Outcomes of isolated medial tibial plateau fractures by fracture morphology.

PURPOSE: To identify a cohort of isolated medial tibial plateau fractures treated with surgical fixation and to categorize them by Moore and Wahlquist classifications in order to determine the rate of complications with each fracture morphology and the predictive value of each classification system. We hypothesized there would be high rates of neurovascular injury, compartment syndrome, and complications overall with a higher incidence of neurovascular injury in Moore type III rim avulsion fractures and Wahlquist type C fractures that enter the plateau lateral to the tibial spines. METHODS: Patients who presented to six Level I trauma centers between 2010 and 2021 who underwent surgical fixation for isolated medial tibial plateau fractures were retrospectively reviewed. Data including demographics, radiographs, complications, and functional outcomes were collected. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty isolated medial tibial plateau fractures were included. All patients were classified by the Wahlquist classification of medial tibial plateau fractures, and 139 patients were classifiable by the Moore classification of tibial plateau fracture-dislocations. Nine percent of fractures presented with neurovascular injury: 5 % with isolated vascular injury and 6 % with isolated nerve injury. There were no significant differences in neurovascular injury by fracture type (Wahlquist p = 0.16, Moore p = 0.33). Compartment syndrome developed in two patients (1.3 %). The average final range of motion was 0.8-122° with no difference by Wahlquist or Moore classifications (p = 0.11, p = 0.52). The overall complication rate was 32 % without differences by fracture morphology. The overall rate of return to the operating room (OR) was 25 %. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated medial tibial plateau fractures often represent fracture-dislocations of the knee and should receive a meticulous neurovascular exam on presentation with a high suspicion for neurovascular injury. No specific fracture pattern was found to be predictive of neurovascular injuries, complications, or final knee range of motion. Patients should be counseled pre-operatively regarding high rates of return to the OR after the index surgery.

Proximal Humerus Fractures: How to Achieve Best Outcomes.

The treatment of proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. Although treatment modalities may vary, the goal of obtaining the best outcomes for patients remains the same. Most proximal humerus fractures can be treated nonsurgically but should still be managed actively. Deciding on surgical management requires a good understanding of indications and options. Indications for open reduction and internal fixation include younger or active patients with displaced two-, three-, and four-part fractures as well as fracture-dislocations with head-split patterns. Obtaining ideal outcomes requires anatomic reduction with restoration of the medial calcar as well as optimal position of implants to favor biomechanical stability. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is indicated for patients with severe and displaced fractures in older or low-demand patients. Obtaining the best functional outcomes depends on implant position, tuberosity healing, and early surgical intervention. Regardless of the treatment modality, these fractures can be challenging, and proper patient rehabilitation must be implemented. Future research will focus on patient selection and improving surgical techniques to maximize outcomes.

American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score: what does it tell us about patients selecting operative treatment of a rotator cuff injury?

Background: As shared decision-making rises in importance and minimum clinically important differences become benchmarks for treatment success or failure based on the increased usage of patient-reported outcomes, it is important to understand the breadth of starting points for patients as that should affect the interpretation of individual postoperative score changes. Methods: This is a retrospective data review of prospectively collected American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score of patients electing to undergo rotator cuff repair with 1-year follow-up. A residual improvement: possible to achieve ratio (RIPAR) was calculated to demonstrate what percent of maximal possible improvement was gained at 1 year. A minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 12 was used. Results: Three hundred thirty-five patients with an age range of 32-79 years form the population. Baseline ASES score ranged from 0 to 97.5, with a mean of 47.8. At 1 year, the mean was 84.7 (range, 30-100). There was no statistical difference by age, but men reported more overall preoperative dysfunction than women (50.3 vs. 44.1, P < .001). The RIPAR was on average 67%. Seventy-eight percent of the population demonstrated RIPAR scores >50% which showed improvement of over half of their preoperative deficit. Eighty-nine percent of patients achieved a positive MCID and 3% achieved a negative MCID. Conclusions: The ASES scores showed a broad range of baseline scores for patients choosing to undergo rotator cuff repair highlighting the need for individual patient rather than population review of patient-reported outcome measures. As shared decision-making is taking on a larger role in clinical care, it is important to counsel patients accurately. Evaluating the ASES score by MCID and maximal possible improvement provides different population perspectives with the concept of RIPAR allowing for personalization of decision-making on the individual patient level.

