Open Reduction Internal Fixation Group Research Articles

SURGICAL OUTCOMES IN INTRAMEDULLARY FIBULAR NAIL FIXATION COMPARED WITH PLATE FIXATION OF DISTAL FIBULAR FRACTURES

IntroductionThe condition of the soft tissues surrounding an ankle fracture influences timing and treatment of injuries. Conventional treatment used an open approach to facilitate anatomical reduction and rigid internal fixation. Intramedullary devices for fibular fractures provide a safe alternative in patients in which the condition of the soft tissue envelope or the patient's co-morbidities may benefit from a less invasive approach. We compared outcomes for patients treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with those undergoing treatment with fibular nails (FN)Methods13 consecutive patients treated with fibular nails (FN) were compared with 13 age-matched patients that underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). All patients were followed to union. Study outcomes were time from admission to surgery, length of stay, wound failure, implant failure, revision surgery, OMAS and SF-36ResultsThere was no difference in age or sex distribution between groups. There was no difference in OMAS at 1 year (83 ± 9 in FN group; 80± 21 in ORIF group) and SF-36 (94 ± 11 and 90 ± 20). There were 2 implant failures in the ORIF group and none in the FN group. There was one wound failure in the ORIF group and none in the FN group. Patients treated with FN had a shorter time to surgery (1 day ± 24 hours vs 3 days ± 24 hours) and shorter length of stay (1 day ± 24 hours vs 4 days ± 96 hours)ConclusionFN is a safe method to treat patients with displaced distal fibular fractures that may have a poor soft tissue envelope and risk factors for wound healing. FN reduces the time to surgery and overall length of stay compared with similar patients treated with conventional ORIF.

Comparison of closed percutaneous screw reduction versus open reduction and internal fixation in the treatment of frontal sinus fractures: A retrospective study

The aim of this study was to compare closed percutaneous screw reduction to traditional open reduction-internal fixation (OR-IF) for the treatment of anterior table fractures. Both groups were evaluated in terms of operative variables, complications, and treatment success. Of 32 patients included, 19 patients underwent OR-IF, while 13 underwent percutaneous screw reduction. The median operative time, length of hospital stays, and treatment cost of the OR-IF group were 100 min (range 60-130), 4 days (range 3-9), and $727 (range $642-$1291), respectively. The same variables for the closed reduction group were 30 min (range 20-40), 2 days (range 1-2), and $303 (range $252-$349), respectively. The closed reduction group exhibited a shorter operative time (p< 0.001), reduced length of hospital stays (p< 0.001), lower treatment cost (p< 0.001), and a lower complication rate (p = 0.025) compared to the OR-IF group. Late-term outcomes in both groups showed no visible contour changes or step deformities. In conclusion, the percutaneous screw reduction technique is a safe and effective option with minimal morbidity in the treatment of frontal sinus anterior table fractures. Therefore, traditional OR-IF should be reserved for fractures that are not suitable for reduction using minimally invasive techniques.

Surgical outcomes and complication rates of arthroscopic-assisted fixation versus open fixation for coronoid fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Coronoid fractures often occur with complex elbow dislocations, accounting for 15% of elbow fractures. The effectiveness of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus arthroscopic-assisted reduction internal fixation (ARIF) surgeries for coronoid fractures remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these two surgical approaches in treating varus posteromedial injuries. Methods This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The primary outcomes assessed in this study were the functional outcomes measured by the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and the complications associated with each surgical approach. Results Analysis of the data from 759 patients included in this study revealed that the mean postoperative MEPS score was higher in the ARIF group compared to the ORIF group (97.5 Vs. 90.7), with the mean improvement in MEPS was 16.6 points (19 for ORIF and 14.3 for ARIF). The complication rate in the ORIF group was 24.6%, while the ARIF group reported a complication rate of 6%. Conclusion This study suggests that ARIF surgery can yield comparable and promising outcomes to ORIF surgery for coronoid fractures. Level of evidence IV

