The regulation of regulation: interleukin-10 increases CD4+ CD25+ regulatory T cells but impairs their immunosuppressive activity in murine models with schistosomiasis japonica or asthma.

CD4+ CD25+ Foxp3+ regulatory T (Treg) cells play an important role in maintaining immune homeostasis. Interleukin-10 (IL-10), a cytokine with anti-inflammatory capacities, also has a critical role in controlling immune responses. In addition, it is well known that production of IL-10 is one of the suppression mechanisms of Treg cells. However, the action of IL-10 on Treg cells themselves remains insufficiently understood. In this study, by using a Schistosoma japonicum-infected murine model, we show that the elevated IL-10 contributed to Treg cell induction but impaired their immunosuppressive function. Our investigations further suggest that this may relate to the up-regulation of serum transforming growth factor (TGF-ß) level but the decrease in membrane-bound TGF-ß of Treg cells by IL-10 during S. japonicum infection. In addition, similar IL-10-mediated regulation on Treg cells was also confirmed in the murine model of asthma. In general, our findings identify a previously unrecognized opposing regulation of IL-10 on Treg cells and provide a deep insight into the precise regulation in immune responses.

Medial versus anterior open reduction for developmental hip dislocation in age-matched patients.

BACKGROUND: The difference between medial (MAOR) and anterior (AAOR) approaches for open reduction of developmental hip dysplasia in terms of risk for avascular necrosis (AVN) and need for further corrective surgery (FCS, femoral and/or acetabular osteotomy) is unclear. This study compared age-matched cohorts undergoing either MAOR or AAOR in terms of these 2 primary outcomes. Prognostic impact of presence of ossific nucleus at time of open reduction was also investigated. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained. Nineteen hips (14 patients) managed by MAOR were matched with 19 hips (18 patients) managed by AAOR based on age at operation (mean 6.0; range, 1.4 to 14.9 mo). Patients with neuromuscular conditions and known connective tissue disorders were excluded. Primary outcomes assessed at minimum 2 years' follow-up included radiographic evidence of AVN (Kalamchi and MacEwen) or requiring FCS. RESULTS: MAOR and AAOR cohorts were similar regarding age at open reduction, sex, laterality, and follow-up duration. One hip in each group had AVN before open reduction thus were excluded from AVN analysis. At minimum 2 years postoperatively (mean 6.2; range, 1.8 to 11.7 y), 4/18 (22%) MAOR and 5/18 (28%) AAOR met the same criteria for AVN (P=1.0). No predictors of AVN could be identified by regression analysis. Presence of an ossific nucleus preoperatively was not a protective factor from AVN (P=0.27). FCS was required in 4/19 (21%) MAOR and 7/19 (37%) AAOR hips (P=0.48). However, 7/12 (54%) hips failing closed reduction required FCS compared with 4/26 (16%) hips without prior failed closed reduction (P=0.024). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who failed closed reduction had an annual risk of requiring FCS approximately 6 times that of patients without a history of failed closed reduction (hazard ratio=6.1; 95% CI, 1.5-24.4; P=0.009), independent of surgical approach (P=0.55) or length of follow-up (P=0.78). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of age-matched patients undergoing either MAOR or AAOR, we found no association between surgical approach and risk of AVN or FCS. In addition, we identified no protective benefit of a preoperative ossific nucleus in terms of development of AVN. However, failing closed reduction was associated with a 6-fold increased annual risk of requiring FCS. SIGNIFICANCE: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing these 2 surgical techniques in an age-matched manner. It further corroborates previous studies stating that there may be no difference in risk of AVN based on surgical approach or presence of ossific nucleus preoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective comparative study.

Likelihood of surgery in isolated pediatric fifth metatarsal fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the fifth metatarsal bone are common and surgery is uncommon. The "Jones" fracture is known to be in a watershed region that often leads to compromised healing, however, a "true Jones" fracture can be difficult to determine, and its impact on healing in pediatric patients is not well described. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively assess patterns of fifth metatarsal fracture that led to surgical fixation in an attempt to predict the likelihood for surgery in these injuries. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients aged 18 and under who were treated for an isolated fifth metatarsal fracture from 2003 through 2010 at our pediatric hospital. Patient demographics, treatment, and complications were noted. Radiographs were reviewed for location of fracture and fracture displacement. Patients and fracture characteristics were then compared. RESULTS: A total of 238 fractures were included and 15 were treated surgically. Most surgical indications were failure to heal in a timely manner or refracture and all patients underwent a trial of nonoperative treatment. Jones criteria for fracture location were predictive of needing surgery (P<0.01) but confusing in the clinic setting. Fractures that occurred between 20 and 40 mm (or 25% to 50% of overall metatarsal length) from the proximal tip went on to surgery in 18.8% (6/32) of the time, whereas those that occurred between <20 mm had surgery in 4.9% (9/184). This was a statistically significant correlation (P=0.0157). CONCLUSIONS: Although fractures of the fifth metatarsal are common, need for surgery in these fractures is not. However, a region of this bone is known to have trouble healing, and it can be difficult to identify these "at-risk" fractures in the clinical setting. We found simple ruler measurement from the proximal tip of the fifth metatarsal to the fracture to help determine this "at-risk" group and found a significant difference in those patients with a fracture of <20 mm compared with those 20 to 40 mm from the tip; this can help guide treatment and counsel patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Single-Stage Press-Fit Osseointegration of the Radius and Ulna for Rehabilitation After Trans-Forearm Amputation.