Radius of curvature of the radial head matches the capitellum: a magnetic resonance imaging analysis.

Background: The purpose of this study is to utilize elbow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to compare the radius of curvature (ROC) of the radial head peripheral cartilaginous rim and the cartilage contour of the capitellum to evaluate if the radial head could be a suitable osteochondral autograft for capitellar pathology. Methods: All patients who underwent an MRI of the elbow over a three-year period were reviewed. Patients with the following diagnoses were excluded: osteochondritis dissecans, osteomyelitis, tumor, and osteoarthritis. The radius of curvature of the radial head (RhROC) was measured on the axial oblique MRI sequence. The radius of curvature of the capitellum (CapROC) was measured on sagittal oblique MRI sequences, the width of the articular surface of the capitellum on coronal MRI sequences and the radial head height (RhH) and capitellar vertical height on sagittal oblique sequences. All measurements were obtained at the midpoint of the radiocapitellar joint. Spearman's coefficient was used to assess the correlation between ROC measurements. Results: Eighty-three patients were included with a mean age of 43 +/- 17 years (57 males and 26 females, 51 right and 32 left elbows). The median RhROC and CapROC measurements were 12.3 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 1.6) and 11.9 mm (IQR 1.7), respectively. The median difference was 0.3 mm (IQR = 0.6; CI 95% = [0.24, 0.46]; P < .001). A strong positive correlation was found between RhROC and CapROC (ρ = 0.89; r2 = 0.819; P < .001). Ninety-four percent (78/83) of patients had a median difference between the RhROC and CapROC of less than or equal to 1 mm, and 63% (52/83) were within 0.5 mm. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliability for RhROC and CapROC was good, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.89, ICC = 0.87, and ICC = 0.96, ICC = 0.97, respectively. RhH was 10.6 ± 1.3 mm, and the width of the articular surface of the capitellum was found to be 13.8 ± 1.6 mm. Conclusion: The ROC of the convex peripheral cartilaginous rim of the radial head is similar to the ROC of the capitellum. In addition, the RhH was approximately 78% of the capitellar articular width. Based on this imaging analysis, the radial head could prove to be a robust local osteochondral autograft with a similar cartilage contour in the reconstruction of the capitellum in complex intra-articular distal humerus fractures with associated radial head fractures and in the setting of "kissing lesions" of the radiocapitellar joint. Furthermore, an osteochondral plug harvested from the "safe zone" of the peripheral cartilaginous rim of the radial head could be utilized to treat isolated osteochondral lesions of the capitellum.

How do surgeons decide when to treat proximal humerus fractures with operative versus nonoperative management?

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine the underlying factors that drive the decision for surgeons to pursue operative versus nonoperative management for proximal humerus fractures (PHF) and if fellowship training had an impact on these decisions. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society to assess differences in patient selection for operative versus nonoperative management of PHF. Descriptive statistics were reported for all respondents. RESULTS: A total of 250 fellowship trained Orthopaedic Surgeons responded to the online survey. A greater proportion of trauma surgeons preferred nonoperative management for displaced PHF fractures in patients over the age of 70. Operative management was preferred for older patients with fracture dislocations (98%), limited humeral head bone subchondral bone (78%), and intraarticular head split (79%). Similar proportions of trauma surgeons and shoulder surgeons cited that acquiring a CT was crucial to distinguish between operative and nonoperative management. CONCLUSION: We found that surgeons base their decisions on when to operate primarily on patient's comorbidities, age, and the amount of fracture displacement when treating younger patients. Further, we found a greater proportion of trauma surgeons elected to proceed with nonoperative management in patients older than the age of 70 years old as compared to shoulder surgeons.

