Long-term patient reported outcomes after revision surgery for lower extremity nonunion: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Ongoing lower extremity long-bone nonunion is a devastating condition and associated with substantial patient morbidity. There is limited evidence regarding physical and mental function after surgical management of lower extremity nonunions. The purpose of this study was to assess general physical and mental health and lower extremity specific physical function of patients that underwent surgery for a lower extremity long-bone nonunion. METHODS: One-hundred and twenty-four adult patients who underwent successful surgical management for a lower extremity long-bone nonunion between June 2002 and December 2021 were evaluated at an average follow-up of 8.6 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 4 - 12). General physical and mental health was assessed with the Short-Form 12 (SF-12) physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summaries, and lower extremity specific physical function with the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify variables that were independently associated with outcomes. RESULTS: The median LEFS was 50 (IQR: 37 - 63) and the median SF-12 PCS was 43 (IQR: 33 - 52), which are both lower than normative population scores (LEFS: 77 and PCS: 51, p < 0.0001). The median SF-12 MCS was 50, which was comparable to the normative population score of 51 (p < 0.0001). The number of previous surgeries before the index nonunion treatment (p = 0.018 and p = 0.041) and the number of revision surgeries after the index nonunion treatment (p = 0.022 and p = 0.041) were associated with lower LEFS and SF-12 PCS scores. CONCLUSION: At an average of 8.6 years after lower extremity nonunion surgery that led to bone healing, patients continue to report lower general and lower extremity specific physical functioning compared to the normative population. The number of surgical attempts to obtain definitive healing was associated with compromised physical function scores. Mental health scores may return close to normative population scores. These results can be used to inform patients and guide treatment strategies and healthcare policies.

Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients With External Fixation: A Two-Center Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: To report on adverse events during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with external fixators. METHODS: . DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Two Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Patients with external fixators on the appendicular skeleton or pelvis undergoing MRI between January 2005 and September 2023. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Adverse events, defined as any undesirable event associated with the external fixator being inside or outside the MRI bore during imaging, including (subjective) heating, displacement or pullout of the external fixator, or early MRI termination for any reason. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients with 110 external fixators underwent at least one MRI scan with an external fixator inside or outside of the MRI bore. The median age was 51 years (interquartile range: 39-63) and 56 (58%) were male. The most common external fixator locations were the ankle (24%), knee (21%), femur (21%), and pelvis (19%). The median duration of the MRI was 40 minutes (interquartile range: 26-58), 86% was performed using 1.5-Tesla MRI, and 14% was performed using 3.0-Tesla MRI. Ninety-five percent of MRI was performed for the cervical spine/head. Two MRI scans (1.6%), one of the shoulder and one of the head and cervical spine, with the external fixator outside of the bore were terminated early because of patient discomfort. There were no documented events of displacement or pullout of the external fixator. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that MRI scans of the (cervical) spine and head can be safely obtained in patients with external fixators on the appendicular skeleton or pelvis. Given the low numbers of MRI scans performed with the external fixator inside the bore, additional studies are necessitated to determine the safety of this procedure. The results from this study can aid orthopaedic surgeons, radiologists, and other stakeholders in developing local institutional guidelines on MRI scanning with external fixators in situ. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Zoledronic acid for hip fracture during initial hospitalization.

Inpatient zoledronic acid (IP-ZA) administered during the initial fracture hospitalization significantly improves the osteoporosis treatment rate. Clinical outcomes of IP-ZA after hip fracture remain uncertain. Here we report a cohort study that emulated a randomized controlled trial using real-world data and evaluated the risk of all-cause-mortality and radiologically confirmed subsequent new fractures among patients hospitalized for a hip fracture who had received IP-ZA as compared with propensity-matched controls. A total of 654 patients who had received IP-ZA and 6877 controls (for whom anti-osteoporosis treatment was indicated but no IP-ZA started during index hospitalization) were included in the study. The primary cohort comprised 652 IP-ZA patients (IP-ZA group) and 1926 matched controls (untreated group), with 71.7% female 92.1% White participants, with a mean age of 80.9 years. Cumulative all-cause mortality over the 24-month follow-up for the IP-ZA group was 12.3% and 20.7% for the untreated group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78, p < .001). A total of 585 (89.7%) patients in IP-ZA group received only a single dose of ZA during the 24 months, and the death rate of this single dose group was 13.3%, which was significantly lower than that of the untreated group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89, p = .003). Rates of radiologically confirmed cumulative subsequent new vertebral fractures were 2.0% in the IP-ZA group and 5.4% in the untreated group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.71, p = .001). A similarly lower rate of new vertebral fractures was seen in the single dose subgroup (1.9% vs 5.4%; HR, 0.44; 95% 0.24-0.82, p = .008). IP-ZA, administered during the initial hospitalization for hip fracture, was associated with lower all-cause-mortality and risk of radiologically confirmed subsequent new vertebral fractures, and thus offers a mechanism to narrow the treatment gap in patients having sustained a hip fragility fracture.