Background: Upper limb (UL) amputation is disabling. ULs are necessary for many domains of life1, and few effective motor and sensory replacements are accessible2. Approximately 41,000 people in the United States have UL amputation proximal to the fingers3, two-thirds of (all) traumatic amputations are UL4, and 80% of UL amputations are performed for trauma-related etiologies5. Socket prosthesis (SP) abandonment remains high because of the lack of sensation, limited prosthesis control, perceived weight, and difficulty comfortably wearing the SP6. Transcutaneous osseointegration7,8 surgically inserts a bone-anchored implant, passed through a transcutaneous portal to attach a terminal device, improving amputee rehabilitation by reducing perceived weight, conferring osseoperception9, and increasing wear time10. Without the socket, all residual skin and musculature remain available for transcutaneous myoelectrodes. The present article describes single-stage radius and ulna press-fit osseointegration (PFOI) after trans-forearm amputation. Description: This technique resembles a lower-extremity PFOI11,12. Importantly, at-risk nerves and vessels are different, and implant impaction must be gentler as a result. The surgery is indicated for patients who are dissatisfied with SP rehabilitation or declining alternative rehabilitative options, and who are motivated and enabled to procure, train with, and utilize a forearm prosthesis. An engaged prosthetist is critical. Surgical steps are exposure, bone-end and canal preparation, first implant insertion (in the operative video shown, in the radius), purse-string muscle closure, confirmation that radius-ulna motion remains, performing the prior steps for the other bone (in the video, the ulna), and closure (including potential nerve reconstruction, soft-tissue contouring, and portal creation). Although the patient in the operative video did not require nerve procedures to address pain or to create targets for transcutaneous myoelectrodes, targeted muscle reinnervation or a regenerative peripheral nerve interface procedure could be performed following exposure. Alternatives: Alternatives include socket modification, bone lengthening and/or soft-tissue contouring13, Krukenberg-type reconstructions14, or accepting the situation. An alternative implant is a screw-type osseointegration implant. Our preference for press-fit implants is based on considerations such as our practice's 12-year history of >1,000 PFOI surgeries; that the screw-type implant requires sufficient cortical thickness for the threads15, which is compromised in some patients; the lower cost per implant; that the procedure is performed in 1 instead of 2 surgical episodes15,16; and the documented suitability of press-fit implants for patients with challenging anatomy or comorbidities17-19. Rationale: PFOI can be provided for amputees having difficulty with socket wear. PFOI usually provides superior prosthesis stability, which can confer better prosthesis control versus nonoperative and other operative options in patients expressing dissatisfaction for reasons such as those mentioned above, or for poor fit, compromised energy transfer, skin pinching, compression, and abrasions. For patients who want myoelectric control of their prosthesis but who are unable because the optimal myoelectric location is obstructed by the socket, osseointegration may provide access for the electrodes by eliminating the socket. Expected Outcomes: Only 3 trans-forearm osseointegration20-22 publications totaling 10 limbs could be identified, limiting the ability to determine generalizable outcomes. Osseointegrated prostheses, being skeletally anchored, feel lighter to patients than SPs, which should confer better outcomes. In 1 patient, multiple implant fractures and infection prompted additional surgeries. Periprosthetic bone fractures and non-infectious loosening have not been documented for UL osseointegration. Important Tips: Osseointegration eliminates the socket, relieving socket-based pain. However, neurogenic pain relief requires specific nerve procedures.Osseointegration provides a prosthesis connection. Nerve- or muscle-based prosthesis control requires separate, potentially integrated planning.Osseointegrated prostheses confer osseoperception (i.e., mechanical force transmission), not "normal" skin-mediated afferent sensation (i.e., light touch, temperature, pain) or native proprioception.Prostheses must be individualized to the patient's elbow flexion and radioulnar rotation. An attentive prosthetist must be ensured preoperatively.Achieving the demonstrated outcomes requires more therapy and retraining than walking with an osseointegrated lower-extremity prosthesis. Patients must expect at least several months of spending multiple hours daily engaging in self-directed rehabilitation.Prosthesis utilization decision aids23 may minimize non-beneficial surgeries. Acronyms and Abbreviations: UL = upper limbSP = socket prosthesisPFOI = press-fit osseointegrationperi-pros fx = periprosthetic fractureMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomography.

Techniques to Remove Press-Fit Osseointegration Implants.

