Association of Delayed Surgery for Ankle Fractures and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Several studies probe the association between prolonged time to surgery and postoperative complications in ankle fractures, but little is known about how a longer wait time affects clinical outcomes. The present study aims to assess the association between time from injury to surgery and patient-reported outcomes after operative treatment of severe ankle fractures. METHOD: Patients treated operatively for low-energy ankle fractures that also involve the posterior malleolus from 2014 to 2016 were included. Patient charts were reviewed for patient demographics, type of trauma, fracture characteristics, treatment given, and complications. Ankle function was evaluated on a follow-up visit by clinical examination, radiographs, and patient-reported outcome measures (Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score [SEFAS], RAND-36, visual analog scale [VAS] of Pain, VAS of Satisfaction). We compared patients treated within 1 week to those treated later than a week from injury for analyses. RESULTS: Follow-up visits of 130 patients were performed at mean 26 (SD 9) months after surgery. Patient demographics and fracture characteristics were similar between groups. Mean SEFAS was 34 (SD 10) in patients treated later than a week from injury vs 38 (SD 9) in those treated earlier (P = .012). Patients operated on later than 7 days from injury reported more pain (P = .008) and lower satisfaction than those treated earlier (P = .016). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective patient series of low-energy ankle fractures with posterior malleolar fragments, we found that waiting >7 days for definitive surgery was associated with poorer clinical outcomes and more pain compared with those who had surgery earlier. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Traditional Approach vs Posterior Approach for Ankle Fractures Involving the Posterior Malleolus.

BACKGROUND: In the past, posterior malleolus fragments (PMFs) commonly have been indirectly reduced and fixed when fragments involve 25% or more of the tibial articular surface, while smaller fragments were left unfixed. The posterior approach has become increasingly popular and allows fixation of even smaller fragments. This study compares clinical outcome for the 2 treatment strategies. METHODS: Patients with ankle fractures involving a PMF treated from 2014 to 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated to group A (treated with a posterior approach) or group B (treated with the traditional approach) according to the treatment given. A one-to-one matching of patients from each group based on the size of the PMF was performed. Patient charts were reviewed, and outcome evaluation was performed clinically, radiographically, and by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score, RAND-36, visual analog scale [VAS] of pain, and VAS of satisfaction). Forty-three patients from each group were matched. Median follow-up was 26 (interquartile range [IQR], 19-35) months postoperatively. RESULTS: The median PMF size was 17% (IQR, 12-24) in both groups, and they reported similar results in terms of PROMs. Fixation of the PMF was performed in 42 of 43 (98%) patients in group A and 7 of 43 (16%) patients in group B (P < .001). The former group more frequently got temporary external fixation (56% vs 12%, P < .01) and less frequently had syndesmotic fixation (14% vs 49%, P < .01), and they had less mechanical irritation and hardware removal but more noninfectious skin problems (28% vs 5%, P < .01). Median time from injury to definitive surgery (8 vs 0 days, P < .001) and median length of stay (12 vs 3 days, P < .001) were longer in group A. CONCLUSION: Comparison of treatment strategies for ankle fractures involving the posterior malleolus showed similar results between patients treated with a traditional approach and a posterior approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Graft fixation influences revision risk after ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts.

Background and purpose - A large number of fixation methods of hamstring tendon autograft (HT) are available for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Some studies report an association between fixation method and the risk of revision ACLR. We compared the risk of revision of various femoral and tibial fixation methods used for HT in Scandinavia 2004-2011. Materials and methods - A register-based study of 38,666 patients undergoing primary ACLRs with HT, with 1,042 revision ACLRs. The overall median follow-up time was 2.8 (0-8) years. Fixation devices used in a small number of patients were grouped according to design and the point of fixation. Results - The most common fixation methods were Endobutton (36%) and Rigidfix (31%) in the femur; and interference screw (48%) and Intrafix (34%) in the tibia. In a multivariable Cox regression model, the transfemoral fixations Rigidfix and Transfix had a lower risk of revision (HR 0.7 [95% CI 0.6-0.8] and 0.7 [CI 0.6-0.9] respectively) compared with Endobutton. In the tibia the retro interference screw had a higher risk of revision (HR 1.9 [CI 1.3-2.9]) compared with an interference screw. Interpretation - The choice of graft fixation influences the risk of revision after primary ACLR with hamstring tendon autograft.

Registry data highlight increased revision rates for endobutton/biosure HA in ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft: a nationwide cohort study from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry, 2004-2013.