The Effect of Skeletal Fixation on Nerve Healing in a Rat

Objective To investigate the effect of rigid internal skeletal fixation of a rat femoral shaft fracture on the healing of an induced sciatic nerve crush injury as assessed by functional outcomes. Methods Thirty-six male Lewis rats were divided into two groups. A unilateral sciatic nerve crush injury and a same-level transverse femur fracture were created in all animals. Animals in the first group underwent immediate open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with a stainless steel plate and screws. Animals in the second group were treated non-operatively (NON) without internal or external fixation or bracing. At each of the six-time points relevant to different nerve degeneration and regeneration stages, three animals in each group underwent bilateral limb assessments of electrophysiology, muscle mass, and nerve histomorphometry. Results Outcome measurements of the ORIF group (n=17) and NON group (n=16) showed the ORIF group to have both significantly greater tibialis anterior muscle force generation and sciatic nerve conduction velocity across the zone of injury for the overall groups. Force and conduction velocity measurements were greater for the ORIF group at selective time points in the subgroup analysis. Histologic analysis confirmed a greater cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve in the ORIF group. Conclusion This study provides information about the influence of the stability of the skeletal and soft tissue environment on the nerve healing process. The significantly greater maximum force generation and conduction velocity and the increased cross-sectional areas with greater axon counts observed in our ORIF group support our hypothesis that rigid internal skeletal fixation of a fracture promotes superior recovery of a concomitant peripheral nerve injury. The findings of this study suggest that superior healing of the peripheral nerve injury may occur with stable skeletal fixation.

Rehabilitation progress following reverse total shoulder replacement and internal fixation for geriatric three and four-part proximal humerus fractures – a propensity score matched comparison

BackgroundProximal humerus fracture is one of the most common fractures in the elderly population. However, in patients with complex fracture patterns, there is still no general consensus in the best treatment method. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes between those treated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF).MethodsAll geriatric patients (> 60 years of age) with proximal humerus fractures undergoing surgical treatment were analysed. There were 25 patients treated with rTSA and 75 with ORIF. Propensity score matching was used to select 25 matching patients from the ORIF group according to age and gender. All patients underwent surgical intervention within 7 days (mean 3.8 days). All patients followed a protocol-driven rehabilitation programme with outcome assessment at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Constant score, qDASH, range of motion, rate of complications and revision surgery were recorded and compared.ResultsTwenty-five rTSA were age and gender matched with 25 ORIF patients. The average age of patients in rTSA and ORIF groups were 77.0 years and 75.2 years respectively. At 3 months, mean Constant score was 37.7 (rTSA) vs 45.5 (ORIF) (p = 0.099). Mean qDASH score was 50.6 (rTSA) vs 29.4 (ORIF) (p = 0.003). Mean forward flexion range was 72.9° (rTSA) vs 94.4° (ORIF) (p = 0.007). Mean abduction range was 64.0° (rTSA) vs 88.6° (ORIF) (p = 0.001). At 2 years, mean Constant score was 72.8 (rTSA) vs 70.8 (ORIF) (p = 0.472). Mean qDASH score was 4.50 (rTSA) vs 11.0 (ORIF) (p = 0.025). Mean forward flexion range was 143° (rTSA) vs 109° (ORIF) (p < 0.001). Mean abduction range was 135° (rTSA) vs 110° (ORIF) (p = 0.025). There was a higher number of complications observed for ORIF (3) than rTSA (1) (p = 0.297) and a higher number of re-operations for ORIF (3) than rTSA (1) (p = 0.297), which was not statistically significant.ConclusionrTSA appears to yield a slower recovery at 3 months but a better outcome at 2 years. It is a promising treatment for geriatrics with three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures aiming for a better long-term functional outcome.

Republication of "Primary Ankle Arthrodesis vs ORIF for Severely Comminuted Pilon Fractures: A Comparative Retrospective Study".

