0.29). ConclusionsORIF treatment of unilateral mandibular extra-capsular condylar fractures provides better functional outcomes in comparison to CR treatment with regard to occlusion, maximum inter-incisal opening, lateral deviation during maximum inter-incisal opening and laterotrusion, whereas there was no statistically significant difference between ORIF and CR group with regard to protrusion and TMJ pain.

Treatment of Modified Mason Type III or IV Radial Head Fracture: Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Arthroplasty.

Background:The treatment of modified Mason Type III or IV fractures is controversial. Many authors report open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with reconstruction of the radial head, but others advocate radial head arthroplasty (RHA). This study compares the clinical and radiological outcomes of ORIF and RHA in modified Mason Type III or IV radial head fracture and evaluates correlations between prognostic factors and postoperative clinical outcomes.Materials and Methods:42 patients with modified Mason Type III or IV radial head fractures who were surgically treated between January 2010 and January 2014 were retrospectively analyzed (20 patients with RHA and 22 patients with ORIF group were selected). Clinically, the patient rated elbow evaluation (PREE), the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH), and the range of motion (ROM) were measured. Radiologically, plain radiographs and computed tomography scans were taken.Results:The mean PREE scores were 13.9 for the RHA group and 13.0 for the ORIF group, and mean DASH scores were 9.5 and 10.7, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant. When comparing ROM, the patients in the RHA group showed greater movement at all measured angles. In multiple regression analysis, age was the only variable significantly associated with both PREE and DASH.Conclusion:Overall, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes of modified Mason Type III or IV radial head fractures treated with ORIF or RHA. However, a subgroup of younger patients had better clinical outcomes with ORIF treatment. Therefore, ORIF should be the First line of treatment, particularly if the reduction is possible.

Nonoperative, open reduction and internal fixation or primary arthrodesis in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial \u2013 study protocol

BackgroundLisfranc injuries are known to be rare and often overlooked injuries that can cause long-term disability and pain when missed or treated incorrectly. The wide variety of Lisfranc injuries ranges from subtle ligament distensions to open fracture dislocations. The treatment of Lisfranc joint injuries is still controversial and very little is known about what types of injury can be treated nonoperatively. The current literature provides only two randomized studies on dislocated Lisfranc injuries. These studies have shown that primary arthrodesis (PA) leads to a similar or better outcome and results in fewer secondary operations when compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in ligamentous injuries. There have been no previous randomized studies of the nonoperative versus operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the operative and nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries and to compare the ORIF and PA treatment of dislocated Lisfranc injuries.MethodsThis study is a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial. The trial comprises two strata: Stratum I compares cast-immobilization versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc joint injuries. Stratum II compares PA versus ORIF in the treatment of dislocated injuries of the Lisfranc joint. The main hypothesis of stratum I is that the nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries achieves a similar outcome compared with operative treatment (ORIF). The hypothesis of stratum II is that PA of dislocated Lisfranc injuries yields a similar functional outcome compared with ORIF, but that PA results in fewer secondary operations than ORIF. The main outcome measure is the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot score and the secondary outcome measures are Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA), Visual-Analogue-Scale (VAS), rate of secondary operations and other treatment-related complications. The results will be analyzed after the 2-year follow-up period.DiscussionThis publication presents a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient flow, randomization, aftercare and methods of analysis of the material and ways to present and publish the results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24.10.2016.

Instability after operative and conservative treatment of isolated Mason type II fractures

Radial head fractures are the most frequent fractures of the elbow joint in adults. For Mason typeII fractures without concomitant injuries favorable results have been shown with operative and conservative management. There is insufficient evidence concerning elbow joint stability after conservative treatment compared to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). All patients with isolated Mason type II (two part fracture displaced >2 mm and <5 mm) radial head fractures between 1 January 2003 and 1 April 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria were age <18years, associated fractures of the ipsilateral extremity or elbow luxation. A total of 50patients (mean age 44.2years, range 19-71years) who received either ORIF (n = 31) or conservative treatment (n = 19) were included. The mean follow-up was 43.2months (range9-61 months). Patients were evaluated using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Mayo Elbow Performance score (MEPS), and Oxford Elbow score (OES). Joint stability (varus and valgus stress) was assessed under fluoroscopy and a distinction was made between slight instability (angulation <10°), moderate instability (angulation ≥10°) and gross instability (elbow dislocation). Residual fracture displacement (conservative: 2.7 mm, ORIF: 1.4 mm, p < 0.042) and varus/valgus joint stability (3% ORIF vs. 26% conservative, p = 0.031) showed significant differences. The stability as tested by a radiological dynamic procedure showed an instability after ORIF in 3% of the joints compared to 26% after conservative treatment; however, this did not influence the short to mid-term clinical outcome: No significant differences were found in the DASH score (conservative 33points, ORIF 36points), MEPS (conservative 76points, ORIF 78points) and OES (conservative 41points, ORIF 43points). Both conservative management and operative treatment had agood functional outcome. Operative treatment showed apositive tendency concerning radiological and functional outcome without statistical significance.