Hip fracture is a serious complication of osteoporosis affecting approximately 300 000 Americans per year and is associated with a 20%-30% 1-year mortality rate. Most patients with hip fracture are elderly (average age, 80-81 years), with multiple underlying medical conditions and are often unable to timely attend post-hospitalization outpatient follow-up to initiate anti-osteoporosis treatment. As a result, only ~10% of post­hip fracture patients receive treatment for underlying osteoporosis. We have previously reported that zoledronic acid (ZA) administered during initial fracture hospitalization (IP-ZA) is safe and can effectively improve the osteoporosis treatment rate to 70%. The present study analyzed the clinical outcomes of 652 patients who had sustained hip fractures and were treated with IP-ZA and 1926 matched controls and revealed significantly reduced rates of all-cause mortality and vertebral compression fracture (VCF) during a 2-year follow-up period. Of note, nearly 90% of the treated patients received only a single dose of ZA (namely, IP-ZA), suggesting that, for most patients, the only opportunity to receive anti-osteoporosis treatment was during the index fracture hospitalization. Importantly, reduced mortality and VCF rates were readily seen in this single-dose group of patients. Our data suggest that IP-ZA is beneficial for osteoporotic hip fracture.

A Cadaveric Study: Does Ankle Positioning Affect the Quality of Anatomic Syndesmosis Reduction?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the quality of syndesmotic reduction with the ankle in maximal dorsiflexion versus neutral plantarflexion (normal resting position). METHODS: Baseline computed tomography (CT) imaging of 10 cadaveric ankle specimens from 5 donors was obtained with the ankles placed in normal resting position. Two fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons disrupted the syndesmosis of each ankle specimen. All ankles were then placed in neutral plantarflexion and were subsequently reduced with thumb pressure under direct visualization through an anterolateral approach and stabilized with one 0.062-inch K-wire placed from lateral to medial in a quadricortical fashion across the syndesmosis. Postreduction CT scans were then obtained with the ankle in normal resting position. This process was repeated with the ankles placed in maximal dorsiflexion during reduction and stabilization. Postreduction CT scans were then obtained with the ankles placed in normal resting position. All postreduction CT scans were compared with baseline CT imaging using mixed-effects linear regression with significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Syndesmotic reduction and stabilization in maximal dorsiflexion led to increased external rotation of the fibula compared with baseline scans [13.0 ± 5.4 degrees (mean ± SD) vs. 7.5 ± 2.4 degrees, P = 0.002]. There was a tendency toward lateral translation of the fibula with the ankle reduced in maximal dorsiflexion (3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.7 ± 0.7 mm, P = 0.096). No other statistically significant differences between measurements of reduction with the ankle placed in neutral plantarflexion or maximal dorsiflexion compared with baseline were present (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the syndesmosis with the ankle in maximal dorsiflexion may lead to malreduction with external rotation of the fibula. There was no statistically significant difference in reduction quality with the ankle placed in neutral plantarflexion compared with baseline. Future studies should assess the clinical implications of ankle positioning during syndesmotic fixation.