Background: Transcutaneous osseointegration for amputees (TOFA) has proven to consistently, significantly improve the quality of life and mobility for the vast majority of amputees, as compared with the use of a socket prosthesis1,2. As with any implant, situations such as infection, aseptic loosening, or implant fracture can occur, which may necessitate hardware removal. Although it may eventually occur, to date no osseointegration implant has ever required removal in the setting of periprosthetic fracture. Since TOFA implants are designed to facilitate robust bone integration, removal can be challenging. Even in cases in which portions of the implant are loose, other areas of the implant may remain strongly integrated and resist removal. Further, there can be cases in which an implant fractures, leaving the residual portion of the implant in place without the interface for an extraction tool. Although the outcomes of revision osseointegration has not been the primary focus of any publication, the fact that revision can be necessary and generally succeeds in restoring similar mobility has been documented3-5. As with any hardware removal, preserving healthy tissue and avoiding iatrogenic injury are critically important. This article demonstrates several techniques to remove press-fit osseointegration implants that we have found safe and effective. Description: The procedure is performed with the patient in the supine position and with the affected extremity prepared and draped in a typical sterile fashion. The use of a tourniquet can help reduce blood loss, but it may be safer to not use a tourniquet during the portions of the procedure that create increased or prolonged bone thermal exposure, such as during reaming or drilling. If patients are clinically stable, withholding antibiotics until cultures are obtained may improve diagnostic yield. The implant removal technique should proceed from conservative to aggressive, as necessary: slap hammer, thin wire-assisted slap hammer, and extended osteotomy. Trephine reaming is discouraged because of the need for and difficulty of removing the dual cone interface portion of the implant, along with the extensive damage often caused to the surrounding bone during reaming, which can be avoided with the osteotomy technique. Alternatives: It is important to emphasize that most infections related to transcutaneous osseointegration do not require implant removal; the use of antibiotics alone or soft-tissue and/or limited bone debridement is sufficient to resolve infection in the majority of cases. If a patient has a non-infectious indication for removal (such as a loose implant) but declines surgery, activity modification with close observation may be reasonable. If a patient has an infectious indication for removal but declines surgery, very close observation must be maintained to avoid potential osteomyelitis. The use of suppressive antibiotics (oral and/or intravenous) may help reduce the severity of the infection. An alternative surgery to manage implant-associated infection can be amputation above the implant (within the same bone, through-joint amputation, or through the femur for a transtibial osseointegration). This should be considered only if there is a tremendously compelling reason to do so, such as an emergency need to amputate due to a life-threatening infection. Rationale: Indications for implant removal include persistent pain, deep infection recalcitrant to soft-tissue or bone debridement and implant retention, or mechanical complications involving the implant, such as loosening or breakage. The following are specific examples of indications for removal: infection that cannot be resolved with oral and/or intravenous antibiotics or with debridement of soft tissue and/or bone, implants that have not achieved or not maintained stable integration (aseptic or loosening) and are causing pain, and implants that have fractured or have deformed and are a concern for fracture. Expected Outcomes: Most patients who require removal of press-fit osseointegration implants are suitable for reimplantation after a decontamination period involving a local antibiotic depot and intravenous antibiotics. This duration is often 6 to 12 weeks. Following revision osseointegration, patients generally achieve similar levels of performance as they had during the stable period prior to removal3-5. Infection does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of mortality6. Patients who decline revision osseointegration are able to return to the use of a socket prosthesis. Important Tips: Infection is often treatable with use of oral and/or intravenous antibiotics, with or without soft-tissue and/or bone debridement. Consider these options before reflexively removing an implant.Preserving bone stock and quality is important for an optimal revision to another osseointegration prosthesis or conversion to a socket prosthesis. Living bone, even if infected, can be decontaminated with antibiotics. Minimize thermal injury by releasing the tourniquet and using saline solution irrigation during reaming or similar portions of the procedure. If the implant can only be removed by fully removing a portion of bone (rather than through a single clamshell-type osteotomy), attempt screw osteosynthesis to preserve a canal for future osseointegration.Be gentle and patient during the removal techniques. Elevating bone quickly or violently may cause propagating fractures, increased morbidity, or splinter bone fragments. Carefully separating bone from implant will reduce bone loss and preserve the bone condition for a potential revision.Although patients may not appear to have an infection in some cases, it is advised to treat every removal as if it involves an infection. The first surgical stage should be for removal, culture acquisition, and decontamination with antibiotics. A separate second surgery can be performed after the antibiotics have eradicated infection.Many implants have been removed with slap hammer or fine wire techniques; osteotomy should be reserved for situations in which diligent attempts using these techniques have proven unsuccessful, in order to optimize bone integrity.

Constructing an Osseointegrated Prosthetic Leg.

Background: Constructing an osseointegrated prosthetic leg is the necessary subsequent phase of care for patients following the surgical implantation of an osseointegrated prosthetic limb anchor. The surgeon implants the bone-anchored transcutaneous implant1,2 and the prosthetist constructs the prosthetic leg, which then attaches to the surgically implanted anchor. An osseointegration surgical procedure is usually considered in patients who are unable to use or are dissatisfied with the use of a socket prosthesis. Description: This present video article describes the techniques and principles involved in constructing a prosthetic leg for transfemoral and transtibial amputees, as well as postoperative patient care. Preoperatively, as part of a multidisciplinary team approach, the prosthetist should assist in patient evaluation to determine suitability for osseointegration surgery. Postoperatively, when approved by the surgeon, the first step is to perform an implant inspection and to take patient measurements. A temporary loading implant is provided to allow the patient to start loading the limb. When the patient is approved for full-length leg to begin full weight-bearing, the implant and prosthetic quality are evaluated, including torque, implant position, bench alignment, static alignment in the standing position, and initial dynamic alignment. This surgical procedure also requires long-term, continued patient care and prosthetic maintenance. Alternatives: For patients who are dissatisfied with the use of a socket prosthesis, adjustments can often be made to improve the comfort, fit, and performance of the prosthesis. Non-osseointegration surgical options include bone lengthening and/or soft-tissue contouring. Rationale: Osseointegration can be provided for amputees who are expressing dissatisfaction with their socket prosthesis, and typically provides superior mobility and quality of life compared with nonoperative and other operative options3,4. Specific differences between the appropriate design and construction of osseointegrated prostheses versus socket prostheses include component selection, component fit, patient-prosthesis static and dynamic alignment, tolerances and accommodations, and also the expected long-term changes in patient joint mobility and behavior. Providing an osseointegrated prosthesis according to the principles appropriate for socket prostheses may often leave an osseointegrated patient improperly aligned and provoke maladaptive accommodations, hindering performance and potentially putting patients at unnecessary risk for injury. Expected Outcomes: Review articles describing the clinical outcomes of osseointegration consistently suggest that patients with osseointegrated prostheses have improved prosthesis wear time, mobility, and quality of life compared with patients with socket prostheses. Importantly, studies have shown that osseointegrated prostheses can be utilized in patients with short residual limbs that preclude the use of a socket prosthesis, allowing them to regain or retain function of the joint proximal to the short residuum5,6. Osseoperception improves patient confidence during mobility7. Because there is an open skin portal, low-grade soft-tissue infection can occur, which is usually treated with a short course of oral antibiotics. Much less often, soft-tissue debridement or implant removal may be needed to treat infection8. Periprosthetic fractures can nearly always be treated with familiar fracture fixation techniques and implant retention9,10. Important Tips: Falls can lead to periprosthetic fractures.Malalignment can lead to unnecessary pathologic joint forces, soft-tissue contractures, and an accommodative gait.Inadequately sophisticated components can leave patients at a performance deficit.Wearing the prosthetic leg while sleeping may lead to rotational forces exerted on the limb, which may cause prolonged tension on the soft tissue. Acronyms and Abbreviations: QTFA = Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral AmputationLD-SRS = Limb Deformity Modified Scoliosis Research SocietyPROMIS = Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information SystemEQ-5D = EuroQol 5 Dimensions.