Type III Open Tibia Fractures Treated With Single-Stage Immediate Medullary Nailing and Attempted Primary Closure Yield Low Rates of Flap Coverage.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether type III open high-energy tibia fractures treated with immediate intramedullary nailing (IMN) and primary closure yield low rates of flap coverage. METHODS: Patients with high-energy type IIIA open tibia (OTA/AO42/43) fractures treated with IMN over a 10-year period at a level 1 academic center with at least 90 days of in-person postoperative follow-up were included. Single-stage reamed IMN with acute primary skin closure using Allgower-Donati suture technique was utilized in patients without notable skin loss. The primary outcome was treatment failure of acute primary skin closure requiring subsequent soft-tissue coverage procedures. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients with type IIIA tibia fractures met inclusion criteria. Of 107 of the 111 patients (96%) with skin closure at the index surgery, 95 of the 107 patients (89%) healed their soft-tissue envelop uneventfully. Among the patients who failed primary closure (11%), five required free tissue transfers, five required local rotational flaps, and two underwent split thickness skin grafting only. Patients who failed acute primary closure declared within an average of 8 weeks postoperatively. DISCUSSION: Treatment of type IIIA open high-energy tibia fractures with immediate IMN and primary closure using meticulous soft-tissue handling yields low rates of flap coverage.

Position statement: nonoperative management of lateral epicondylitis in adults.

We sought to compare methods of nonsurgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis in men and women older than 18 years to develop a guideline intended for orthopedic surgeons and other health care providers who assess, counsel and care for these patients. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane through to Mar. 9, 2021, and included all English-language studies comparing nonsurgical approaches. We compared physiotherapy versus no active treatment, corticosteroids versus placebo, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus placebo, and autologous blood injection versus placebo. Outcomes of interest were pain outcomes (visual analogue scale scores) and functional outcomes. We rated the quality of the evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This guideline will benefit patients seeking nonsurgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis by improving counselling on nonsurgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various nonsurgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.

Considerations for selecting a surgical approach in Proximal Humerus Fractures.

CLINICAL VIGNETTE: A 47 year old male is injured in a single car motor vehicle collision when he falls asleep at the wheel. He is unable to lift his arm after the event and is brought by EMS to the hospital. A trauma workup reveals an isolated 3 part proximal humerus fracture.

Nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing controversy regarding the nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Given that the evidence surrounding the use of various treatment options for lateral epicondylitis has expanded, an overall assessment of nonoperative treatment options is required. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare physiotherapy (strengthening), corticosteroids (CSIs), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and autologous blood (AB) with no active treatment or placebo control in patients with lateral epicondylitis. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through till March 8, 2021. Additional studies were identified from reviews. All English-language randomized trials comparing nonoperative treatment of patients >18 years of age with lateral epicondylitis were included. RESULTS: A total of 5 randomized studies compared physiotherapy (strengthening) with no active treatment. There were no significant differences in pain (mean difference: -0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.56 to 0.41) or function (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.30). Seven studies compared CSI with a control. The control group had statistically superior pain (mean difference: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.18) and functional scores (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.16). Two studies compared PRP with controls, and no differences were found in pain (SD: -0.15, 95% CI: -1.89 to 1.35) or function (SMD: 0.14, 95% CI: -0.45 to 0.73). Three studies compared AB with controls, and no differences were observed in pain (0.49, 95% CI: -2.35 to 3.33) or function (-0.07, 95% CI: -0.64 to 0.50). DISCUSSION: The available evidence does not support the use of nonoperative treatment options including physiotherapy (strengthening), CSI, PRP, or AB in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Understanding postoperative rehabilitation preferences in operatively managed proximal humerus fractures: do trauma and shoulder surgeons differ?