BACKGROUND: Compared with a patellar tendon autograft (PT), a hamstring tendon autograft (HT) has an increased risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). There are no studies analyzing whether this can be explained by inferior fixation devices used in HT reconstruction or whether the revision risk of ACLR with an HT or a PT is influenced by the graft fixation. PURPOSE: To compare the risk of revision and the revision rates between the most commonly used combinations of fixation for HTs with PTs. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: This study included all patients registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from 2004 through 2013 who underwent primary PT or HT ACLR with no concomitant ligament injury and known graft fixation. The 2-year revision rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) for revision at 2 years were calculated using multivariate Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 14,034 patients with primary ACLR were identified: 3806 patients with PTs and 10,228 patients with HTs; the mean follow-up time was 4.5 years. In the HT group, 5 different combinations of fixation in the femur/tibia were used in more than 500 patients: Endobutton/RCI screw (n = 2339), EZLoc/WasherLoc (n = 1352), Endobutton/Biosure HA (n = 1209), Endobutton/Intrafix (n = 687), and TransFix II/metal interference screw (MIS) (n = 620). The crude 2-year revision rate for patients with PTs was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.0%), and for patients with HTs, it ranged between the groups from 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-2.4%) for TransFix II/MIS to 5.5% (95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%) for Endobutton/Biosure HA. When adjusted for detected confounding factors and compared with patients with PTs, the HR for revision at 2 years was increased for all HT combinations used in more than 500 patients, and the combinations Endobutton/Biosure HA and Endobutton/Intrafix had the highest HRs of 7.3 (95% CI, 4.4-12.1) and 5.5 (95% CI, 3.1-9.9), respectively. CONCLUSION: The choice of fixation after ACLR with an HT has a significant effect on a patient's risk of revision. In this study population, none of the examined combinations of HT fixation had a revision rate as low as that for a PT.

Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004-2012.

BACKGROUND: The graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is controversial. Hamstring tendon (HT) autografts and patellar tendon (PT) autografts are the most common grafts used and have shown similar subjective and objective outcomes. PURPOSE: To compare the revision rate between HT and PT autografts used in ACLR in Norway and to estimate the influence of patient age and sex. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The study included all patients who underwent primary ACLR without concomitant ligament injuries registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from 2004 through 2012. The cohort was stratified by age group (15-19, 20-29, and ≥30 years) and autograft type (HT or PT). Revision rates at 1, 2, and 5 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis, and hazard ratios (HRs) for revision were calculated using multivariate Cox regression models. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 4.0 years, 12,643 primary ACLRs were identified, with 3428 PT and 9215 HT grafts, among which 69 revisions with PT grafts and 362 revisions with HT grafts were performed. The overall 5-year revision rate was 4.2%. A higher revision rate was recorded for HT versus PT grafts at all follow-up times. When adjusted for sex, age, and type of graft, the HR for revision was 2.3 (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) for HT grafts compared with PT grafts. The HR for revision in the youngest age group was 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.2) compared with the oldest age group. Sex had no effect on the revision rate. CONCLUSION: Patients with HT grafts had twice the risk of revision compared with patients with PT grafts. Younger age was the most important risk factor for revision, and no effect was seen for sex. Further studies should be conducted to identify the cause of the increased revision rate found for HT grafts.

Registration rate in the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register: large-volume hospitals perform better.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register (NCLR) was founded in 2004. The purpose of the NCLR is to provide representative and reliable data for future research. In this study we evaluated the development of the registration rate in the NCLR. METHODS: The Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) and the electronic patient charts (EPCs) were used as reference data for public and private hospitals, respectively. Data were retrieved for all primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery during 2008-2009 in public hospitals and during 2008 in private hospitals. The NOMESCO classification of surgical procedures was used for identification of ACL surgeries. Public hospitals were divided into subgroups according to the annual number of operations in the NPR: small hospitals (< 30 operations) and large hospitals (≥ 30 operations). RESULTS: For the 2-year data extracted from public hospitals, 2,781 and 2,393 operations met the inclusion criteria according to the NPR and the NCLR, respectively, giving an average registration rate of 86% (95% CI: 0.85-0.87). The registration rate for small public hospitals was 69% (CI: 0.65-0.73), which was significantly less than for large public hospitals (89%, CI: 0.88-0.90; p < 0.001). In 2008, private hospitals reported 548 operations to the NCLR while 637 were found in the EPCs, giving a registration rate of 86% (CI: 0.83-0.89). In that year, the registration rate for public hospitals was 86%, which was similar to that for private hospitals. INTERPRETATION: The NCLR registration rate for the period 2008-09 was similar in both 2008 and 2009, and is satisfactory for research. There is room for improvement of registration rates, particularly in hospitals with a small volume of ACL operations.