Virtual Reality for Subacute Pain After Orthopedic Traumatic Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Acute orthopedic traumatic musculoskeletal injuries are prevalent, costly, and often lead to persistent pain and functional limitations. Psychological risk factors (eg, pain catastrophizing and anxiety) exacerbate these outcomes but are often overlooked in acute orthopedic care. Addressing gaps in current treatment approaches, this mixed-methods pilot study explored the use of a therapeutic virtual reality (VR; RelieVRx ), integrating principles of mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral therapy, for pain self-management at home following orthopedic injury. METHODS: We enrolled 10 adults with acute orthopedic injuries and elevated pain catastrophizing or pain anxiety from Level 1 Trauma Clinics within the Mass General Brigham health care system. Participants completed daily RelieVRx sessions at home for 8 weeks, which included pain education, relaxation, mindfulness, games, and dynamic breathing biofeedback. Primary outcomes were a priori feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability, satisfaction, and safety. Secondary outcomes were pre-post measures of pain, physical function, sleep, depression, and hypothesized mechanisms (pain self-efficacy, mindfulness, and coping). RESULTS: The VR and study procedures met or exceeded all benchmarks. We observed preliminary improvements in pain, physical functioning, sleep, depression, and mechanisms. Qualitative exit interviews confirmed high satisfaction with RelieVRx and yielded recommendations for promoting VR-based trials with orthopedic patients. DISCUSSION: The results support a larger randomized clinical trial of RelieVRx versus a sham placebo control to replicate the findings and explore mechanisms. There is potential for self-guided VR to promote evidence-based pain management strategies and address the critical mental health care gap for patients following acute orthopedic injuries.

Two big bones, one big decision: When to fix bilateral femur fractures.

PURPOSE: For polytrauma patients with bilateral femoral shaft fractures (BFSF), there is currently no consensus on the optimal timing of surgery. This study assesses the impact of early (≤ 24 h) versus delayed (>24 h) definitive fixation on clinical outcomes, especially focusing on concomitant versus staged repair. We hypothesized that early definitive fixation leads to lower mortality and morbidity rates. METHODS: The 2017-2020 Trauma Quality Improvement Program was used to identify patients aged ≥16 years with BFSF who underwent definitive fixation. Early definitive fixation (EDF) was defined as fixation of both femoral shaft fractures within 24 h, delayed definitive fixation (DDF) as fixation of both fractures after 24 h, and early staged fixation (ESF) as fixation of one femur within 24 h and the other femur after 24 h. Propensity score matching and multilevel mixed effects regression models were used to compare groups. RESULTS: 1,118 patients were included, of which 62.8% underwent EDF. Following propensity score matching, 279 balanced pairs were formed. EDF was associated with decreased overall morbidity (12.9% vs 22.6%, p = 0.003), lower rate of deep venous thrombosis (2.2% vs 6.5%, p = 0.012), a shorter ICU LOS (5 vs 7 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital LOS (10 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). When compared to DDF, early staged fixation (ESF) was associated with lower rates of ventilator acquired pneumonia (0.0% vs 4.9%, p = 0.007), but a longer ICU LOS (8 vs 6 days, p = 0.004). Using regression analysis, every 24-hour delay to definitive fixation increased the odds of developing complications by 1.05, postoperative LOS by 10 h and total hospital LOS by 27 h. CONCLUSION: Early definitive fixation (≤ 24 h) is preferred over delayed definitive fixation (>24 h) for patients with bilateral femur shaft fractures when accounting for age, sex, injury characteristics, additional fractures and interventions, and hospital level. Although mortality does not differ, overall morbidity and deep venous thrombosis rates, and length of hospital and intensive care unit stay are significantly lower. When early definitive fixation is not possible, early staged repair seems preferable over delayed definitive fixation.