Transfemoral amputation versus knee arthrodesis for failed total knee replacement: A systematic review of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The options available to salvage a failed total knee replacement (TKR) include transfemoral amputation (TFA) and knee arthrodesis (KA). This systematic review aims to evaluate outcomes following either TFA or KA, comparing ambulatory status, additional subsequent surgery, postoperative infection, pain, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mortality rate. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Ovid Medline, and PubMed. Only primary research studies were included and data were independently extracted using a standardized form. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Forty-four papers were included, comprising 470 TFA and 1034 KA patients. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate. No TFA versus KA randomized controlled trials could be identified. Pooled data totals via subgroup analyses were performed, owing to inconsistent reporting methods in the included studies. Prosthesis use rate by TFA patients was 157/316 = 49.7%. Significant differences included that TFA patients had lower rates of ambulatory capacity than KA patients (139/294 = 45.6% versus 248/287 = 86.4%, p < 0.001), TFA ambulators were less likely to use an ambulatory aid (55/135 = 40.7% versus 167/232 = 72.0%, p < 0.001), and TFA was associated with a greater postoperative infection rate than KA (29/118 = 24.6% versus 129/650 = 17.2%, p = 0.054). There was a similar rate of revision surgery between TFA and KA (37/183 = 20.2% versus 145/780 = 18.6%, p = 0.612). Data on HRQoL for both TFA and KA were limited, contradictory, and heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: No randomized controlled trials comparing TFA versus KA exist;therefore, current data likely reflects substantial selection bias. The currently available evidence suggests that KA patients are significantly more likely to achieve independent bipedal ambulation than TFA patients. In both treatment cohorts, subsequent infection and revision surgery remain a relatively common occurrence.

Development of an evidence-based diagnostic algorithm for infection in patients with transcutaneous osseointegration following amputation.

Introduction: Transcutaneous osseointegration following amputation (TOFA) confers better mobility and quality of life for most patients versus socket prosthesis rehabilitation. Peri-TOFA infection remains the most frequent complication and lacks an evidence-based diagnostic algorithm. This study's objective was to investigate preoperative factors associated with positive intraoperative cultures among patients suspected of having peri-TOFA infection in order to create an evidence-based diagnostic algorithm. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 83 surgeries (70 patients) performed to manage suspected lower-extremity peri-TOFA infection at a specialty orthopedic practice and tertiary referral hospital in a major urban center. The diagnosis of infection was defined as positive intraoperative cultures. Preoperative patient history (fevers, subjective pain, increased drainage), physician examination findings (local cellulitis, purulent discharge, implant looseness), and laboratory data (white blood cell count, C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and external swab culture) were evaluated for association with subsequent positive intraoperative cultures using regression and area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) modeling. Results: Peri-implant limb pain (highly correlated with infection), ESR >30 (highly correlated against infection), positive preoperative swab (moderately correlated with infection), gross implant motion (moderately correlated against infection), and erythema or cellulitis of the transcutaneous region (mildly correlated with infection) were variables included in the best AUC model, which achieved an 85 % positive predictive value. Other clinical findings and laboratory values (notably CRP and WBC) were non-predictive of infection. Conclusions: This seminal investigation to develop a preoperative diagnostic algorithm for peri-TOFA infection suggests that the clinical examination remains paramount. Further evaluation of a wider spectrum of clinical, laboratory, and imaging data, consistently and routinely collected with prospective data techniques in larger cohorts of patients, is necessary to create a robust predictive algorithm.

Horrifying Basal Cell Carcinoma Presenting as Progressive Pyoderma Gangrenosum: Case Report.

Introduction: Skin ulcers can be challenging to diagnose and manage, particularly with comorbid autoimmune and gastrointestinal diseases. Occam's razor encourages the simplest explanation to guide care, but reconsideration must occur when intervention proves futile. Case Presentation: We report the case of a 70-year-old male, with a 17-year history of expanding pretibial skin ulcer, presumed by prior care providers to be pyoderma gangrenosum related to Crohn's disease. A surgical biopsy performed upon presentation to our institution revealed basal cell carcinoma of the skin, invasive to the proximal tibia with associated deep infection, prompting transfemoral amputation. Conclusion: This report is written as a reminder to reconsider a diagnosis and consider seeking additional expertise when a patient's condition progressively worsens despite intervention. Earlier diagnosis likely would have facilitated therapeutic limb salvage care.

Transtibial osseointegration following unilateral traumatic amputation: An observational study of patients with at least two years follow-up.

IMPORTANCE: Most patients use a traditional socket prosthesis (TSP) to ambulate independently following transtibial amputation. However, these patients generally require prosthesis repairs more than twice annually and an entirely new prosthesis every two years. Furthermore, transtibial amputation patients have four times the skin ulceration rate of transfemoral patients, prompting more frequent prosthesis refitting and diminished use. Trans-Tibial osseointegration (TTOI) is a promising technique to address the limitations of TSP, but remains understudied with only four cohorts totaling 41 total procedures reported previously. Continued concerns regarding the risk of infection and questions as to functional capacity postoperatively have slowed adoption of TTOI worldwide. OBJECTIVE: This study reports the changes in mobility, quality of life (QOL), and the safety profile of the largest described cohort of patients with unilateral TTOI following traumatic amputation. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. The cohort consisted of patients with data outcomes collected before and after osseointegration intervention. SETTING: A large, tertiary referral, major metropolitan center. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one skeletally mature adults who had failed socket prosthesis rehabilitation, with at least two years of post-osseointegration follow-up. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mobility was evaluated by K-level, Timed Up and Go (TUG), and Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT). QOL was assessed by survey: daily prosthesis wear hours, prosthesis problem experience, general contentment with prosthesis, and Short Form 36 (SF36). Adverse events included any relevant unplanned surgery such as for infection, fracture, implant loosening, or implant failure. RESULTS: All patients demonstrated statistically significant improvement post osseointegration surgery with respect to K-level, TUG, 6MWT, prosthesis wear hours, prosthesis problem experience, general prosthesis contentment score, and SF36 Physical Component Score (p < 0.01 for all). Three patients had four unplanned surgeries: two soft tissue refashionings, and one soft tissue debridement followed eventually by implant removal. No deaths, postoperative systemic complications, more proximal amputations, or periprosthetic fractures occurred. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: TTOI is likely to confer mobility and QOL improvements to patients dissatisfied with TSP rehabilitation following unilateral traumatic transtibial amputation. Adverse events are relatively infrequent and not further disabling. Judicious use of TTOI seems reasonable for properly selected patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 (Therapeutic investigation, Observational study with dramatic effect).

