Outcomes following non-operatively managed periprosthetic fractures surrounding uncemented femoral stems.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to explore the outcomes of Vancouver B periprosthetic hip fractures that were managed non-operatively with a particular focus on 1-year mortality. Understanding this mortality data will allow surgeons to better understand the risk associated with non-operative management. The secondary aim was to evaluate our case series and current literature with regards to identifying suitable patients for non-operative treatment. METHODS: Our electronic fracture database was interrogated for all Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures treated at our institution between April 2009 to April 2019; 18 patients were identified. All available data was then collected from radiographic, electronic and paper notes. A comprehensive literature search of PUBMED and EMBASE databases was then conducted with all relevant literature reviewed. RESULTS: 1-year mortality of these patients was noted at 22.2%; highlighting the severity of these injuries. No patients required conversion to surgical management, sustained a dislocation or went into non-union. With regards to literature no case series focussing on non-operative management outcomes were reported. There was a marked paucity of literature relating to conservative management of these injuries. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge this is the first published case series focussing solely on nonoperatively managed Vancouver B periprosthetic hip fractures. This paper provides evidence from the first reported case series with which surgeons can counsel patients on the significant mortality risk associated with these fractures. Non-operative management of periprosthetic hip fractures is possible after careful analysis of the fracture configuration, implant and patient characteristics. Whilst we have outlined several findings from our first reported case series, further research is required from a larger prospective case series in order to make evidence based recommendations.

Distal Femoral Replacement as a Primary Treatment Method for Distal Femoral Fractures in the Elderly.

Distal femoral fractures account for 3-6% of all femoral fractures with a similar demographic as patients suffering from proximal femoral fractures. The mortality risk can be high in such injuries, which has prompted NHS England to extend the scope of the Best Practice Tariff to include all fragility fractures of the femur. Poor bone quality, intra-articular extension, and significant comminution can make these fractures difficult to manage with fixation techniques, while early mobilisation is a key outcome in the treatment of this injury. In this study, a comprehensive literature search was performed based on keywords, and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant articles. The following factors were analysed: time to surgery, time to full weight-bearing, the average hospital stay, post-operative mobility status, and complications. A total of 233 abstracts were identified using the pre-determined search criteria, and, subsequently, articles were excluded following author review. A total of 10 relevant articles were included in this review, with five used for review and comparison between distal femoral replacement (DFR) and fixation. This resulted in a sample of 200 patients treated with DFR with over 87% ambulatory at follow-up and a re-operation rate of 13.3% compared to 78% and 13.5%, respectively, in those treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) procedure. Despite a limited pool of evidence, the literature suggests that DFR offers an option that potentially allows immediate weight-bearing and leaves most patients ambulatory at follow-up. Although DFR is more costly than other operative techniques, it avoids complications associated with fixation such as non-union and can reduce the risk of further surgery through direct complications or a need for delayed arthroplasty, which is deemed more complex secondary to fixation. Early mobilisation is a key step in reducing morbidity and mortality among this cohort of patients, and a procedure such as DFR should be more widely considered to help achieve this outcome.

Sub-Acute Syndesmotic Injury: A Review and Proposed Treatment Algorithm.

Sub-acute syndesmotic injuries are classified as from six weeks to six months from the initial injury date and can be considered a distinct group of patients; however, they are often mistreated and progress to chronic injuries with significant sequelae. The authors performed a comprehensive literature search on the MEDLINE database. The search yielded 165 studies up to January 2021, after the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. This yielded 10 studies with a total of 156 relevant patients for review. We found that a delay in diagnosis is common and has a negative impact on outcomes. If a sub-acute syndesmotic injury is suspected and plain radiographs are inconclusive, magnetic resonance imaging is indicated if there is still an index of suspicion. Surgical intervention should aim to restore normal length and rotational alignment of the fibula whilst also addressing the need to debride tissues within the joint and syndesmosis. Syndesmosis must then be adequately reduced and stabilised with syndesmotic screw fixation, and augmentation with tendon/ligament reconstruction should be considered. All studies showed an average improvement in functional outcome measures post-operatively. The only study to compare sub-acute and chronic patients' functional outcomes post-operatively showed significant improvement in the sub-acute cohort; highlighting the importance of early intervention. We suggest a treatment algorithm that may help with the diagnosis and management of these injuries. We believe this will help all healthcare professionals to standardise care. Further research is required to assess sub-acute injury outcomes with tendon/ligamentous augmented reconstruction, as no level 1 or 2 studies currently exist.

Proximal ulna fractures in adults: A review of diagnosis and management.

Proximal ulna fractures are relatively common upper limb injuries, which may represent fragility fractures or result from high-energy trauma. These include fractures of the olecranon, coronoid and associated radial head dislocations. A wide variety of treatment options are available for the management of these injuries that makes the selection of most appropriate treatment difficult. We aim to provide a brief overview of the treatment options for such injuries.

Lisfranc injury: A review and simplified treatment algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Lisfranc injuries encompass large spectrum of injuries varying from low energy to high energy complex fracture dislocations. Whilst multiple complex classification systems exist; these do little to aid and direct the clinical management of patients. Therefore, this study aims to provide a simplified treatment algorithm allowing clinicians to standardise care of Lisfranc injuries. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed, and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant literature. RESULTS: Delay in diagnosis has a negative impact on outcome. If a Lisfranc injury is suspected and plain radiographs are inconclusive; computed tomography and if necessary magnetic resonance imaging are indicated if there is still an index of suspicion. In the absence of joint dislocation/subluxation management will be determined by stability which can be best assessed by weightbearing radiographs. If stable, injuries can be treated conservatively in a non-weight bearing cast for 6 weeks followed by a period of graduated weight bearing. Evidence is mounting that with regard to unstable purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries primary arthrodesis (PA) has: better functional outcomes, increased cost effectiveness and reduced rates of return to theatre. With regard to bony unstable Lisfranc injuries more research is required before a single treatment modality - PA or open reduction internal fixation can be advocated, due to the lack of randomized control trials and limited patient follow-up periods in existing studies. CONCLUSION: A simplified treatment algorithm excluding the requirement for complex classifications is suggested. This may help with the diagnosis and management of these injuries. It is our believe that this algorithm will aid health professionals to standardize care for these injuries. Further prospective research trials are required to assess outcomes of different modalities of operative management, particularly with regards to open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis for bony Lisfranc injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5.