The treatment for highly comminuted pilon fractures remains controversial. The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to compare functional outcomes of primary arthrodesis of the tibiotalar joint (fusion) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Patients who underwent primary ORIF or fusion for pilon fractures at our institution since 2000 were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code. Inclusion criteria for the ORIF cohort were patients with an AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association type C3 pilon fracture. Additional inclusion criteria for the fusion cohort were patients whose fractures were deemed non-reconstructable by the treating surgeon. Outcome assessment was determined by the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and Short Form 36-item health survey (SF-36), time to radiographic union or fusion, and wound-healing complications at a minimum of 2 years after their surgery. Nineteen ORIF and 16 fusion patients completed the study's outcome assessments. A higher rate of nonunion was observed in patients treated by primary ORIF than primary fusion (5/19 vs 1/16). Posttraumatic arthritis was observed in 11 of 19 primary ORIF patients. Primary fusion patients exhibited increased symptoms, pain, and physical role limits but were equivalent to primary ORIF patients on all other functional metrics examined. Primary ankle arthrodesis achieves a lower rate of nonunion and comparable functional outcomes to ORIF in patients with severely comminuted pilon fractures. The higher rate of nonunion observed in the primary ORIF group suggests that primary fusion should be considered an effective procedure for severe injuries to decrease the need for further operative intervention. Therapeutic Level III, retrospective cohort.

Periprosthetic Fractures around Total Hip Replacement-Is There a Rush to Fix?

Periprosthetic fractures now account for 14.1% of all hip revisions. Surgery is often highly specialised and can involve the revision of implants, fixation of fractures, or a combination of both. Delays to surgery are frequent as specialist equipment and surgeons are often required. UK guidelines are currently moving in favour of early surgery in a similar way to the neck of femur fractures, despite a lack of evidential consensus. A retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgery for periprosthetic fractures around a total hip replacement (THR) at a single unit between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Risk factors for complications, length of stay (LOS), and time to surgery data were collected and analysed using regression analysis. A total of 88 patients met the inclusion criteria: 63 (72%) were treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and 25 (28%) underwent revision THR. Baseline characteristics were similar in both the ORIF and revision groups. Revision surgery was more likely to be delayed than ORIF owing to the need for specialist equipment and personnel (median 143 h vs. 120 h, p = 0.04). Median LOS was 17 days if operated within 72 h and 27 days if delayed beyond this (p < 0.0001), but there was no increase in 90-day mortality (p = 0.66), HDU admission (p = 0.33), or perioperative complications (p = 0.27) with delay beyond 72 h. Periprosthetic fractures are complex and require a highly specialised approach. Delaying surgery does not result in increased mortality or complications but does increase length of stay. Further multicentre research into this area is required.

Current Management of Subcondylar Fractures: A Systematic Review.

The aim of this study is to review the current literature on treatment of subcondylar fractures using traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), and endoscopic open approaches. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. A comprehensive database search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All English-only texts published in the last 20 years with ≥10 patients were included. Studies that included patients <16 years old were excluded. Thirty-two studies met the final inclusion criteria. Nine studies compared ORIF with closed reduction using MMF, 12 studies evaluated ORIF via different approaches, and 10 studies evaluated outcomes after endoscopic approaches. Five studies reported significant improvement in mouth opening with ORIF compared to closed reduction. In 1 study that recorded patient-reported outcomes measure (FACE-Q scale), quality of life scores and patient satisfaction were significantly higher in the ORIF group. Among the 10 studies that used the endoscopic approach, transient facial nerve injury ranged from 0% to 10%. Several studies report better mouth opening, dental occlusion, and functional outcomes after ORIF compared to closed reduction, while some found no significant difference. Endoscopic approaches provide ease of access to the condyle with a low incidence of facial nerve injury. However, limitations include special equipment, longer operative times, and a steep learning curve using an endoscope. This review provides surgeons with an overview of the current literature on subcondylar fractures to allow for an individualized management approach for each patient.

Open fixation of the posterior malleolus increases the morbidity of trimalleolar ankle fracture fixation.