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are common, and their incidence is increasing as the population ages. Despite this, postoperative rehabilitation remains unstandardized and little is known about surgeon preferences. The aim of this study was to assess differences in postoperative rehabilitation preferences and patient education between orthopedic trauma and shoulder surgeons. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons to assess differences in postoperative rehabilitation preferences and patient counseling. Descriptive statistics were reported for all respondents, trauma surgeons, and shoulder surgeons. Chi-square and unpaired 2-sample t tests were used to compare responses. Multinomial regression was used to further elucidate the influence of fellowship training independent of confounding characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 293 surgeons completed the survey, including 172 shoulder and 78 trauma surgeons. A greater proportion of trauma surgeons preferred an immediate weightbearing status after arthroplasty compared to shoulder surgeons (45% vs. 19%, P = .003), but not after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (62% vs. 75%, P = .412). A greater proportion of shoulder surgeons preferred home exercise therapy taught by the physician or using a handout following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) (21% vs. 2%, P = .009). A greater proportion of trauma surgeons began passive range of motion (ROM) <2 weeks after 2-part fractures (70% vs. 41%, P < .001). Conversely, a greater proportion of shoulder surgeons began passive ROM between 2 and 6 weeks for 2-part (57% vs. 24%, P < .001) and 4-part fractures (65% vs. 43%, P = .020). On multinomial regression analysis, fellowship training in shoulder surgery was associated with preference for a nonweightbearing duration of >12 weeks vs. 6-12 weeks after ORIF. Similarly, fellowship training in shoulder surgery was associated with increased odds of preferring a nonweightbearing duration of <6 weeks vs. no restrictions and >12 weeks vs. 6-12 weeks after arthroplasty. Training in shoulder surgery was associated with greater odds of preferring a nonweightbearing duration prior to beginning passive ROM of 2-6 weeks vs. <2 weeks or >6 weeks for 2-part fractures, but not 4-part fractures. CONCLUSION: Trauma surgeons have a more aggressive approach to rehabilitation following operative PHF repair compared to shoulder surgeons regarding time to weightbearing status and passive ROM. Given the increasing incidence of PHFs and substantial variations in reported treatment outcomes, differences in rehabilitation after PHF treatment should be further evaluated to determine the role it may play in the outcomes of treatment studies.

Factors influencing surgical management of proximal humerus fractures: do shoulder and trauma surgeons differ?

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), hemiarthroplasty (HA), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), or nonoperatively. Given the mixed results in the literature, the optimal treatment is unclear to surgeons. The purpose of this study was to survey orthopedic shoulder and trauma surgeons to identify the patient- and fracture-related characteristics that influence surgical decision-making. METHODS: We distributed a 23-question closed-response email survey to members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Orthopaedic Trauma Association. Questions posed to respondents included demographics, surgical planning, indications for ORIF and arthroplasty, and the use of surgical augmentation with ORIF. Numerical and multiple-choice responses were compared between shoulder and trauma surgeons using unpaired t-tests and χ2 tests, respectively. RESULTS: Respondents included 172 shoulder and 78 trauma surgeons. When surgery is indicated, most shoulder and trauma surgeons treat 2-part (69%) and 3-part (53%) PHFs with ORIF. Indications for managing PHFs with arthroplasty instead of ORIF include an intra-articular fracture (82%), bone quality (76%), age (72%), and previous rotator cuff dysfunction (70%). In patients older than 50 years, 90% of respondents cited a head-split fracture as an indication for arthroplasty. Both shoulder and trauma surgeons preferred RSA for treating PHFs presenting with a head-split fracture in an elderly patient (94%), pre-existing rotator cuff tear (84%), and pre-existing glenohumeral arthritis with an intact cuff (75%). Similarly, both groups preferred ORIF for PHFs in young patients with a fracture dislocation (94%). In contrast, although most trauma surgeons preferred to manage PHFs in low functioning patients with a significantly displaced fracture or nonreconstructable injury nonoperatively (84% and 86%, respectively), shoulder surgeons preferred either RSA (44% and 46%, respectively) or nonoperative treatment (54% and 49%, respectively) (P < .001). Similarly, although trauma surgeons preferred to manage PHFs in young patients with a head-split fracture or limited humeral head subchondral bone with ORIF (98% and 87%, respectively), shoulder surgeons preferred either ORIF (54% and 62%, respectively) or HA (43% and 34%, respectively) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ORIF and HA are preferred for treating simple PHFs in young patients with good bone quality or fracture dislocations, whereas RSA and nonoperative management are preferred for complex fractures in elderly patients with poor bone quality, rotator cuff dysfunction, or osteoarthritis. The preferred management differed between shoulder and trauma surgeons for half of the common PHF presentations, highlighting the need for future research.

Changes in scapular bone density vary by region and are associated with age and sex.