Treatment of acute perilunate dislocations: ORIF versus proximal row carpectomy

PurposeSome authors have proposed performing proximal row carpectomy (PRC) as the initial treatment for perilunate dislocations. HypothesisThe goal of this retrospective study was to compare the results of a cohort of perilunate dislocation cases that were operated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or by PRC between 2006 and 2011. MethodsThe cohort consisted of 21 men with a mean age of 33years, who either had an isolated perilunate dislocation (7 cases) or a fracture–dislocation (14 cases). All dislocations were dorsal, with 10 stage I and 12 stage II. Thirteen patients had been treated by ORIF (group 1) a mean of 1.2days after the injury. Eight patients had been treated by PRC (group 2) a mean of 18.7days after the injury. Immobilization time was 6–12weeks in group 1 and 2weeks in group 2. ResultsThe mean operative time was 95minutes in group 1 and 65minutes in group 2. After a mean follow-up of 35months, the following outcomes were found for groups 1 and 2, respectively: pain 3/10 and 1/10, strength 77% and 73%, strength in supination 79% and 93%, strength in pronation 67% and 95%, QuickDASH 27/100 and 16/100, PRWE 43/150 and 15.5/150, flexion 69% and 57%, extension 84% and 58%, pronation 97% and 103%, supination 98% and 97%. There were four cases of osteoarthritis in both groups. ConclusionTreatment of acute perilunate dislocations by PRC leads to medium-term results that are at least as good as those with ORIF treatment. The surgery duration is shorter with PRC, as is the immobilization period. Type of studyRetrospective comparative. Level of evidenceIII.

Comparison between radial head arthroplasty and open reduction and internal fixation in patients with radial head fractures (modified Mason type III and IV): a meta-analysis

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and radial head arthroplasty (RHA) are the most common operative treatments in patients with radial head fractures. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of RHA and ORIF treatments in patients with radial head fractures (modified Mason type III and IV). We conducted a computerized search of five electronic databases from their inception to July 2015. All clinical trials comparing ORIF versus RHA treatment in patients with radial head fractures were included. We evaluated the primary outcomes included elbow functional evaluation criteria by Broberg and Morrey, elbow score (Broberg and Morrey), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and QuickDASH score. Secondary outcomes included Visual Analog Scale (VAS), range of motion, operation time and complications. The "assessing risk of bias" table was applied to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis, which consisted of 138 cases of ORIF and 181 RHA. Methodological quality of the studies was moderate to low. RHA afforded significantly higher satisfaction rate, better elbow score (Broberg and Morrey) and MEPS, shorter operation time, lower incidence of bone nonunion or absorption and internal fixation failure when compared to ORIF. There were no significantly differences in QuickDASH score and other complications. RHA has better outcome in patients with radial head fractures (modified Mason type III and IV) than ORIF with medium-short-term follow-up period, but longer-term studies will be required to ascertain whether the apparent benefits of RHA were offset by late complications. Therapeutic decision analysis; a meta-analysis, Level III.

Functional Outcome and Patient Satisfaction After Displaced Intra-Articular Calcaneal Fractures: A Comparison Among Open, Percutaneous, and Nonoperative Treatment

The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of patients with a displaced calcaneal fracture treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), percutaneous treatment, or nonoperative methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a level I trauma center of patients with a displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture treated from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2011. The patient-reported outcome measures included the Foot Function Index, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale, Short Form-36, the EQ-5D from the EuroQol Group, and a 10-point visual analog scale. Clinical data were collected from 169 patients, and questionnaires were obtained from 78 patients (18 nonoperatively, 27 ORIF, and 33 percutaneously). The late intervention rate was significantly greater in the percutaneous group (n = 18; 30%) than in the ORIF group (n = 6; 12%) or the nonoperative group (n = 8; 13%; p = .030). Significantly more disability was reported in the nonoperative group (median Foot Function Index score, 40 points) than in the ORIF group (median, 16 points; p = .010) or in the percutaneous group (median, 21 points; p = .034). In conclusion, the operatively treated patients (ORIF and percutaneous treatment) reported better functional outcome scores (Foot Function Index and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale) than did the nonoperatively treated patients.

How Often Does Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Geriatric Acetabular Fractures Lead to Hip Arthroplasty?