Transcutaneous osseointegration for amputees with burn trauma.

OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous osseointegration for amputees (TOFA) surgically implants a prosthetic anchor into the residual limb's bone, enabling direct skeletal connection to a prosthetic limb and eliminating the socket. TOFA has demonstrated significant mobility and quality of life benefits for most amputees, but concerns regarding its safety for patients with burned skin have limited its use. This is the first report of the use of TOFA for burned amputees. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed of five patients (eight limbs) with a history of burn trauma and subsequent osseointegration. The primary outcome was adverse events such as infection and additional surgery. Secondary outcomes included mobility and quality of life changes. RESULTS: The five patients (eight limbs) had an average follow-up time of 3.8 ± 1.7 (range 2.1-6.6) years. We found no issues of skin compatibility or pain associated with the TOFA implant. Three patients underwent subsequent surgical debridement, one of whom had both implants removed and eventually reimplanted. K-level mobility improved (K2 +, 0/5 vs 4/5). Other mobility and quality of life outcomes comparisons are limited by available data. CONCLUSION: TOFA is safe and compatible for amputees with a history of burn trauma. Rehabilitation capacity is influenced more by the patient's overall medical and physical capacity than their specific burn injury. Judicious use of TOFA for appropriately selected burn amputees seems safe and merited.

Bone density changes after five or more years of unilateral lower extremity osseointegration: Observational cohort study.

Context: Rehabilitation following lower extremity amputation presents multiple challenges, many related to the traditional prosthesis (TP) socket. Without skeletal loading, bone density also rapidly decreases. Transcutaneous osseointegration for amputees (TOFA) surgically implants a metal prosthesis attachment directly into the residual bone, facilitating direct skeletal loading. Quality of life and mobility are consistently reported to be significantly superior with TOFA than TP. Objective: To investigate how femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm2) changes for unilateral transfemoral and transtibial amputees at least five years following single-stage press-fit osseointegration. Methods: Registry review was performed of five transfemoral and four transtibial unilateral amputees who had dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) performed preoperatively and after at least five years. The average BMD was compared using Student's t-test (significance p < .05). First, all nine Amputated versus Intact limbs. Second, the five patients with local disuse osteoporosis (ipsilateral femoral neck T-score < -2.5) versus the four whose T-score was greater than -2.5. Results: The average Amputated Limb BMD was significantly less than the Intact Limb, both Before Osseointegration (0.658 ± 0.150 vs 0.929 ± 0.089, p < .001) and After Osseointegration (0.720 ± 0.096 vs 0.853 ± 0.116, p = .018). The Intact Limb BMD decreased significantly during the study period (0.929 ± 0.089 to 0.853 ± 0.116, p = .020), while the Amputated Limb BMD increased a not statistically significant amount (0.658 ± 0.150 to 0.720 ± 0.096, p = .347). By coincidence, all transfemoral amputees had local disuse osteoporosis (BMD 0.545 ± 0.066), and all transtibial patients did not (BMD 0.800 ± 0.081, p = .003). The local disuse osteoporosis cohort eventually had a greater average BMD (not statistically significant) than the cohort without local disuse osteoporosis (0.739 ± 0.100 vs 0.697 ± 0.101, p = .556). Conclusions: Single-stage press-fit TOFA may facilitate significant BMD improvement to unilateral lower extremity amputees with local disuse osteoporosis.

Avoiding Compartment Syndrome, Vascular Injury, and Neurologic Deficit in Tibial Osteotomy: An Observational Study of 108 Limbs.

INTRODUCTION: Tibial deformities are common, but substantial concern may be associated with corrective osteotomy regarding major complications reported in classic literature. Such studies chiefly focused on high tibial osteotomy, with relatively little investigation of other areas and types of deformity. The primary aim of this study was to identify the rate of compartment syndrome, vascular injury, nerve injury, and other major complications after elective tibial osteotomy. METHODS: One hundred eight tibia osteotomies performed during 2019 to 2021 were evaluated, representing all tibia osteotomies except situations of existing infection. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient demographics, surgical indications, anatomic location of osteotomy, fixation used, and complications prompting additional surgery. RESULTS: The most common osteotomy locations were high tibial osteotomy (35/108 = 32%, 32/35 = 91% medial opening, and 3/35 = 9% medial closing), proximal metaphysis (30/108 = 28%), and diaphysis (32/108 = 30%). The most common fixation was plate and screw (38/108 = 35%) or dynamic frame (36/108 = 33%). Tranexamic acid was administered to 107/108 = 99% of patients and aspirin chemoprophylaxis was used for 83/108 = 86%. A total of 33/34= 97% of anterior compartment prophylactic fasciotomies were performed for diaphyseal or proximal metaphysis osteotomies. No events of compartment syndrome, vascular injury, nerve injury, or pulmonary embolism occurred. One patient required débridement to address infection. Additional surgery for delayed/nonunion occurred for nine segments (8%). Additional surgery for other reasons were performed for 10 segments (9%), none resulting in reduced limb function. CONCLUSION: Tibial osteotomy can be safely performed for a variety of indications in a diverse range of patients, without a notable risk of the most feared complications of compartment syndrome, vascular injury, and neurologic deficit. Prophylactic fasciotomy and reducing postoperative bleeding using tranexamic acid, along with location-specific safe surgical techniques, may help prevent major complications and thereby facilitate optimized deformity care.