A Brief Mind-body Intervention Is Feasible and May Prevent Persistent Pain After Acute Orthopaedic Traumas: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% to 50% of patients develop persistent pain after traumatic orthopaedic injuries. Psychosocial factors are an important predictor of persistent pain; however, there are no evidence-based, mind-body interventions to prevent persistent pain for this patient population. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the Toolkit for Optimal Recovery after Injury (TOR) achieve a priori feasibility benchmarks in a multisite randomized control trial (RCT)? (2) Does TOR demonstrate a preliminary effect in improving pain, as well as physical and emotional function? METHODS: This pilot RCT of TOR versus a minimally enhanced usual care comparison group (MEUC) was conducted among 195 adults with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury at risk for persistent pain at four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers between October 2021 to August 2023. Fifty percent (97 of 195) of participants were randomized to TOR (mean age 43 ± 17 years; 67% [65 of 97] women) and 50% (98) to MEUC (mean age 45 ± 16 years; 67% [66 of 98] women). In TOR, 24% (23 of 97) of patients were lost to follow-up, whereas in the MEUC, 17% (17 of 98) were lost. At 4 weeks, 78% (76 of 97) of patients in TOR and 95% (93 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments; by 12 weeks, 76% (74 of 97) of patients in TOR and 83% (81 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments (all participants were still included in the analysis consistent with an intention-to-treat approach). The TOR has four weekly video-administered sessions that teach pain coping skills. The MEUC is an educational pamphlet. Both were delivered in addition to usual care. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment (the percentage of patients who met study criteria and enrolled) and data collection, appropriateness of treatment (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), acceptability (the percentage of patients in TOR who attend at least three of four sessions), and treatment satisfaction (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale). Secondary outcomes included additional feasibility (including collecting data on narcotics and rescue medications and adverse events), fidelity (whether the intervention was delivered as planned) and acceptability metrics (patients and staff), pain (numeric rating scale), physical function (Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire [SMFA], PROMIS), emotional function (PTSD [PTSD Checklist], depression [Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression]), and intervention targets (pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness). Assessments occurred at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Several outcomes exceeded a priori benchmarks: feasibility of recruitment (89% [210 of 235] of eligible participants consented), appropriateness (TOR: 73% [66 of 90] scored > midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), data collection (79% [154 of 195] completed all surveys), satisfaction (TOR: 99% [75 of 76] > midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale), and acceptability (TOR: 73% [71 of 97] attended all four sessions). Participation in TOR, compared with the MEUC, was associated with improvement from baseline to postintervention and from baseline to follow-up in physical function (SMFA, baseline to post: -7 [95% CI -11 to -4]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -6 [95% CI -11 to -1]; p = 0.02), PROMIS (PROMIS-PF, baseline to follow-up: 2 [95% CI 0 to 4]; p = 0.045), pain at rest (baseline to post: -1.2 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.6]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -1 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.3]; p = 0.003), activity (baseline to post: -0.7 [95% CI -1.3 to -0.1]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -0.8 [95% CI -1.6 to -0.1]; p = 0.04), depressive symptoms (baseline to post: -6 [95% CI -9 to -3]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -2]; p < 0.002), and posttraumatic symptoms (baseline to post: -4 [95% CI -7 to 0]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -1]; p = 0.01). Improvements were generally clinically important and sustained or continued through the 3 months of follow-up (that is, above the minimum clinically important different [MCID] of 7 for the SMFA, the MCID of 3.6 for PROMIS, the MCID of 2 for pain at rest and pain during activity, the MCID of more than 10% change in depressive symptoms, and the MCID of 10 for posttraumatic symptoms). There were treatment-dependent improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness. CONCLUSION: TOR was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing persistent pain among patients with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury. Using TOR in clinical practice may prevent persistent pain after orthopaedic traumatic injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

A Fracture Liaison Service to Address Vitamin D Deficiency for Patients Hospitalized for Osteoporotic Fracture.

Context: Addressing vitamin D deficiency (VDD) is important for fracture secondary prevention. Objectives: To explore the function of a fracture liaison service (FLS) to address VDD. Design Setting and Patients: An observational study of patients admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital with fractures between January 1, 2016, and October 31, 2023, cared for by the FLS. Intervention: Ergocalciferol 50 000 international units (50ku-D2) oral daily for 3 to 7 days. Main Outcomes Measures: VDD prevalence. Efficacy of inpatient daily 50ku-D2 in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels. Results: Of the 2951 consecutive patients, 724 (24.53%) had VDD (defined by 25OHD ≤ 19 ng/mL). Men (252/897, or 28.09%) were more likely than women (472/2054, or 22.98%) to have VDD (P = .003). VDD was seen in 41.79% (117/280), 24.41% (332/1360), and 20.98% (275/1311) of patients of aged ≤59, 60 to 79, and ≥80 years, respectively (P < .00001). Of the 1303 patients with hip fractures, 327 (25.09%) had VDD, which was associated with a longer length of stay (8.37 ± 7.35 vs 7.23 ± 4.78 days, P = .009) and higher trend of 30-day-readmission rate (13.63% vs 18.35%, P = .037). In a cohort of 32 patients with complete data, each dose of 50ku-D2 increased serum 25OHD by 3.62 ± 2.35 ng/mL without affecting serum calcium or creatinine levels. Conclusion: VDD was seen in nearly 25% of Massachusetts General Hospital FLS patients and more prevalent in male and younger patients. VDD was associated with longer length of stay and higher 30-day-readmission risk in patients with hip fracture. Daily 50ku-D2 appeared to be a practical way to quickly replete vitamin D in the inpatient setting.