We hypothesized that open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of displaced acetabular fractures in geriatric patients result in a low rate of conversion to hip arthroplasty and satisfactory hip-specific validated outcome scores at medium-term follow-up. Retrospective review. Level I trauma center. One hundred forty-seven consecutive patients who were 60 years or older who had acetabular fractures were treated at our center from 2001 through 2006. During this time period, fractures meeting operative criteria were treated with ORIF unless medical conditions warranted nonoperative treatment. Twenty-nine patients were lost to follow-up, 46 were deceased, and 11 declined to participate, leaving 61 potential patients for inclusion, 46 of whom were treated with ORIF (average follow-up, 4.4 years; range, 1.1-8.0 years). Standardized telephone interviews included hip-specific questions and validated outcome measures. Rates of conversion to hip arthroplasty and hip-specific validated outcome scores. Among 46 patients treated with ORIF (15 others were treated nonoperatively or with percutaneous screw fixation), 28% underwent hip arthroplasty an average 2.5 years after injury (range, 0.4-5.5 years) and had an average Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis score of 17 (range, 0-56; n = 38). This score is similar to or better than the typical scores after elective arthroplasty for arthritis and much better than the scores for patients with established arthritis (P < 0.05). The average SF-8 Health Survey physical component score was 46.1 (range, 31-62), similar to US population norms for the geriatric age group (P > 0.20). Few data exist regarding the treatment outcomes for geriatric acetabular fractures. It is difficult for clinicians to decide among ORIF, percutaneous fixation, acute arthroplasty, and nonoperative treatment. Our protocol of mostly ORIF showed a high 1-year mortality rate of 25% and a rate of conversion to arthroplasty after ORIF of 28%. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Is Surgical Fixation for Stress-Positive Unstable Ankle Fractures Cost Effective? Results of a Multicenter Randomized Control Trial

A recent multicenter randomized control trial demonstrated similar quality of life at 1 year after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) compared with nonoperative treatment for stress-positive unstable isolated lateral malleolar fractures. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of ORIF compared with nonoperative management of these isolated lateral malleolar fractures. Cost-utility analysis using decision tree and Markov modeling based on data from a prospective randomized control trial and previously published literature. A single-payer perspective with 1-year and lifetime time horizons was adopted. Clinical trial data from 6 Canadian level I trauma hospitals. Lateral malleolus ORIF versus nonoperative treatment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The base case 1-year ICER of the ORIF treatment was $205,090 per quality-adjusted life year gained, favoring nonoperative treatment. For the lifetime time horizon, ORIF becomes the preferred treatment with an ICER of $16,404 per quality-adjusted life year gained. This conclusion is stable provided ORIF lowers the lifetime incidence of ankle arthrosis by >3% compared with nonoperative treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 33% of model simulations favored ORIF in the 1-year time horizon and 65% of simulations in the lifetime time horizon. From a single-payer governmental perspective, ORIF does not seem to be cost effective in the 1-year time horizon; however, if operative fixation decreases the lifetime incidence of posttraumatic ankle arthrosis by >3%, then ORIF becomes the economically preferred treatment. Economic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Operative Compared with Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Intra-articular Calcaneal Fractures

Four hundred 24-four patients with 471 displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures were randomized to receive either open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or nonoperative care. Satisfaction was evaluated based on short form-36 and visual analog scale scores. No statistically significant differences were reported in either SF-36 or VAS scores following ORIF versus conservative treatment. However, regardless of treatment type, patients receiving Workers' Compensation scored significantly lower on both assessments than those who were not receiving Workers' Compensation.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Closed Treatment and Mandibulomaxillary Fixation of Fractures of the Mandibular Condylar Process: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Study With Special Evaluation of Fracture Level

This randomized, clinical multicenter trial investigated the treatment outcomes of displaced condylar fractures, and whether radiographic fracture level was a prognostic factor in therapeutic decision-making between open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus closed reduction and mandibulomaxillary fixation (CRMMF). Sixty-six patients with 79 displaced fractures (deviation of 10 degrees to 45 degrees, or shortening of the ascending ramus >or=2 mm) of the condylar process of the mandible at 7 clinical centers were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to CRMMF (n = 30 patients) or ORIF (n = 36 patients) treatment. The following parameters were measured 6 months after the trauma. Clinical parameters included mouth opening, protrusion, and laterotrusion. Radiographic parameters included level of the fracture, deviation of the fragment, and shortening of the ascending ramus. Subjective parameters included pain (according to a visual analogue scale), discomfort, and subjective functional impairment with a mandibular functional impairment questionnaire. The difference in average mouth opening was 12 mm (P <or= .001) between both treatment groups. The average pain level (visual analogue scale from 0 to 100) was 25 after CRMMF, and 1 after ORIF (P <or= .001). In 53 unilateral fractures, better functional results were observed for ORIF compared with CRMMF, irrespective of fracture level (condylar base, neck, or intracapsular head). Unexpectedly, the subjective discomfort level decreased with ascending level of the fracture. In patients with bilateral condylar fractures, ORIF was especially advantageous. Fractures with a deviation of 10 degrees to 45 degrees, or a shortening of the ascending ramus >or=2 mm, should be treated with ORIF, irrespective of level of the fracture.