Precice Stryde® Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail does not Impair Bone Healing Despite Radiographic and Clinical Symptoms.

Aims: The Precice Stryde® internal magnetic lengthening nail allowed many patients a full weight-bearing experience during femur and tibia lengthening, but concerns over corrosion, pain and radiographic changes led to the implant's recall. Despite the recall, it is important to understand the rate of these occurrences and their influence on the overall success of the lengthening procedure. We aimed to investigate radiographic changes, patient-reported symptoms and bone healing indices for our cohort of Stryde lengthening. Materials and methods: Our surgical database and electronic medical record system were used to review and document patient demographics, indications for lengthening, length achieved, bone healing index (BHI), location and type of radiographic changes, time until radiographic changes were first visible, presence of pain symptoms (not attributable to surgery or distraction), time to implant removal and if the pain symptoms resolved following implant extraction. Results: From January 2019 to February 2021, 90 Stryde nails (78 femur and 12 tibia) were implanted in 63 patients. The cohort included 48 males and 15 females. The average length [± standard deviation (SD)] achieved was 58.4 ± 22.7 mm. The 66 bones (73%) developed radiographic changes and were found to be 58/78 (74%) femurs and 8/12 (67%) tibias. The average time to initial radiographic changes was 168 ± 108.1 days (femur) and 276 ± 126.8 days (tibia). Late-onset pain developed in 10 femur lengthening (11.1% of all nails) surgeries across eight patients (12.7% of all patients). All patients' pain resolved; three instances prior to nail removal and the remaining seven after nail removal. No patients were re-presented with worsening pain or radiographic changes following implant removal. Radiographic or symptomatic abnormalities did not impair bone formation. The BHI for femurs with (29.6 ± 16.6 days/cm, n = 58) vs without (29.4 ± 17.9 days/cm, n = 20) radiographic or symptomatic irregularity were nearly identical (p = 0.961). The difference between BHI for tibias with (39.3 ± 7.8 days/cm, n = 8) vs without (86.1 ± 38.2 days/cm, n = 4) radiographic changes was influenced by outliers and underpowered to draw a conclusion. Conclusion: Bone lengthening with the Stryde nail was associated with high rates of radiographic abnormalities, but symptoms were uncommon and resolved with explantation. The radiographic changes did not affect bone healing in the femur. Clinical significance: Radiographic changes including bone hypertrophy and osteolysis were common after bone lengthening with the Stryde nail, but the development of pain following consolidation was rare and resolved with implant removal.The BHI in femurs was not affected by radiographic changes. How to cite this article: Reif TJ, Geffner A, Hoellwarth JS, et al. Precice Stryde® Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail does not Impair Bone Healing Despite Radiographic and Clinical Symptoms. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(2):94-99.

Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation.

BACKGROUND: When lengthening the tibia segment using motorized internal lengthening nails (MILN), undesired distal migration of the proximal fibula segment is prevented by tibiofibular stabilization, traditionally using a screw. A tightened cortical suspensory fixation rope (tether) is an alternative option, but its appropriateness has never been studied. The primary outcome was comparing the amount of proximal fibular migration between patients who were stabilized with either a tether or a screw. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the effect of fibular migration on the clinical outcome between both groups. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent tibial lengthening with MILN between April 2016 and June 2022. Two cohorts were compared: 18 limbs with tether fixation versus 29 limbs with screw fixation. Data on the patient's age, sex, etiologies, and clinical outcomes were collected. Radiographic measurements included the lengthening distance and the amount of proximal fibular migration. RESULTS: In total, 47 limbs from 41 patients, with average age 35.01 ± 13.72 years old. There were 28 males (68.29%) and 13 females (31.71%). The tether group demonstrated a statistically significant greater distance of migration than the screw group (p < 0.001), with an average migration distance of 8.39 ± 5.09 mm and 2.59 ± 3.06 mm, respectively. No correlation was found between the amount of tibial lengthening and the distance of proximal fibular migration in both the tether group (p = 0.96) and the screw group (p = 0.32). There was no significant difference in the change of knee extension between both groups (p = 0.3), and no patients reported knee pain or tightness. CONCLUSION: A screw provides better resistance to proximal tibiofibular joint migration during MILN lengthening, but the difference appears clinically inconsequential. Either option appears suitable.

Modern Internet Search Analytics and Osseointegration: What are Patients Asking and Reading Online?

Background: Osseointegration (OI) limb has been performed for over 30 years and is an example of an advance in technology and surgical technique which has led to improvements in patient mobility and quality of life. An increasing number of patients seek information about osseointegration. The aim of this study was to categorise the most frequently asked questions by patients using the Google search engine and the most frequently accessed websites with the highest return on answers. The secondary aims of this study were to assess the quality of the information provided on those websites and to stratify, by category, which websites provide the best quality information. Materials and methods: Ten permutations and conjugations of the word 'osseointegration' were entered into Google. The first fifty 'People also ask' and associated websites by Google's machine learning and natural language processing engine were collected for each search term. The Rothwell classification system of questions by topic (Fact, Value, Policy) and websites by category was used (Commercial, Academic, Medical Practice, Single Surgeon Personal, Government, Social Media). Website quality was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria (Likert-style rating 0-4). Pearson's Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were performed for statistical analysis as appropriate (significance, p < 0.05). Results: The 10 search terms generated 454 questions and referenced 408 websites. Of the 454 questions generated, the most common question categories were fact (70.8%), value (19.2%), and policy (10%). The most common website type was social media (37.4%). The most common question types were technical details (30.4%), specific activity (20.6%), and cost (14.1%). Only 1.6% of questions related to risks and complications. Generally, website quality was poor with 64.1% having a JAMA score of 0 or 1. Websites that were categorised as 'Government' had the highest overall JAMA scores: 71.4% had a score of 4. Conclusion: Based on Google search engine's results, the most commonly asked questions about osteointegration related to technical details, specific activities and cost; only 1.6% related to risks and complications. Interestingly, social media websites represented the highest volume of search result referrals. Overall, the quality of websites was poor with the most factual information coming from governmental websites. How to cite this article: Murphy EP, Sheridan GA, Page BJ, et al. Modern Internet Search Analytics and Osseointegration: What Are Patients Asking and Reading Online? Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(3):163-168.