BACKGROUND: Decreases in bone density of the scapula due to age and disease can make orthopedic procedures such as arthroplasty and fracture fixation challenging. There is limited information in the literature regarding the effect of age and sex on the patterns of these density changes across the bone. Characterizing these changes could assist the surgeon in planning optimal instrumentation placement. METHODS: Ninety-seven 3-dimensional models of the scapula were segmented from routine clinical computed tomography scans, and an opportunistic quantitative computed tomography approach was used to obtain detailed calibrated bone density measurements for each bone model. The effects of age and sex on cortical and trabecular bone density were assessed for the entire scapula. Specific regions (eg, scapular spine) where these factors had a significant effect were identified. Three-dimensional models were generated to allow clear visualization of the changes in density patterns. RESULTS: Cortical bone loss averaged 1.0 mg/cm3 and 0.3 mg/cm3 per year for female and male subjects, respectively, and trabecular bone loss averaged 1.6 mg/cm3 and 1.2 mg/cm3, respectively. However, several regions had loss rates several times greater. Areas that were significantly affected by age included the acromion, scapular spine, base of the coracoid, inferior glenoid neck, and glenoid vault. Areas that were significantly affected by sex were the scapular spine and body. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence that the bone density distribution across the scapula changes non-uniformly because of factors including sex and age. Despite overall trends of bone loss, there remains significant variability between individuals, and subject-specific tools for planning surgical procedures in which scapular fixation is required may be beneficial.

Outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fracture dislocations.

INTRODUCTION: Proximal humeral fracture with associated glenohumeral dislocation (PHFD) is a challenging clinical problem. Outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of these injuries have not been widely reported. The purpose of this analysis is to report our experience with ORIF of PHFD. METHODS: A retrospective review of our 2 institutions' shoulder surgery databases was conducted to identify all PHFDs that were treated with ORIF from 2008 through 2017. Radiographs were reviewed for fracture healing by 12 weeks postoperatively. All reoperations were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes using Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores at a minimum 2-year follow-up were recorded. RESULTS: There were 20 PHFDs identified: they were 50% male, 55.8 ± 10.3 years old (range 31.3-66.3), and had a body mass index of 29.3 ± 8.2 (15.2-47.8). Seven (35%) patients experienced varus collapse, nonunion, or avascular necrosis and 6 (30%) patients underwent reoperation. Of the 17 patients who did not go on to revision or arthroplasty, 14 (82.3%) had patient-reported outcomes at a mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 2.2 years (2.3-8.8). These patients had an average SST 8.0±4.0 yes responses (0-12) and ASES scores of 71.6 ± 20.4 (20.2-94.9). CONCLUSION: ORIF of PHFD carries a high rate of reoperation. In patients who achieve healing, functional scores are satisfactory. This information is important for proper patient counseling prior to surgery.

The Fallacy of Follow-up: When Orthopaedic Trauma Patients Actually Return to Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Clinical follow-up in orthopaedic trauma is challenging, yet expectations exist that a 1-year follow-up is the minimum requirement for clinical trials and research publications. The primary purpose of our study was to evaluate the rate of follow-up after operative orthopaedic trauma care and the relationship to clinical care. Our secondary aim was to identify any independent risk factors regarding follow-up completion. METHODS: A chart review of patients operatively treated for a traumatic injury during the months of January and July 2016 was conducted. Patient demographic characteristics, injury type, severity, and patient distance from the hospital were collected. The final clinical instructions and whether a return visit was requested or as needed were recorded. RESULTS: There were 293 patients in this study, of whom 84 (29%) had follow-up of at least 1 year and 52 (18%) were instructed to follow up only as needed at their last visit prior to the 1-year mark. When removing the latter 52 patients, the 1-year follow-up rate was 35% (84 of 241 patients). Of these 241 patients, 157 (65%) were requested to return for additional clinical care but failed to return prior to 1 year. Logistic regression identified tobacco use (odds ratio [OR], 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15 to 0.77]; p = 0.010), final appointment status (OR, 6.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 11.6]; p < 0.001), isolated compared with multiple fractures (OR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.1]; p = 0.013), and distance from the trauma center per mile as a continuous variable (OR, 0.999 [95% CI, 0.998 to 1.0]; p = 0.03) as significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that a 1-year clinic follow-up requirement may not be feasible. We observed a low rate of patients with a minimum 1-year clinical follow-up. Clinical care had been completed in 18% of patients prior to 1 year. Journal and grant reviewers may need to consider the feasibility and clinical relevance of these follow-up expectations.

