Open Ankle Fractures in Older Individuals: A Multi-center Study.

The purpose of this study is to identify demographics, etiology, comorbidities, treatment, complications, and outcomes for older patients with open ankle fractures. Patients ≥60 years old who sustained an open ankle fracture between January 1, 2004 - March 31, 2014 at 6 Level 1 trauma centers were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate analysis using Chi-squared or Student's T-test was performed to identify associations between preoperative variables and two postoperative outcomes of interest: amputation and 1-year mortality. Multivariate analysis was performed using stepwise logistical regression to identify independent predictors of postoperative amputation and 1-year mortality. Of the 162 total patients, the most common mechanism of injury was a ground-level fall (51.9%). The most common fracture types were bimalleolar fractures (52.5%) followed by trimalleolar fractures (26.5%), with 41.5% of the fractures classified as Gustilo Anderson Classification Type 2 and 38.6% classified as Type 3A. The average number of surgeries required per patient was 2.1. Complications included: 15.4% superficial infection rate, 9.9% deep infection rate, and 9.3% amputation rate. The 1-year mortality rate was 13.6% and the overall mortality rate was 25.9%. Male gender and fracture type were found to be independent predictors for amputation after surgery (P = 0.009, 0.005, respectively). Older age and having diabetes were independent predictors for 1-year mortality after surgery (P = 0.021, 0.005 respectively). Overall, open ankle fractures in older individuals were associated with high rates of amputation and mortality.

Association of COVID-19 With Achieving Time-to-Surgery Benchmarks in Patients With Musculoskeletal Trauma.

Importance: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospital systems were forced to reduce operating room capacity and reallocate resources. The outcomes of these policies on the care of injured patients and the maintenance of emergency services have not been adequately reported. Objective: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with delays in urgent fracture surgery beyond national time-to-surgery benchmarks. Design Setting and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data collected in the Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Preoperative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma among at 20 sites throughout the US and Canada and included patients who sustained open fractures or closed femur or hip fractures. Exposure: COVID-19-era operating room restrictions were compared with pre-COVID-19 data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surgery within 24 hours after injury. Results: A total of 3589 patients (mean [SD] age, 55 [25.4] years; 1913 [53.3%] male) were included in this study, 2175 pre-COVID-19 and 1414 during COVID-19. A total of 54 patients (3.1%) in the open fracture cohort and 407 patients (21.8%) in the closed hip/femur fracture cohort did not meet 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks. We were unable to detect any association between time to operating room and COVID-19 era in either open fracture (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% CI, 0.77-2.55; P = .28) or closed femur/hip fracture (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.37; P = .97) cohorts. In the closed femur/hip fracture cohort, there was no association between time to operating room and regional COVID-19 prevalence (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.70-1.64; P = .76). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, there was no association between meeting time-to-surgery benchmarks in either open fracture or closed femur/hip fracture during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic. This is counter to concerns that the unprecedented challenges associated with managing the COVID-19 pandemic would be associated with clinically significant delays in acute management of urgent surgical cases and suggests that many hospital systems within the US were able to effectively implement policies consistent with time-to-surgery standards for orthopedic trauma in the context of COVID-19-related resource constraints.

Post-Procedure Protocols Following Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been increasingly studied as a treatment for tendinopathy. Many factors may influence outcomes after PRP, including different protocols following administration. It was hypothesized that there would be heterogeneity in post-PRP protocols. LITERATURE SURVEY: A systematized review of the literature on post-PRP protocols for tendinopathy was conducted using an electronic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases through September 2018. METHODOLOGY: After duplicates were removed, English language articles involving adult patients who received PRP for tendinopathy were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included studies with fewer than 10 patients, PRP used to treat pathology other than tendinopathy, multiple protocols in one study, and surgical settings. Protocol specifics were extracted including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) restrictions before and after injection, postinjection restrictions on movement and weight bearing, use of orthoses, activity modifications, and postinjection rehabilitation protocols. Given limitations in the data, a meta-analysis was not performed. SYNTHESIS: Eighty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Following PRP injection, weight-bearing restrictions were mentioned rarely (12% of protocols). Orthosis use was uncommon overall (18%) but more common in Achilles tendinopathy protocols (53%). The majority of protocols instituted a period of stretching (51%) and strengthening (54%). Stretching programs generally began 2-7 days following injection, and strengthening programs began within 2-3 weeks. Preinjection NSAID restriction was reported rarely (20%), whereas postinjection NSAID restriction was more common (56%), with a typical restriction of greater than 2 weeks (38%). Return to play or full activity was reported in 42% of protocols, most commonly at 4-6 weeks following injection. CONCLUSION: Although the clinical effectiveness of PRP remains controversial, even less is known about the effect of post-PRP protocols, which may affect the outcomes attributed to PRP itself. No studies directly compare post-PRP protocols, and the protocols studied demonstrate substantial heterogeneity. Some consensus regarding post-PRP protocols exists, although the rationale for these recommendations is limited.