Clinical outcomes as a function of meniscal stability in the discoid meniscus: a preliminary report.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment for discoid meniscus includes arthroscopic saucerization, with meniscal stabilization additionally performed in patients with demonstrated instability. It is thought that unstable discoid menisci represent a more severe variant and are therefore at risk for poorer clinical outcomes. Our hypothesis was that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between patients undergoing discoid meniscal saucerization alone and those who additionally require stabilization. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients presenting to a single pediatric center for treatment of a symptomatic discoid meniscus. Data collected included sex, age, affected side(s), preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), type of surgery, and the presence of postoperative complications. In addition, a subset of these patients was enrolled prospectively. These patients completed 3 self-assessment tools-the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, Lysholm Knee Score, and Tegner Activity Scale-before and after surgical intervention. Outcomes measures included objective criteria (ROM and surgical complications) and subjective criteria (patient-reported functional outcomes). For all outcomes measures, the Fisher exact test was used to determine whether significant differences existed between the patients who had undergone saucerization only and those who had also required surgical stabilization. RESULTS: Fifty-seven knees in 51 patients were included in the study. Thirty-three patients (58%) underwent saucerization alone and 24 (42%) underwent saucerization and stabilization. Six surgical complications were identified. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding patient-specific factors (sex, age, and affected side) and postoperative outcomes measures (ROM and complication rate). Average patient follow-up was 15 months postoperatively. Seventeen patients (17 knees) additionally completed the 3 self-assessment questionnaires. In this subset of patients followed prospectively, there was no significant difference in self-reported outcomes detected between the meniscal saucerization and meniscal repair groups. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term results for patients with symptomatic discoid menisci requiring surgical intervention are favorable. The addition of a meniscal stabilization step to the saucerization procedure does not negatively affect either early clinical outcomes or complication rates in patients with demonstrated meniscal instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III: Therapeutic Study, Retrospective, Comparative.

Percutaneous Femoral Derotational Osteotomy in the Skeletally Immature Patient.

Percutaneous femoral derotational osteotomies are performed in both adult and pediatric patients for excessive symptomatic femoral anteversion or retroversion1,2. The aim of the procedure is to correct version abnormalities with use of a minimally invasive technique3. Description: This is a percutaneous procedure that involves creation of femoral drill holes at the osteotomy site prior to reaming the canal4. External fixator pins are placed proximal and distal to the osteotomy site prior to completing the osteotomy. These pins are derotational markers for the surgeon and act to hold the correction with use of an external fixator while the interlocking screws are being placed. The pins are placed at a degree of divergence that is equal to the degree of intended derotation so that the pins will become parallel in the axial plane following derotation of the femur. The percutaneous osteotomy is then completed with use of an osteotome, and the trochanteric entry nail is passed across the osteotomy site while correcting rotation. Once rotation is fully corrected and the pins are parallel, the external fixator is placed to hold the rotation and interlocking screws are placed. Alternatives: Nonoperative alternatives to this procedure include physical therapy for gait training and strengthening as well as modalities to address hip and knee pain that may be associated with version abnormalities. Although physical therapy is often prescribed, it must be noted that excess version is a fixed osseous structural pathology that therapy cannot address. Additionally, compensatory mechanisms that may be taught to improve gait and walk with a neutral foot progression angle may exacerbate hip or knee pathology as a result of the underlying version abnormality. Surgical alternatives include derotational osteotomies of the proximal or distal aspects of the femur with use of an open technique with plate fixation, as opposed to an intramedullary nail following percutaneous diaphyseal osteotomy as presented here1. Additionally, an open technique with intramedullary nail fixation may be performed5. Rationale: Excessive anteversion can cause both hip and knee symptoms, including hip pain, instability, labral and psoas pathology, and patellofemoral instability6. Excessive retroversion can cause impingement between the femoral neck and acetabulum, which results in pathology of the labrum and articular cartilage7. Additionally, abnormalities of version often lead to gait disturbances with frequent tripping and difficulty running8. Children with femoral version abnormalities have limited remodeling potential after age 83. A derotational osteotomy may be performed to correct symptomatic excess femoral version in an older child or adolescent. Expected Outcomes: The patient may be weight-bearing as tolerated with upper-extremity assistance immediately following the procedure. The osteotomy typically heals between 6 and 12 weeks, and the patient may return to activities as tolerated once the osteotomy is healed. Gordon et al. described the outcomes of a similar technique for femoral derotational osteotomy in skeletally immature patients with excessive femoral anteversion3. The study retrospectively reviewed the results of the technique in 13 patients and 21 limbs at a minimum follow-up of 1 year. All patients complained of tripping and gait abnormalities preoperatively. All patients noted gait improvement, and no intraoperative or postoperative complications were reported. Healing of the osteotomy occurred at a mean of 6 weeks postoperatively. No patient developed osteonecrosis. We routinely remove hardware in skeletally immature patients approximately 1 year postoperatively. Complications are rare and include hardware irritation, infection, nonunion, and neurovascular injury. Important Tips: Preoperative planning is critical for this procedure, and the surgeon should know the intended degree of derotation, the location of the osteotomy relative to the greater trochanter, the length of the nail, and the approximate diameter of the nail prior to entering the operating room.Percutaneous bicortical femoral drill holes are created at the site of the osteotomy prior to reaming to allow for egress of reamings and bone marrow elements at the osteotomy site, which serve as autograft and stimulate bone healing. Additionally, the drill holes provide ventilation to prevent excessive intramedullary pressure during reaming9-11.External fixator pins are placed proximal and distal to the osteotomy prior to completion of the osteotomy to allow for rotational assessment after completion of the osteotomy. Placing these pins bicortically so that they are secure in the bone and ensuring that the divergence is correct for the intended amount of derotation is critical in this procedure because once the osteotomy is complete, the pins are the only markers of rotation the surgeon has to guide the correction.An external fixator is helpful in holding the femur at the intended degree of derotation during placement of the interlocking screws. Acronyms & Abbreviations: ROM = range of motionCT = computed tomographyMRI = magnetic resonance imagingAP = anteroposteriorGT = greater trochanterAV = anteversionER = external rotationIR = internal rotationA = anteriorP = posteriorM = medialL = lateralXR = X-rayProx = proximalEx fix = external fixatorWBAT = weight-bearing as toleratedBLE = bilateral lower extremitiesDVT = deep venous thrombosisPT = physical therapyppx = prophylaxisAVN = avascular necrosis (osteonecrosis).