To assess the morbidity of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of posterior malleolus fractures (PMFs) in the setting of trimalleolar ankle fractures. A retrospective review of 79 trimalleolar ankle fractures was performed to identify need for syndesmotic fixation, blood loss, operative/tourniquet time, complications, and reoperations. Patients with PMF ORIF (n = 38) were compared to those with no fixation (n = 41). A subanalysis of patients with small PMFs (< 25%) was performed. The PMF ORIF group required less syndesmosis fixation (proportional difference (PD) - 44.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 61.8 to - 23.0%), had more blood loss (MD 20ml, CI 0-40), longer operative times (MD 53.0min, CI 35.9-70.1), longer tourniquet times (MD 26min, CI 4-33), and had no difference in postoperative joint step-off or concentrically reduced joints. The PMF ORIF group had more postoperative complications (PD 26.9%, CI6.3-44.8%) and a trend for more reoperations (PD 13.6%,CI -3.4 to 29.6%). Wound complications were more common in the PMF ORIF group (PD 26.5%, CI 6.9-43.6%), resulting in 5 (16.1%) irrigation and debridement procedures. On analysis of patients with small PMFs (n = 42), PMF ORIF (n = 15) resulted in longer operative/tourniquet times and had no observed difference in postoperative joint step-off, concentrically reduced joints, need for syndesmotic fixation, blood loss, or complications/reoperations. PMF ORIF in the setting of trimalleolar ankle fractures was associated with increased operative/tourniquet times, blood loss, wound complications, and did not eliminate the need for syndesmosis fixation.

Arthroscopic-Assisted Minimal Invasive Surgery for Weber C Ankle Fractures: Comparation to Open Reduction Internal Fixation

Category: Trauma; Arthroscopy Introduction/Purpose: After acceptable reduction and internal fixation for ankle fractures, some patients regularly suffer from residual symptoms, presumably due to occult intra-articular injuries. Recently, arthroscopic-assisted technique for ankle fractures was introduced. However, there was no previous study that investigate the outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted minimal invasive surgery (MIS) for pronation type ankle fractures. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic- assisted MIS surgery to conventional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for Weber C ankle fractures. Methods: Between 2016 and 2019, 86 patients with Weber C type ankle fractures with minimum 2 years follow up were included. Patients were sorted to 2 groups according to operation technique (MIS group (n=34): arthroscopic-assisted MIS, ORIF group (n=52): conventional ORIF). In MIS group, fibula fractures were fixed using fibula nail. Medial and posterior malleolus fractures were fixed using cannulated screw arthroscopically assisted with pin point wound. Syndesmosis injury was treated with arthroscopic reduction and screw fixation. Intraarticular lesions such as loose body or osteochondral lesion of talus were removed or debrided arthroscopically. Clinical outcomes were compared using a visual analog scale (VAS), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). In addition, postoperative complications including posttraumatic arthritis were evaluated. Results: There were no significant differences between 2 groups in VAS, FAOS. There were 2 cases of postoperative infections and 4 cases of wound problems in ORIF group, but there was no complication in MIS group. There were 1 cases of obvious advanced posttraumatic arthritis in MIS group and 3 cases in ORIF group. Conclusion: Arthroscopic-assisted minimal invasive surgery was effective treatment option with low rate of wound problem in for Weber C ankle fractures.

859 A Single Center Retrospective Study Comparing Retrograde TibioTaloCalcaneal Nailing vs Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Ankle Fractures in a Comorbid Elderly Population

Abstract Aim The aim of this paper is to compare the functional outcomes and complication rates of ankle fractures treated with retrograde tibiotalocalcaneal nail (TTC) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Method Matched cohorts according to age and Charlson Comorbidities Index (CCI) (mean=6) were established by performing a retrospective search of a prospectively collated Bluespier® database for patients within our unit who underwent TTC nailing and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for acute trauma from 2015 to 2021. Results 32 patients (8 males/ 24 females) were identified in both the TTC and ORIF groups with mean ages of 78.4 (55–96) and 78.3 (52–93) respectively. Mean follow-up length was 6 months in both groups. All fractures were classified according to AO classification. 3.1% of fractures were 44A, 71.9% 44B, 25% 44C in the TTC group compared to 3.1% 44A, 59.4% 44B and 37.5% 44C fractures in the ORIF group. Surgical site infection rate was 9.4% in the TTC group compared to 6.3% in the ORIF group. Both groups had a similar implant failure rate of 9.4%. 2/32 (6.3%) suffered from periprosthetic fractures in the TTC group and 1 of them required re-operation. 45% of patients in the TTC group returned to their pre-injury level of mobility compared to 40.6% in the ORIF group at their last follow up. Conclusions Our study showed that retrograde TTC nailing can be a useful treatment option for ankle fractures in the comorbid elderly, restoring function and enabling return to full weight bearing immediately after surgery.

