Is immediate weight bearing safe for subtrochanteric femur fractures in elderly patients treated by cephalomedullary nailing? A multicentric study in one hundred eighty-two patients.

PURPOSE: Biomechanical superiority of intramedullary nails over extramedullary implants has been proved for subtrochanteric fractures. Nevertheless, postoperative management of these patients has not changed, with high rates of protected weight-bearing after intramedullary nailing. The purpose of this study is to determine the mechanical complications of immediate postoperative full weigh-bearing for subtrochanteric femur fractures in elderly patients treated with a cephalomedullary nail. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case series study from patients treated with a cephalomedullary nail for subtrochanteric fractures (AO/OTA 31A.3 and 32A-32C) over a nine-year period. Patients in the immediate full weight-bearing (IFWB) group received orders for immediate full weight bear as tolerated on postoperative 48 h. Patients in the non- or limited- weight-bearing (NLWB) group received orders not to full weight bear in the immediate postoperative. RESULTS: There were five (2.7%) cases of implant failure including four cutouts and one nail breakage that needed a reoperation. Of them, one (2.2%) followed the NLWB protocol and four (2.9%) followed the IFWB protocol. Mean length of stay was 7.9 days (median 8, range 3-21) in the NLWB group and 10.7 days (median 8, range 2-60) in the IWBAT group. The NLWB group observed a 2.8-day shorter postoperative length of stay when compared to the IFWB, but the median remained equal. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that geriatric patients with subtrochanteric fractures treated by intramedullary nailing and in which a good fracture reduction was achieved, may be able to tolerate immediate postoperative full weight-bearing, not increasing reoperation rates due to implant failure.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Computer-Assisted versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty at 5-Year Follow-Up: Is There Any Benefit?

Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty (CAS) remains controversial. Some authors defend that its improvement in knee alignment and positioning positively impacts arthroplasty survival rates, while others have stated that there is minimal or no difference compared to the conventional technique (cTKA). This paper features a retrospective, single-center, single-surgeon study, evaluating CAS surgery vs. regular cTKA in patients who consecutively underwent surgery between 2015 and 2017 (60 CAS patients vs. 59 cTKA). Data collection includes surgery duration, length of stay, blood loss and both preoperative and postoperative clinical outcome evaluation using WOMAC, SF-12, Forgotten Joint Score and VAS. Radiograph evaluation includes the tibiofemoral angle, posterior condylar offset and its ratio, and notching frequency and measurement. A total of 119 patients were included: 60 in the CAS group and 59 in the cTKA. Mean follow-up was 5.61 years (Max 7.83-Min 5.02 years). No clinically relevant preoperative differences were observed between the groups. Postoperatively, both groups showed similar functional results (WOMAC, SF-12, FJS, KSS, and VAS) with similar complication rates. The CAS group had an increased surgery time by a mean of 12 min (107.02 ± 15.22 vs. 95.32 + 13.87; p = 0.00) as well as a higher notching frequency and size (40% vs. 13.60%; p = 0.013; 1.239 mm ± 1.7604 vs. 0.501 mm ± 1.4179; p = 0.031). CAS obtained similar functional, radiological, and complication rates to cTKA at the expense of increasing surgery time and notching frequency and size.