Outcomes of dual plating for unstable distal femoral fractures: a subgroup comparison between periprosthetic and non-periprosthetic fractures.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of dual plating for unstable distal femoral fractures via a subgroup analysis between periprosthetic and non-periprosthetic fractures. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the outcomes of dual plating for unstable distal femoral fractures among 49 consecutive patients (43 women and 6 men) enrolled from July 2008 to August 2020. The patients were divided into periprosthetic (group P, n = 29) and non-periprosthetic (group N, n = 20) groups. The radiographic outcomes included the mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) and union rate based on the computed tomography findings. The clinical parameters included the knee range of motion and knee society score (KSS). RESULTS: The mean patient age was 71.1 years, and the average follow-up period was 37 months (range, 12-138 months). Union was achieved in 47 patients (96%). The average final mLDFA was 90.5° in group P and 88.3° in group N. The average final knee range of motion was 130° in group P and 107° in group N. The average final KSS was 73.8 in group P and 87.1 in group N. CONCLUSION: Dual plating for distal femoral fractures yielded an excellent union rate and limb alignment with a low complication rate.

Outcomes of Simultaneous Bilateral vs Unilateral Distal Chevron Metatarsal Osteotomy in Hallux Valgus Patients Aged ≥60 Years.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare radiographic outcomes of simultaneous bilateral and unilateral distal chevron metatarsal osteotomy (DCMO) in hallux valgus patients aged ≥60 years. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed consecutive outcomes of simultaneous bilateral DCMO and unilateral DCMO performed between June 2010 and August 2018 in 90 feet of 60 patients. Thirty patients underwent simultaneous bilateral DCMO, and 30 underwent unilateral DCMO. Comparative analysis of radiographic and clinical parameters between a simultaneous bilateral DCMO group (SB) and a unilateral DCMO group (U) was performed. RESULTS: Mean age at surgery (65.7±4.8 vs 65.2±5.2 years), mean length of follow-up period (20.0 vs 18.6 months), and preoperative radiographic parameters were similar between the 2 groups (SB vs U). Mean hallux valgus angle (HVA) improved from 34.2 to 5.4 degrees (correction angle SB 28.8 vs U 28.8 degrees). Mean first-to-second intermetatarsal angle improved from 15.8 to 6.8 degrees (correction angle SB 8.9 vs U 8.9 degrees). Hallux varus deformity was observed in 4 feet (SB 3 vs U 1), and mechanical instability with callus formation in 1 foot in the unilateral group. CONCLUSION: DCMOs in patients aged ≥60 years were radiographically effective and safe, even performed in one stage bilaterally. Radiographic parameters were similar in patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral and unilateral DCMO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Distal chevron osteotomy with lateral release for moderate to severe hallux valgus patients aged sixty years and over.

PURPOSE: To analyze the outcome of distal chevron metatarsal osteotomy (DCMO) with lateral release for moderate to severe hallux valgus patients aged 60 years or more. METHODS: Consecutive 77 DCMOs in 54 patients were evaluated. Average age at operation was 65.1 ± 4.3 (range 60~79) years; the mean follow-up period was 20.5 ± 14.2 (range 12~93) months. Hallux valgus angle (HVA), first to second inter-metatarsal angle (IMA), and lateral sesamoid grades were measured. Considering the weak bone quality of the patients, fixation failures such as pin migration, callus formation, delayed union, and first metatarsal bone shortening were reviewed. Osteoarthritis (OA) of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ), limitation of 1st MTPJ motion (LOM), and transfer metatarsalgia were also reviewed. RESULTS: HVA, IMA, and sesamoid grades were improved at three months and final follow-up. The mean HVA was 36.9° ± 7.0° preoperatively and 6.8° ± 7.1° at final follow-up. The mean correction angle of HVA was 31.3° ± 8.5° at three months and 30.1° ± 8.9° at final follow-up. The mean IMA was 16.3° ± 3.0° pre-operatively and 7.7° ± 2.7° at final follow-up. Hallux varus deformity was observed in three feet. Instability of osteotomy site was observed in one foot. Mean metatarsal shortening length was 1.26 ± 2.1 mm at three month follow-up. There were no cases of transfer metatarsalgia after operation. OA was observed in four feet post-operatively. LOM was observed in ten feet (13.0%). There were no instances of re-fracture or avascular necrosis (AVN). CONCLUSION: Despite concerns about aggravation of OA and fixation failure, distal chevron osteotomy with lateral release was safe on patients aged 60 years and over.

Population pharmacokinetics and prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron in surgical patients.

AIMS: This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of ramosetron and compared prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy with that of ondansetron in a large population. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients consented to the pharmacokinetic analysis and were assigned randomly to receive 0.3, 0.45 or 0.6 mg ramosetron after induction of anaesthesia. Blood samples were acquired at preset intervals. Non-compartmental and population pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. In total, 1102 patients consented to the evaluation of prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy and were allocated randomly to receive 0.3 mg ramosetron or 4 mg ondansetron at the end of surgery. An additional 16 mg ondansetron were mixed in the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia pump of the ondansetron group. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were evaluated 6, 24 and 48 h post-operatively using the Rhodes index of nausea, vomiting and retching (RINVR). Administration of rescue anti-emetics and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic parameter estimates were V1 (l) = 5.12, V2 (l) = 108, CL (l⋅min(-1) ) = 0.08 + (59⋅age(-1) ) × 0.09, Q (l⋅min(-1) ) = 1.42. The incidences of PONV in the ramosetron and ondansetron groups were 77 (13.9%) and 113 (20.6%) and 44 (7.9%) and 66 (12.0%) at 24 and 48 h post-operatively, respectively (P = 0.004, 0.030). RINVR was significantly lower in the ramosetron than the ondansetron group 24 and 48 h post-operatively (P = 0.003, 0.025). Use of rescue anti-emetics and incidence of adverse events were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: A two compartment mammillary model was used to describe ramosetron pharmacokinetics. Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron was significantly better 24 and 48 h post-operatively than that of ondansetron, particularly when the Apfel score was ≥ 3.