Results of Low Distal Femur Periprosthetic Fractures.

To compare retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in very distal periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs) to determine whether RIMN is an acceptable option for these fractures that are often considered too distal for IMN due to limited bone stock. Retrospective comparative series. Level 1 trauma center. Patients were treated with fracture fixation for a very distal PDFF, defined as the fracture extending to the anterior flange of the implant or distal. Fifty-six patients met inclusion criteria, with 8 excluded for less than 12 months of follow-up. The intervention involved fracture fixation with RIMN or ORIF. The primary outcome was unplanned return to surgery. Secondary outcomes included fracture union, radiographic alignment, visual analog score, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference. The mean follow-up period was 27 months. Twelve patients were treated with ORIF and 36 with RIMN. Twenty-one fractures were at the flange, and 27 extended distal to the flange. There were no differences between fixation methods for reoperation, deep infection, nonunion, malunion, visual analog score pain score, and PROMIS Pain Interference score. The mean PROMIS PF score was higher in the RIMN group compared with that in the ORIF group. There were 5 reoperations in the RIMN group (14%) and 3 in the ORIF group (25%). This is the largest series, to the best of our knowledge, of a subset of very distal PDFFs. The results suggest that RIMN may be an acceptable treatment option for these very difficult fractures. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Radial head arthroplasty vs. open reduction and internal fixation for the treatment of terrible triad injury of the elbow: A systematic review and meta-analysis update.

Terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) is a severe high-energy injury to the elbow, mainly including elbow dislocation, coronoid fracture and radial head fracture. It is difficult to maintain the stability of the elbow joint using traditional conservative treatment, and there is a high risk of redislocation and various complications. Therefore, surgical treatment is currently advocated, mainly for repairing damaged ligaments and reconstructing bony structures, but there is still controversy about the treatment plan for the radial head. The current meta-analysis was conducted to compare the differences in efficacy of radial head arthroplasty (RHA) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of TTIE. Published literature related to the treatment (either ORIF or RHA) of TTIE was searched for in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. According to the search strategy, a total of 1,928 related publications were retrieved. The patient must have been diagnosed with TTIE and required surgery on the radial head. The interventions were RHA and ORIF. Non-case-control studies, case reports, review articles, letters, duplicate reports and literature without sufficient relevant data were excluded. The quality of the literature was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology and the Jadad scale. After data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using ReviewManager 5.4 software (Cochrane). A total of 15 studies involving 455 patients (189 who underwent RHA and 266 who underwent ORIF) were included. Range of motion (ROM) of the forearm (pronation-supination arc) after surgery in the RHA group [95% CI (0.28, 9.59); P=0.04] was found to be significantly superior to the ORIF group, with a lower incidence of complications [95% CI (0.22, 0.84); P=0.01]. However, there was no statistically significant difference for the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score nor for ROM of the elbow (flexion-extension arc). Overall, compared with the ORIF group, the RHA group had better forearm rotational ROM and fewer complications after surgery. Therefore, RHA was found to be superior to ORIF in the treatment of TTIE.

Hemiarthroplasty versus open reduction internal fixation for intra-articular distal humerus fractures in older patients.