Safety of Inpatient Zoledronic Acid in the Immediate Postfracture Setting.

CONTEXT: Zoledronic acid (ZA) administered during the initial hospitalization for a fragility fracture improves the osteoporosis pharmacotherapy rate. Distinguishing the safety profile of inpatient ZA (IP-ZA) in this context is crucial if this approach is to be widely adopted. OBJECTIVE: To study the acute safety profile of IP-ZA. METHODS: An observational study of patients admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital with fragility fractures who were eligible to receive IP-ZA. Patients were treated with or without IP-ZA. Acetaminophen, either as a single pre-ZA dose or standing multiple-doses-per-day regimen for 48 hours or longer after ZA infusion, was also administered along with protocolized vitamin D and calcium supplementation. Changes in body temperature, serum creatinine, and serum calcium were measured. RESULTS: A total of 285 consecutive patients, meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, are included in this analysis; 204 patients received IP-ZA. IP-ZA treatment was associated with a transient mean rise of body temperature of 0.31 °C on the day following its administration. Temperatures above 38 °C were seen in 15% of patients in the IP-ZA group and 4% in the nontreated group. Standing multiple-doses-per-day but not a single pre-ZA dose of acetaminophen effectively prevented this temperature increase. IP-ZA did not affect serum creatinine levels. Mean levels of serum total calcium and albumin-corrected calcium decreased by 0.54 mg/dL and 0.40 mg/dL, respectively, at their nadirs (Day 5). No patient experienced symptomatic hypocalcemia. CONCLUSION: IP-ZA along with standing multiple-doses-per-day acetaminophen, administered to patients in the immediate postfracture period, is not associated with significant acute adverse effects.

Interfacility Transfer Patients With Pelvic, Acetabular, and Lower Extremity Fractures Are at Higher Risk for Major Complications and Readmissions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the adverse event profile and patient comorbidity profile of lower extremity orthopaedic trauma patients admitted via interfacility transfer (IT) to direct admission (DA) patients from home. METHODS: A total of 39,497 patients from 2012 to 2019 were identified in the American College of Surgeon National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. DA patients were compared with IT patients for differences in preoperative comorbidities, adverse events, length of stay, and readmissions in the 30-day postoperative period. Student t tests were used to assess continuous variables. Pearson χ 2 test and odds ratios (ORs) were used for categorical variables. RESULTS: The IT group comprised 7167 patients, and the DA group comprised 32,330 patients. IT patients were on average older (65.5 vs. 58.8 years, P < 0.01), more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists Status >2 ( P < 0.01), and had a worse comorbidity profile for numerous preoperative risk factors. IT patients had significantly higher rates of mortality [3.3% vs. 1.4%; odds ratio (OR) 2.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.96-2.77], major complications (10.2% vs. 6.1%; OR 1.74; 95% CI, 1.60-1.91), significantly higher readmission rates (5.8% vs. 4.8%, P < 0.01, OR 1.22 95% CI, 1.09-1.36), and more infectious complications (7% vs. 4.7%; OR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.38-1.71) than DA patients. Transfer remained a significant factor predicting major adverse events in regression analysis controlling for patient characteristics and fracture type ( P < 0.01; B 1.197; 95% CI, 1.09-1.32). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that IT patients undergoing operative management of pelvic, acetabular, and lower extremity fractures are at a significantly increased risk of major complications, readmission, and have a higher morbidity burden than DA patients. As healthcare transitions to value-based care and bundled payments, hospitals that accept a high volume of ITs will face exposure to added risk and financial penalties without adequate policy protections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Are Foot & Ankle Surgeons Being Adequately Compensated for Ankle Fractures? - An Analysis of Relative Value Units.

