Conceptualizing Biological Aging and Frailty in Orthopaedics: A Framework for Clinical Practice.

➤: Biological aging can best be conceptualized clinically as a combination of 3 components: frailty, comorbidity, and disability. ➤: Despite advancements in the understanding of senescence, chronological age remains the best estimate of biological age. However, a useful exercise for practitioners is to look beyond chronological age in clinical and surgical decision-making. ➤: A chronologically aging person does not age biologically at the same rate. ➤: The best way to understand frailty is to consider it as a physical phenotype. ➤: Physical optimization should parallel medical optimization before elective surgery. ➤: The poorer the host (both in terms of bone quality and propensity for healing), the more robust the implant construct must be to minimize reliance on host biology.

Second physician review of radiographs after wrist and ankle reductions offers limited utility to clinical management.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical utility of second-physician review of radiographs obtained after reduction of distal radius and ankle fractures. METHODS: Fifty consecutive ankle and distal radius fractures requiring reduction were reviewed. The time from post-reduction radiograph to second-physician interpretation was obtained. The second-physicians' interpretation was evaluated for clinically influential information. Patients requiring a repeat reduction were identified, and the timing of the repeat reduction radiograph was compared with the timing of the second-physician interpretation of the initial post-reduction radiograph. RESULTS: The mean time of second-physician interpretation for post reduction ankle radiographs was 6 h and 47 min (range 4 min to 43 h and 3 min). Eleven of 50 (22%) interpretations of post reduction ankle radiographs commented on acceptability of reduction. The mean time of second-physician interpretation for post reduction distal radius radiographs was 5 h and 34 min (range 8 min to 22 h and 59 min). Seven of 50 (14%) interpretations of post reduction distal radius radiographs commented on acceptability of reduction. Three distal radius (6%) and 8 ankle fractures (16%) required repeat reduction. Repeat reductions were completed in 10/11 cases (91%) before the second-physician review of the initial post reduction radiograph was obtained. In only 1 case of repeat reduction was the second-physician review of the post reduction radiograph available before repeat reduction was attempted. CONCLUSION: The timing and quality of second-physician review of post-reduction radiographs offers little utility to the clinical management of ankle and distal radius fractures.