Intra-articular distal humerus fractures in the older population remain a challenge to fix, due to the comminution of fragments and poor bone stock. Recently Elbow Hemiarthroplasty (EHA) has gained popularity to treat these fractures, however no studies exist comparing EHA to Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF). To compare the clinical outcomes of patients over the age of 60 years treated with ORIF or EHA for multi-fragmentary distal humerus fractures. Thirty-six patients (mean age 73 years) treated surgically for a multi-fragmentary intra-articular distal humeral fracture were followed up for a mean duration of thirty-four months (12-73 months). Eighteen patients were treated with ORIF and eighteen with EHA. The groups were matched for fracture type, demographic characteristics and follow up time. Outcome measures collected included Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Visual Analogue pain Score (VAS), range of motion (ROM), complications, re-operations and radiographic outcomes. The quality of ORIF was judged against set radiographic criteria in order to understand the effect of sub-optimal ORIF technique. No significant clinical difference was found between EHA and ORIF in mean OES (42.5 vs 39.6, p = 0.28), mean VAS (0.5 vs 1.7, p = 0.08) or mean flexion-extension arc (123° vs 112°, p = 0.12). There were significantly more complications associated with ORIF compared to EHA (39% vs 6%, p = 0.04). ORIF executed with satisfactory fixation technique had a comparable complication rate compared to EHA (17% vs 6%, p = 0.6). Two ORIF patients required revision to Total Elbow Arthroplasty (TEA). None of the EHA patients required revision surgery. This study demonstrated similar short-term functional outcomes between EHA and ORIF for the treatment of multi-fragmentary intra-articular distal humeral fractures in patients >60 years of age. Early complications and re-operations were higher in the ORIF group, although this could be related to improper ORIF technique and patient selection.

Open versus closed pilon fractures: Comparison of management, outcomes, and complications

BackgroundDespite the low incidence of pilon fractures amongst lower limb injuries, their high impact nature presents difficulties in surgical management and recovery. The high complication rate and long recovery times presents a challenge for surgeons and patients. Current literature is varied, with no universal treatment algorithm. We aim to highlight differences in outcomes and complications between open and closed pilon fractures, and between patients treated by open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or fine wire fixator (FWF) for open and closed fracture subgroups. MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted at a major trauma centre including 135 patients over a 6-year period. Primary outcome was AOFAS score at 3, 6, and 12-months post-injury. Secondary outcomes included time to partial weight-bear (PWB) and full weight-bear (FWB), bone union time, and complications during the follow-up time. AO/OTA classification was used (43A: n = 23, 43B: n = 30, 43C: n = 82). Interobserver agreement was high for bone union time (kappa=0.882) and AO/OTA class (kappa=0.807). ResultsHigher AOFAS scores were seen in ORIF groups of both open and closed fractures, compared to FWF groups. The difference was not statistically significant apart from 12-month AOFAS score of 43C open fractures (p = 0.003) and in 43B closed fractures 3 and 6 months post-injury (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). The majority of ORIF subgroups, open and closed fractures, also had shorter time to PWB, FWB, time to union, and follow-up. Statistically significant differences were seen in the following cases: ORIF-treated 43B closed fracture subgroup had shorter time to PWB and FWB (p<0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively), ORIF-treated 43C closed fractures had shorter time to union (p = 0.005). Common complications for open fractures were non-union (24%), post-traumatic arthritis (16%); for closed fractures they were post-traumatic arthritis (24%), superficial infection (21%). All occurred more frequently in FWF-treated patients. ConclusionMost ORIF-treated subgroups in either open or closed pilon fractures showed better primary and secondary outcomes than FWF-treated subgroups, yet few were statistically significant. Overall, our use of a two-staged approach involving temporary external fixation, followed with ORIF or FWF achieved low complication rates and good functional recovery.

Outcomes Following Different Fixation Strategies of Neer Type IIB Distal Clavicle Fractures.

Multiple surgical techniques for fixation of Neer type IIB distal clavicle fractures have been described without consensus on optimal treatment. The purpose of this study is to compare functional and radiographic results with surgical management of Neer type IIB distal clavicle fractures at a single institution. Sixty-three patients with acute Neer type IIB fractures treated operatively were evaluated. Patients with a minimum of two year follow up were included. Functional scores included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Likert patient satisfaction (1 to 5). Radiographs were assessed for osseous union and coracoclavicular (CC) distance. Thirty-eight patients met inclusion with a mean follow-up of 5.3 years. Patients were divided into five groups based on fixation technique: suture-only CC fixation (n=6), CC screw fixation only (n=3), open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) without CC fixation (n=8), hook plate fixation (n=4), and ORIF with suture CC reconstruction (n=17). Outcome scores for the entire cohort were 91.8 for ASES, 90.2 for SANE, and 10.8 for STT. Patients with hook plates had significantly lower SANE score (p=0.016), but no other significant differences in functional, satisfaction, or radiographic outcomes were found between groups. Sixteen patients (42.1%) required reoperation. Treatment of Neer type IIB fractures via suture- only fixation, plate-only fixation, or a combination of both demonstrated satisfactory mid to long term outcomes. While implant removal was more common in the CC screw and ORIF groups, no fixation technique proved functionally superior.

