Nonunion of conservatively treated humeral shaft fractures is not associated with anatomic location and fracture pattern.

INTRODUCTION: Humeral shaft fractures make up 1-3% of all fractures and are most often treated nonoperatively; rates of union have been suggested to be greater than 85%. It has been postulated that proximal third fractures are more susceptible to nonunion development; however, current evidence is conflicting and presented in small cohorts. It is our hypothesis that anatomic site of fracture and fracture pattern are not associated with development of nonunion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 147 consecutive patients treated nonoperatively for a humeral shaft fracture were assessed for development of nonunion during their treatment course. Their charts were reviewed for demographic and radiographic parameters such as age, sex, current tobacco use, diabetic comorbidity, fracture location, fracture pattern, AO/OTA classification, and need for intervention for nonunion. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven patients with 147 nonoperatively treated humeral shaft fractures were eligible for this study and included: 39 distal, 65 middle, and 43 proximal third fractures. One hundred and twenty-six patients healed their fractures by a mean 16 ± 6.4 weeks. Of the 21 patients who developed a nonunion, two were of the distal third, 10 of the middle third, and nine were of the proximal third. In a binomial logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in age, sex, tobacco use, diabetic comorbidity, fracture pattern, anatomic location, and OTA fracture classification between patients in the union and nonunion cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Fracture pattern and anatomic location of nonoperatively treated humeral shaft fractures were not related to development of fracture nonunion.

Ability of a Risk Prediction Tool to Stratify Quality and Cost for Older Patients With Operative Distal Radius Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Distal radius fractures are the second most common fracture in the elderly population. The incidence of these fractures has increased over time, and is projected to continue to do so. The aim of this study is to utilize a validated trauma risk prediction tool to stratify middle-aged and geriatric patients with operative distal radius fractures as well as compare hospital quality metrics and inpatient hospitalization costs among the risk groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were prospectively enrolled in an orthopedic trauma registry. The Score for Trauma Triage in Geriatric and Middle Aged (STTGMA) was calculated using patient demographics, injury severity, and functional status. Patients were then stratified into minimal-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk cohorts based on their scores. Length of stay, need for escalation of care, complications, mortality, discharge location, 1-year patient reported outcomes, and index admission costs were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (68.5%) patients were managed with outpatient surgery. The mean inpatient length of stay for the high-risk cohort was 2.9x and 2.2x higher than the minimal and moderate-risk cohorts, respectively (2.0 + 2.9 days vs. 0.7 + 0.9 and 0.9 + 1.1 days, P = .019). There were no complications or mortality in any of the risk groups. No patients required intensive care and all patients were discharged home. There was no difference in readmission rates, inpatient cost, or 1-year patient reported outcomes among the risk cohorts. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The Score for Trauma Triage in Geriatric and Middle-Aged is able to risk-stratify patients that undergo operative intervention of distal radius fractures. Middle aged and elderly patients with isolated closed distal radius fractures can be safely managed on an outpatient basis regardless of risk. Standardized pathways can be created in the management of these injuries, thereby optimizing value-based care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III.

Impact of preoperative 3-dimensional planning and intraoperative navigation of shoulder arthroplasty on implant selection and operative time: a single surgeon's experience.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative 3D planning and intraoperative navigation for shoulder arthroplasty has recently gained interest because of the potential to enhance the surgeon's understanding of glenoid anatomy and improve the accuracy of glenoid component positioning. The purpose of our study was to assess the impact of preoperative 3D planning on the surgeon's selection of the glenoid component (standard vs. augmented) and compare duration of surgery with and without intraoperative navigation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 200 consecutive patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty. The first group of 100 patients underwent shoulder arthroplasty using standard 2D preoperative planning based on standard radiographs and computed tomographic scans. The second group of 100 patients underwent shoulder arthroplasty using 3D preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation. Type of glenoid component and operative time were recorded in each case. RESULTS: For the group of patients with standard preoperative planning, only 15 augmented glenoid components were used, whereas in the group of patients with 3D preoperative planning and navigation, 54 augments were used (P < .001). The operative time was 11 minutes longer for the procedures that used intraoperative navigation, compared with those that did not (P < .001). This difference diminished as the surgeon became more proficient with the navigation technique. CONCLUSION: Use of preoperative 3D planning changes the surgeon's understanding of the patient's glenoid anatomy. In our study, using 3D planning increased the likelihood that the surgeon selected an augmented glenoid component compared with 2D planning. Intraoperative navigation slightly lengthened the duration of surgery, but this became insignificant as part of a learning curve within 6 months.

Can a Clinician-Scientist Training Program Develop Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons? One Program's Thirty-Year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Clinician-scientist numbers have been stagnant over the past few decades despite awareness of this trend. Interventions attempting to change this problem have been seemingly ineffective, but research residency positions have shown potential benefit. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a clinician-scientist training program (CSTP) in an academic orthopedic residency in improving academic productivity and increasing interest in academic careers. METHODS: Resident training records were identified and reviewed for all residents who completed training between 1976 and 2014 (n = 329). There were no designated research residents prior to 1984 (pre-CSTP). Between 1984 and 2005, residents self-selected for the program (CSTP-SS). In 2005, residents were selected by program before residency (CSTP-PS). Residents were also grouped by program participation, research vs. clinical residents (RR vs. CR). Data were collected on academic positions and productivity through Internet-based and PubMed search, as well as direct e-mail or phone contact. Variables were then compared based on the time duration and designation. RESULTS: Comparing all RR with CR, RR residents were more likely to enter academic practice after training (RR, 34%; CR, 20%; p = 0.0001) and were 4 times more productive based on median publications (RR, 14; CR, 4; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, 42% of RR are still active in research compared to 29% of CR (p = 0.04), but no statistical difference in postgraduate academic productivity identified. CONCLUSIONS: The CSTP increased academic productivity during residency for the residents and the program. However, this program did not lead to a clear increase in academic productivity after residency and did not result in more trainees choosing a career as clinician-scientists.