Periprosthetic Femur Fractures in Osseointegration Amputees: A Report of 2 Cases Using a Modified Traction Technique.

CASES: Two patients with periprosthetic femur fracture proximal to a femoral osseointegration had surgical stabilization. These cases produced operative challenges because commonly used intraoperative traction methods cannot be used for patients with transfemoral osseointegration. CONCLUSION: We describe a novel technique to apply traction and rotation to the osseointegrated extremity: using the implant's antirotation propeller handle. This allows for an otherwise familiar technique to be used for fracture fixation: open reduction with internal fixation using a proximal femur hook plate and eccentric peri-implant screws.

Revision Amputation with Press-Fit Osseointegration for Transfemoral Amputees.

Press-fit transfemoral osseointegration is the technique of inserting an intramedullary metal implant into the residual femur of an amputee; the implant is passed transcutaneously to attach to a standard prosthesis that includes a knee, tibia, ankle, and foot. This allows the prosthesis to be skeletally anchored, eliminating socket-related problems such as tissue compression that can provoke neurogenic pain, skin abrasion, and fitting problems resulting from residual limb size fluctuation1. Amputees with osseointegrated prostheses typically wear their prosthesis more and experience better mobility, quality of life, and extremity proprioception compared to those with socket prostheses2-4. Description: We demonstrate the fundamentals of a single-stage procedure involving an impacted press-fit porous-coated titanium osseointegration implant. The preoperative evaluation is summarized and the specific surgical steps are described: exposure, osteotomy, canal preparation, implant insertion, (optional) targeted muscle reinnervation, muscle closure, soft-tissue contouring and stoma creation, and abutment insertion. Alternatives: Amputees who are dissatisfied with their quality of life or mobility when using a socket prosthesis can attempt to modify their socket or activity level or accept their situation. Non-osseointegration surgical options to try to improve socket fit include bone lengthening and/or soft-tissue contouring. An alternative design is a screw-type osseointegration implant1. Rationale: Press-fit osseointegration can be provided for amputees having difficulty with socket wear5. Press-fit osseointegration usually provides superior mobility and quality of life compared with nonoperative and other operative options for patients expressing dissatisfaction for reasons such as those mentioned above, including poor fit, compromised energy transfer, skin pinching, compression, and abrasions. Expected Outcomes: Review articles describing the clinical outcomes of osseointegration consistently suggest that patients have improved prosthesis wear time, mobility, and quality of life compared with patients with a socket prosthesis3,4. In a recent study2 of 18 femoral and 13 tibial amputees who had osseointegration, Reif et al. showed significant improvements in prosthesis wear time, mobility, and multiple quality-of-life surveys at a mean follow-up of nearly 2 years. The most common postoperative complication for this procedure is low-grade soft-tissue infection, which is usually managed by a short course of oral antibiotics. Much less often, soft-tissue debridement or implant removal may be needed to manage infection. Periprosthetic fractures can nearly always be managed with familiar fracture fixation techniques and implant retention6. Important Tips: Template and choose an implant with an optimal diameter that encroaches the inner cortex at the narrowest bone diameter; an implant that is too wide may not fit without causing a large fracture, and an implant that is too narrow may fall out. Do not cement the implant7.Ideally, the abutment of the implant should rest against a flat transverse bone end with cortical contact and leave the correct amount of room for the prosthetic knee so that it matches the height of the contralateral knee; avoid inserting an implant too distally or in too wide a metaphyseal flare.Gentle impaction pressure is necessary and small contained distal fractures are acceptable, but avoid causing a propagating fracture. Do not place cerclage cables or loose bone graft at these small fracture sites.Avoid the use of a tourniquet during intramedullary reaming to prevent potential heat-induced osteonecrosis.Nerve surgery such as targeted muscle reinnervation, if indicated, can be performed in the same surgical episode as the osseointegration.The muscles should be closed at the bone-implant interface with use of a tight purse string in order to provide a vascularized tissue barrier against bacterial ingress8.The skin surrounding the stoma should have unnecessary fat removed, but not excess removal leading to skin necrosis. The skin fascia should be sutured to the muscle surrounding the stoma to stabilize the peri-stomal skin.Soft-tissue contouring is needed to achieve the optimal soft-tissue tension around the stoma and abutment. Single-stage surgery has a distinct advantage in this regard. Acronyms and Abbreviations: MVA = motor vehicle accidentAP = anteroposteriorCT = computed tomographyTMR = targeted muscle reinnervationQTFA = Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral AmputationEQ-5D = EuroQol 5 DimensionsLD-SRS = Limb Deformity-Scoliosis Research Society (questionnaire)PROMIS = Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System.