Outcome measures reported for the management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons multicenter taskforce studying proximal humerus fractures reached no consensus on which outcome measures to include in future studies, and currently no gold standard exists. Knowledge of commonly used outcome measures will allow standardization, enabling more consistent proximal humerus fracture treatment comparison. This study identifies the most commonly reported outcome measures for proximal humerus fracture management in recent literature. METHODS: A systematic review identified all English-language articles assessing proximal humerus fractures from 2008 to 2018 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Review articles, meta-analyses, revision surgery, chronic injuries, studies with <15 patients, studies with <12 month follow-up, anatomic/biomechanical studies, and technique articles were excluded. Included studies were assessed for patient demographics and outcome scores, patient satisfaction, complications, range of motion, and strength. RESULTS: Of 655 articles, 74 met inclusion criteria. The number of proximal humerus fractures averaged 74.2 per study (mean patient age, 65.6 years). Mean follow-up was 30.7 months. Neer type 1, 2, 3, and 4 fractures were included in 8%, 51%, 81%, and 88% of studies, respectively. Twenty-two patient-reported outcome instruments were used including the Constant-Murley score (65%), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (31%), visual analog scale pain (27%), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (18%). An average of 2.2 measures per study were reported. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists in the use of outcome measures across the proximal humerus fracture literature, making treatment comparison challenging. We recommend that future literature on proximal humerus fractures use at least 3 outcomes measures and 1 general health score until the optimal scores are determined.

Do Antibiotic Beads Need to be Removed?

BACKGROUND: Polymethylmethacrylate antibiotic impregnated beads can be an effective treatment for chronic osteomyelitis or an adjuvant in the treatment of open fractures. It remains unclear however whether the beads cause long-term adverse events if not removed. The purpose of this study was to determine if removal of antibiotic beads was required in order to avoid long term complications. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with an extremity or pelvis fracture that had implantation of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) antibiotic beads over a five-year period. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients met inclusion criteria for this study; thirty-seven patients (73%) did not have complications after surgical debridement and placement of PMMA antibiotic beads necessitating removal. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that polymethylmethacrylate antibiotic beads can be utilized as a means of delivering high-dose concentrations of local antibiotics and do not have to be removed in all patients.

Prolonged dislocation and delay to surgery are associated with higher rates of heterotopic ossification in operatively treated terrible triad injuries.

BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification (HO) formation after complex elbow injuries can significantly impact function. Prior studies have reported a 3%-45% incidence of HO following elbow trauma in a heterogeneous cohort of fracture patterns. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of and identify risk factors for HO specifically in patients with terrible triad injuries. METHODS: A total of 61 patients (64 elbows) underwent operative treatment for terrible triad injuries with an average follow-up period of 19.8 months (range, 3-138 months). The medical records were reviewed for demographic data, duration of dislocation, number of reduction attempts, time to surgery, presence of radiographic HO, elbow motion at final follow-up, functional limitations, and need for secondary procedures. RESULTS: Radiographic HO developed in 77% of patients, and 63% had some level of functional restriction. Thirteen patients (26%) underwent a secondary procedure for HO excision. Patients with HO had a longer time to surgery (4.9 days vs. 2.8 days, P = .02), longer duration of dislocation (21 hours vs. 6 hours, P = .04), and reduced flexion-extension (94° vs. 112°, P = .04) and pronation-supination (109° vs. 163°, P = .002) arcs of motion compared with patients without HO. HO was also more likely to develop in patients who required closed reduction than in those with spontaneous reduction prior to presentation. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of radiographic and clinically relevant HO after terrible triad injuries was higher than previously reported. Persistent dislocation necessitating a closed reduction, a longer duration of dislocation, and a delay to surgery were associated with the development of HO. Providers should consider earlier surgical stabilization or urgent referral to a specialist for patients with unstable injuries.

Contemporary Strategies in Pilon Fixation.

The treatment of tibial pilon fractures has evolved substantially over the past decades due to ever-increasing high-energy injuries. Open reduction and internal fixation of these intra-articular fractures requires an appreciation for a number of basic principles: respect the soft tissues, understand the fracture pattern, use safe surgical approaches, and provide stability that allows for early motion of the ankle. Surgical strategy should be customized based on the fracture pattern, access needed for fracture visualization and reduction, and status of the soft tissues. Given the ability to obtain an accurate stable reduction, smaller implants are typically adequate using multiple small incisions. We view this surgical tactic as continuing the evolution of complex fracture treatment whose origins lie in the influences of pioneers such as Dr Sigvard T. Hansen Jr.