Anatomic versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty for post-traumatic sequelae of operatively and nonoperatively treated proximal humerus fractures

BackgroundThis study aimed to determine whether there is a long-term difference in outcomes between anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) performed for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) sequelae. Hypotheses were as follows: (1) patients undergoing aTSA would have improved functional outcomes but a greater incidence of adverse events (AEs) and reoperation than those undergoing rTSA and (2) patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty after open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) would have worse outcomes with more AEs and reoperations than those undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for sequelae of nonoperatively managed PHF. MethodsA prospectively collected database was queried for patients with PHF sequelae undergoing aTSA or rTSA between 2007 and 2020 with minimum 2-year follow-up. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, postoperative AEs, functional outcomes, and range of motion (ROM) were compared between aTSA and rTSA groups. A secondary analysis was performed to compare patients treated with prior PHF ORIF vs. those treated nonoperatively. ResultsThere were 17 patients in the aTSA group and 83 patients in the rTSA group. Type I PHF sequelae predominated among patients who underwent aTSA (71% vs. 40%, P = .026). Incidence of total postoperative AEs was greater after aTSA than that after rTSA (12% vs. 5%, P = .277), with a significantly higher rate of glenoid aseptic loosening after aTSA (6% vs. 0%, P = .026). All AEs required reoperation except one in the rTSA group. The mean follow-up was 66 months for aTSA compared with 45 months for rTSA (P = .002). No differences in functional outcomes or ROM between aTSA and rTSA persisted beyond 3 months or at the final follow-up except external rotation, which favored aTSA for 3 years postoperatively. In the secondary analysis, there were 33 patients in the ORIF group and 67 in the non-ORIF group. One (3%) postoperative AE occurred in the ORIF group vs. five (7%) in the non-ORIF group (P = .385). At a mean follow-up of 4 years, there were no differences in functional outcome scores or ROM between ORIF and non-ORIF groups, except for patient-reported shoulder function (6.3 vs. 7.4, respectively, P = .037). ConclusionFor treatment of PHF sequelae, aTSA may result in a higher incidence of postoperative AEs and reoperation than rTSA, particularly due to glenoid aseptic loosening. No difference in functional outcome scores between aTSA and rTSA persists beyond 3 months or at the final follow-up. Although active external rotation is significantly improved after aTSA for the first 3 years postoperatively, no differences in ROM exist beyond 4 years at the final follow-up. Patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for PHF sequelae have comparable outcomes regardless of prior ORIF or nonoperative management. Level of evidenceLevel III; Retrospective Cohort Design; Treatment Study

Long-Term Incidence of Total Knee Arthroplasty after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Proximal Tibial and Distal Femoral Fractures: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Knee fractures often require open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for knee function recovery. More than one fifth of patients with knee fractures subsequently develop posttraumatic arthritis, and over 5% of them need total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We conducted this nationwide retrospective cohort study using the data of 2,000,000 people in the general population who received TKA and were followed up in the 17-year period 2001–2017, through random sampling of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. We matched the ORIF and non-fracture groups by a propensity score, based on age, sex, index date of surgery, and comorbidities enrolled in CCI calculated at a 1:1 ratio. The average proportion of subjects receiving TKA after ORIF for distal femoral or proximal tibial fractures was 2.0 per 1000 person-years, which was significantly higher than that in the non-fracture group. Patients aged 20–65 years and males represented a significantly higher proportion of subjects receiving TKA after ORIF than that in the non-fracture group. The proportion of subjects receiving TKA for the 20–65-year subgroup of the ORIF group was 4%, and that for the male subgroup was 1.5%; both rates increased over the 17-year follow-up period. More aggressive intraoperative and postoperative adjuvant therapies may be necessary for these subgroups.

