Osteosynthesis of periprosthetic type A and B femoral fractures using an unlocked plate with integrated cerclage cable and trochanteric hook: A multicenter retrospective study of 45 patients with mean follow-up of 20 months.

INTRODUCTION: Femoral periprosthetic fracture (FPF) is a frequent complication in dependent elderly persons, with a limited life expectancy. Their management is difficult and the choice between osteosynthesis and prosthesis is still matter of discussion. To date, there is no study on unlocked plate with integrated cerclage cable and trochanteric hook for this indication. The objectives of this study were to analyze fracture healing, complication rate and functional outcome. Our hypothesis is that this technique allows a high rate of consolidation and a return to the previous state in terms of autonomy and place of residence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study between 2010 and 2015. The inclusion criteria were: patients with type A and B FPF according to the classification of Vancouver who received osteosynthesis hook plate. The evaluation focused on the consolidation period, complications and pre and postoperative Parker and Katz scores. Death, nonunion, dislocation, infection and failure of fixation were considered major complications. RESULTS: Forty-five patients met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated at mean 20 months (6-72). All fractures consolidated at a mean 7 weeks (6-10), except one that has not undergone further surgery in the absence of functional impairment. Parker score decreased from 6.4 to 4.9 (p=0.03) and Katz score from 4.8 to 4.3 (p=0.045). Five patients died within the year of the operation. Five patients living at home preoperatively were admitted to an institution, the others returned to their retirement home or nursing home. CONCLUSION: This plate allows for a quick and effective management of patients with FPF. The low rate of complications and the very good consolidation rate lead us to use the same plate even for class B2 or B3 fractures in some patients with precarious health condition who cannot tolerate major revision surgery: Elderly, ASA score >3, loss of autonomy, Katz score <4.

Advantages of external hybrid fixators for treating Schatzker V-VI tibial plateau fractures: A retrospective study of 40 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Proximal tibia fractures make up 1% of all fractures in adults. The fractures classified as Schatzker V and VI fractures can compromise knee structure and function. They are challenging to treat and often have complications. While plate fixation is the gold standard, the resulting infection rate has led us to favor external hybrid fixation. The aims of this study were to assess the radiographic and functional outcomes along with the complication rate when using this method and to compare them to historical plate fixation data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 40 patients. The complications, quality of reduction, IKS, Lysholm and Rasmussen functional scores at the latest follow-up and factors affecting the functional outcome were evaluated. These parameters were compared to published results from plate fixation studies. RESULTS: The deep infection rate was 2.5%. The union rate was 80%. Satisfactory reduction was obtained in 70% of cases; however, 52% of patients had malunion. The mean IKS score was 73.74, the mean Rasmussen score was 22.85 and the mean Lysholm score was 75.53. Age, reduction at latest follow-up, mechanical axis and anteroposterior laxity had a significant effect on the functional outcome. DISCUSSION: Despite the malunion rate being higher than other studies, the functional outcomes were nearly identical based on the variables measured. There are several advantages associated with using a hybrid external fixator: shorter operative time, less bleeding, shorter hospital stays and lower infection rate. CONCLUSION: Hybrid external fixation is a reliable fracture fixation method that leads to satisfactory functional outcomes, while reducing the infection rate and allowing arthroplasty to be performed in the future if needed.

Is amputation a viable treatment option in lower extremity trauma?

INTRODUCTION: There is currently no consensus on how to treat patients with lower extremity trauma. Should amputation be performed early on to avoid complications or should the limb be saved at any price? The goal of this study was to show that early amputation is a viable treatment option in lower extremity trauma cases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients who underwent early amputation and 16 patients who underwent limb-salvage were included with a minimum follow-up of 1year. The main endpoints were the Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS) used to predict amputation, complications, sequelae, bone union and functional outcomes. RESULTS: The amputees had a higher MESS score than those treated conservatively (7.8 vs. 4.9, P<0.00001), had a shorter hospital stay (P<0.022) and had fewer postoperative complications (P<0.003), especially infection-related (P<0.001). The prevalence of infection in limb-salvage patients was 61%. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of quality of life. DISCUSSION: In cases of lower extremity trauma, early amputation and limb-sparing treatment each have their advantages and disadvantages. Early amputation seems to be better in cases of complications, despite similar quality of life in the two groups in the long-term. It is a viable treatment option in cases of lower extremity trauma. Amputation must not be considered as a failure, but a deliberate choice due to the functional impact of complications that occur after limb-salvage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV study.