ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures are becoming more common in the elderly and their management is frequently challenging. There is increasing evidence of good outcomes following fibula nail fixation in the management of ankle fractures. The use of a fibula nail in open fractures comes with potential advantages such as minimal soft tissue dissection, early rehabilitation, and decreased wound complications. We aimed to assess their use in the management of open ankle fractures in the elderly. METHODS: A review of patients aged 60 years or older with an open ankle fracture treated with a fibular nail at a major trauma center was conducted. All patients were managed with joint Orthopaedic and Plastic Surgical input to determine their optimal management. Functional outcome scores, postoperative complications, and re-operation rates were determined. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were identified with a mean age of 76 years. Patient-reported outcomes (Olerud and Molander Score) were calculated in 73% of patients. Our results demonstrated excellent outcome scores (>91) in 1 patient, good outcome scores (61-90) in 7 patients, and fair outcome scores (31-60) in 3 patients. There were no postoperative complications or re-operations within our study group. CONCLUSION: This article is the largest series presenting the outcomes of fibula nails in the management of open ankle fractures in elderly patients. We conclude that it can be used as a treatment option to safely manage open ankle fractures in the elderly. It provides a stable fixation, early weight-bearing, low risk of postoperative complications while maintaining good patient-reported functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To examine implementation of evidence in orthopaedic practice following publication of the results of three pivotal clinical trials. DESIGN: Case studies based on three orthopaedic trials funded in sequence by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. These trials dealt with treatment of fractures of the humerus, radius and ankle, respectively. For each case study, we conducted time-series analyses to examine the relationship between publication of findings and the implementation (or not) of the findings. RESULTS: The results of all three trials favoured the less expensive and less invasive option. In two cases, a change of practice, in line with the evidence that eventually emerged, preceded publication. Furthermore, the upturn in use of the intervention most supported by each of these two trials corresponded to the start of recruitment to the respective trial. The remaining trial failed to influence practice despite yielding clear-cut evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of results of all three HTA orthopaedic trials favoured the less expensive and less invasive option. In two of the three studies, a change in practice, in line with the evidence that eventually emerged, preceded publication of that evidence. A trend or a change in practice, at around the start of the trial, indicates that the direction of causation opposes our hypothesis that publication of trial findings would lead to changes in practice. Our results provide provocative insight into the nuanced topic of research and practice, but further qualitative work is needed to fully explain what led to the pre-emptive change in practice we observed and why there was no change in the third case.