L’utilisation d’autogreffe avec ostéosynthèse à foyer ouvert des fractures isolées de l’ulna distal améliore les résultats cliniques à court terme : une expérience sur 11 ans

BackgroundMost of the studies on ulna fractures assess the treatment of fractures accompanied by other tissue injuries; thus, the number of studies focused directly on isolated distal ulna fractures are very few. In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the short-term results of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and autograft+ORIF approaches in the treatment of isolated distal ulna fractures. HypothesisUsing autograft in the surgical treatment of isolated distal ulna fractures with open reduction internal fixation improves short-term clinical outcomes. Patients and methodsThe records of isolated distal ulna fractures (distal one-third) operated at the Maltepe University Hospital Orthopedics and Traumatology Clinic between January 2009 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The cases were divided into two groups according to surgical approach, ORIF (n=40) or autograft+ORIF (n=34). ResultsThe mean age was 41.55±12.42 years. Among the cases, 52.7% were female, 67.6% of the fractures were right-sided, and 37.8% of the traumas causing the fracture were high-energy trauma. There was no significant difference between the ORIF and autograft+ORIF groups in terms of age, gender, side and severity of trauma (p>0.05). It was found that pseudoarthrosis development was significantly more prevalent in the ORIF group (25%) compared to the autograft+ORIF group (5.9%) (p=0.026). The median (1st quartile-3rd quartile) time to union was 16 (14–17) weeks in the ORIF group, and 9.5 (8.5–12) weeks in the autograft+ORIF group. Compared to ORIF, the time to union was significantly shorter with the autograft+ORIF procedure (p<0.001). At both the 3rd and 12th month follow-up examinations, the autograft+ORIF group was found to have significantly higher MAYO score and grip strength, and lower DASH score, compared to the ORIF group. DiscussionWhen an autograft is used in addition to ORIF in the surgical treatment of isolated distal ulna fractures, the bone heals faster, pseudoarthrosis develops less frequently, and short-term (3rd and 12th months) functional results are better. Level of evidenceIII; Therapeutic Study.

Using autograft in the surgical treatment of isolated distal ulna fractures with open reduction internal fixation improves short-term clinical outcomes: 11 years of experience

BackgroundMost of the studies on ulna fractures assess the treatment of fractures accompanied by other tissue injuries; thus, the number of studies focused directly on isolated distal ulna fractures are very few. In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the short-term results of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and autograft+ORIF approaches in the treatment of isolated distal ulna fractures. HypothesisUsing autograft in the surgical treatment of isolated distal ulna fractures with open reduction internal fixation improves short-term clinical outcomes. Patients and methodsThe records of isolated distal ulna fractures (distal one-third) operated at the Maltepe University Hospital Orthopedics and Traumatology Clinic between January 2009 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The cases were divided into two groups according to surgical approach, ORIF (n=40) or autograft+ORIF (n=34). ResultsThe mean age was 41.55±12.42 years. 52.7% of the cases were female, 67.6% of the fractures were right-sided, and 37.8% of the traumas causing the fracture were high-energy trauma. There was no significant difference between the ORIF and autograft+ORIF groups in terms of age, gender, side and severity of trauma (p>0.05). It was found that pseudoarthrosis development was significantly more prevalent in the ORIF group (25%) compared to the autograft+ORIF group (5.9%) (p=0.026). The median (1st quartile–3rd quartile) time to union was 16 (14–17) weeks in the ORIF group, and 9.5 (8.5–12) weeks in the autograft+ORIF group. Compared to ORIF, the time to union was significantly shorter with the autograft+ORIF procedure (p<0.001). At both the 3rd and 12th month follow-up examinations, the autograft+ORIF group was found to have significantly higher MAYO score and grip strength, and lower DASH score, compared to the ORIF group. DiscussionWhen an autograft is used in addition to ORIF in the surgical treatment of isolated distal ulna fractures, the bone heals faster, pseudoarthrosis develops less frequently, and short-term (3rd and 12th months) functional results are better. Level of evidenceIII; therapeutic study.