Hip Fracture Repair by the Post-Call Surgeon: A Multicenter Retrospective Review.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate surgeons' ability to perform or supervise a standard operation with agreed-upon radiologic parameters after being on call. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with a fixed angle device at 9 centers and compared corrected tip-apex distance and reduction quality for post-call surgeons versus those who were not. Subgroup analyses included surgeons who operated the night before versus not and attending-only versus resident involved cases. Secondary outcomes included union and perioperative complications. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred fourteen patients were of average age 77 years. Post-call surgeons treated 823 patients and control surgeons treated 891. Surgical corrected tip-apex distance did not differ between groups: on-call 18 mm versus control 18 mm (P = 0.59). The Garden indices were 160° on the AP and 179° on the lateral in both groups. In 66 cases performed by surgeons who operated the night before, the TAD was 17 mm. No difference was noted in corrected tip-apex distance with and without resident involvement (P = 0.101). No difference was observed in pooled fracture-related complications (P = 0.23). CONCLUSION: Post-call surgeons demonstrated no difference in quality and no increase in complications when performing hip fracture repair the next day compared with surgeons who were not on call.

Is the timing of fixation associated with fracture-related infection among tibial plateau fracture patients with compartment syndrome? A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 729 patients.

BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fractures with an ipsilateral compartment syndrome are a clinical challenge with limited guidance regarding the best time to perform open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) relative to fasciotomy wound closure. This study aimed to determine if the risk of fracture-related infection (FRI) differs based on the timing of tibial plateau ORIF relative to closure of ipsilateral fasciotomy wounds. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified patients with tibial plateau fractures and an ipsilateral compartment syndrome treated with 4-compartment fasciotomy at 22 US trauma centers from 2009 to 2019. The primary outcome measure was FRI requiring operative debridement after ORIF. The ORIF timing relative to fasciotomy closure was categorized as ORIF before, at the same time as, or after fasciotomy closure. Bayesian hierarchical regression models with a neutral prior were used to determine the association between timing of ORIF and infection. The posterior probability of treatment benefit for ORIF was also determined for the three timings of ORIF relative to fasciotomy closure. RESULTS: Of the 729 patients who underwent ORIF of their tibial plateau fracture, 143 (19.6%) subsequently developed a FRI requiring operative treatment. Patients sustaining infections were: 21.0% of those with ORIF before (43 of 205), 15.9% at the same time as (37 of 232), and 21.6% after fasciotomy wound closure (63 of 292). ORIF at the same time as fasciotomy closure demonstrated a 91% probability of being superior to before closure (RR, 0.75; 95% CrI, 0.38 to 1.10). ORIF after fasciotomy closure had a lower likelihood (45%) of a superior outcome than before closure (RR, 1.02; 95% CrI; 0.64 to 1.39). CONCLUSION: Data from this multicenter cohort confirms previous reports of a high FRI risk in patients with a tibial plateau fracture and ipsilateral compartment syndrome. Our results suggest that ORIF at the time of fasciotomy closure has the highest probability of treatment benefit, but that infection was common with all three timings of ORIF in this difficult clinical situation.

Is retrograde nailing superior to lateral locked plating for complete articular distal femur fractures?

INTRODUCTION: Nonunion rates for distal femur fractures treated with lateral locked plating (LLP) remains as high as 18-22% despite significant advances with implant design and construct modulation. However, whether treatment of distal femur fractures with rIMN has improved outcomes compared to LLP has not been well characterized. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of complete articular distal femur fractures (AO/OTA 33-C) treated with either LLP or rIMN. METHODS: 106 distal femur fractures in 106 patients between January 2014 and January 2018 were identified. Medical records were reviewed to collect patient age, gender, body mass index, sagittal and coronal plane alignment on immediate postoperative radiographs, time to union, incidence of nonunion, and incidence of secondary operative procedures for repair of a nonunion. RESULTS: Of 106 patients, 50 underwent rIMN and 56 underwent LLP. The mean age at the time of injury was 51 years (21 to 86 years) and there were 55 males. Average coronal alignment of 83.7° of anatomic lateral distal femoral angle (aLDFA) and sagittal alignment of <1° of apex anterior angulation in the rIMN group. In the LLP group there was an average of 87.9° of aLDFA and 1.9° of apex anterior angulation (p = .005 and p = .36). Average time to union in the rIMN group was 6 months and 6.6 months in the LLP group (p = .52). Incidence of nonunion in the rIMN group was 11.8% and 27.5% in the LLP group (p = .008). There were 8 secondary procedures for nonunion in the rIMN group and 18 in the LLP group (p = .43). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated a higher nonunion rate and coronal plane malalignment with LLP compared to rIMN. While prospective data is required, rIMN does appear to be an appropriate treatment for complete articular distal femur fractures with a potentially decreased rate of nonunion .

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials.

INTRODUCTION: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. METHODS: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. RESULTS: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. DISCUSSION: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal.