The risk of deep vein thrombosis in total joint patients compared to orthopaedic trauma patients: Need for new prevention guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The development of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) is a major concern following orthopaedic surgery. No study has yet to compare the rate and risk factors for DVT between total joint and orthopaedic trauma patients. To evaluate if DVT prophylaxis for trauma should differ from total joints, we explored the rate and risk factors for DVT between both cohorts. METHODS: Using a CPT code search from 2005 to 2013 in the ACS-NSQIP database, 150,657 orthopaedic total joint patients and 44,594 orthopaedic trauma patients were identified. DVT complications, patient demographics, preoperative comorbidities, and surgical characteristics were collected for each patient. A chi-squared test was used to compare the risk factors for DVT between orthopaedic trauma and total joint patients. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to adjust for comorbidities for each cohort. RESULTS: The rate of DVT diagnosis in the total joint population was 0.8% (N = 1186) and 0.98% (N = 432) in the orthopaedic trauma population (p = 0.57). After controlling for individual comorbidities, dyspnea, peripheral vascular disease, and renal failure were significant risk factors for DVT in total joint patients (p < 0.05), whereas age, ascites and steroid use were significant risk factors for DVT in orthopaedic trauma patients (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Historically, the risks for DVT in total joints have been emphasized, yet based on our results, the incidence of DVT is the same for orthopaedic trauma. However, the risk factors varied. It is therefore important to consider specialty-specific DVT prophylaxis for orthopaedic trauma patients in order to improve care and reduce postoperative complications.

A prospective multi-center study of intramedullary nailing vs casting of stable tibial shaft fractures.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine optimal treatment of stable tibial shaft fractures using intramedullary nailing (IMN) or casting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multi-center prospective study cohort. Patients with stable tibia shaft fractures meeting Sarmiento's criteria (isolated closed fractures with less than 12 mm of shortening and 10° of angulation) were enrolled prospectively and treated with either a reamed IMN with static interlocking screws or closed reduction followed by long-leg casting. Both groups were weight bearing following surgery. Radiographs were taken until union, and range of motion of knee and ankle joints was assessed. Malalignment (>5°) and malunion (>10°) were determined. Functional outcome measures using short musculoskeletal assessment scores (SMFA) and a knee pain score were scheduled at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. RESULTS: At 3 months, differences between the casting and IMN groups were noted in return to work (6/15 vs 3/17, P < 0.05); ankle dorsiflexion (7° vs 12°, P < 0.05); plantar flexion (28° vs 39°, P < 0.05); and SMFA domains of Dysfunction Index, Bother Index, daily activities, emotional status, and arm/hand function (P < 0.05). The SMFA mobility function demonstrated a significant trend (P = 0.065). At 6 months, malalignment was present in 3/15 in the casting group and in 1/17 in the IMN group (P = 0.02). Malunion was present in 1/15 in the cast group. One fracture in the casting group went on to nonunion and required late IMN placement at 7 months and eventually healed. There were no differences in ankle motion, SMFA scores, or return to work. There was no difference in knee pain between the groups as measured by VAS and Court-Brown pain scale at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stable tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing have improved clinical and functional outcomes at 3 months compared with those treated with casting, but there are no differences in any other outcome measure. Patients treated in a cast may have a higher incidence of malalignment or malunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-II prognostic.

Surgical Approaches to the Acetabulum and Modifications in Technique.

Acetabular injuries are often difficult to treat because the acetabulum is surrounded by many important structures, making access difficult and sometimes dangerous. Surgical exposures of the acetabulum are complex and require significant skill and in-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy. Each approach has its limitations, and the potential morbidity associated with these exposures can be daunting. Recent modifications to traditional acetabular approaches have been developed to address these issues. Knowledge of the ilioinguinal, Kocher-Langenbeck, and extended iliofemoral surgical exposures and the potential drawbacks associated with each approach are essential to optimize treatment and minimize morbidity.