The current relative value units (RVU)-based system is built to reflect the varying presentation of ankle fractures (uni-malleolar vs bi-malleolar vs tri-malleolar) by assigning individual RVUs to different fracture complexities. However, no study has evaluated whether the current RVUs reflect an appropriate compensation per unit time following open reduction internal fixation for uni-malleolar versus bi-malleolar versus tri-malleolar ankle fractures. The 2012 to 2017 American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files were queried using current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation for uni-malleolar (CPT-27766,CPT-27769,CPT-27792), bi-malleolar (CPT-27814), and tri-malleolar (CPT-27822,CPT-27823) ankle fractures. A total of 7830 (37.2%) uni-malleolar, 7826 (37.2%) bi-malleolar and 5391 (25.6%) tri-malleolar ankle fractures were retrieved. Total RVUs, Mean RVU/minute and Reimbursement rate ($/min) and Mean Reimbursement/case for each fracture type were calculated and compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. The mean total RVU for each fracture type was as follows: (1) Uni-malleolar: 9.99, (2) Bi-malleolar = 11.71 and 3) Tri-malleolar = 12.87 (p < .001). A statistically significant difference was noted in mean operative time (uni-malleolar = 63.2 vs bi-malleolar = 78.6 vs tri-malleolar = 95.5; p < .001) between the 3 groups. Reimbursement rates ($/min) decreased significantly as fracture complexity increased (uni-malleolar = $7.21/min vs bi-malleolar = $6.75/min vs tri-malleolar = $6.10; p < .001). The average reimbursement/case was $358, $420, and $462 for uni-malleolar, bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar fractures respectively. Foot & ankle surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate ($/min) for treating a simple uni-malleolar fracture as compared to bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar fractures, despite the higher complexity and longer operative times seen in the latter. The study highlights the need of a change in the RVUs for bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar ankle fractures to ensure that surgeons are adequately reimbursed per unit time for treating a more complex fracture case.

What Do Orthopedic Trauma Surgeons Want and Expect from Anesthesiologists?

From the orthopedic trauma surgeon's perspective, successful injury management hinges on fracture fixation and restoration of patient mobility in a safe and expeditious manner. Management of critically injured polytrauma patients and shared decisions regarding regional anesthetics presents a myriad of challenges for orthopedic trauma surgeons and anesthesiologists alike. As the populations age, the typical patient sustaining traumatic orthopedic injuries are increasingly frail and elderly. This trend in demographics has mandated that care for orthogeriatric patients is coordinated by multidisciplinary teams working in concert on medically complex cases to a common end. In this article, we highlight opportunities for improved communication and care integration between orthopedic trauma surgeons and anesthesiologists.

Optimizing the implementation of a multisite feasibility trial of a mind-body program in acute orthopedic trauma.

The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a mind-body program for patients with acute orthopedic injuries who are at risk for persistent pain/disability. In preparation for a multisite feasibility trial of TOR at three orthopedic trauma centers, we aim to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to study implementation and strategies to mitigate the implementation barriers and leverage facilitators.We conducted 18 live video focus groups among providers and three one-on-one interviews with department chiefs at Level 1 trauma centers in three geographically diverse sites (N = 79 participants). Using a content analysis approach, we detected the site-specific barriers and facilitators of implementation of TOR clinical trial. We organized the data according to 26 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), mapped to three Proctor implementation outcomes relevant to the desired study outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility). Across the three sites, we mapped six of the CFIR constructs to acceptability, eight to appropriateness, and three to feasibility. Prominent perceived barriers across all three sites were related to providers' lack of knowledge/comfort addressing psychosocial factors, and organizational cultures of prioritizing workflow efficiency over patients' psychosocial needs (acceptability), poor fit between TOR clinical trial and the fast-paced clinic structure as well as basic needs of some patients (appropriateness), and limited resources (feasibility). Suggestions to maximize the implementation of the TOR trial included provision of knowledge/tools to improve providers' confidence, streamlining study recruitment procedures, creating a learning collaborative, tailoring the study protocol based on local needs assessments, exercising flexibility in conducting research, dedicating research staff, and identifying/promoting champions and using novel incentive structures with regular check-ins, while keeping study procedures as nonobtrusive and language as de-stigmatizing as possible. These data could serve as a blueprint for implementation of clinical research and innovations in orthopedic and other medical settings.

Training the New Generations of Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: Understanding Generational Differences to Maximize Educational Benefit.

ABSTRACT: Most of the current orthopaedic residents are considered Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and are often trained by attending surgeons who are from Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) or the Baby Boomer generation (born between 1946 and 1964). The Generation X orthopaedic surgeons were largely trained by Baby Boomers who were very demanding of their trainees and expected excellence. The Baby Boomers had been inspired, mentored, and trained by the Greatest Generation (born between 1901 and 1927). Baby Boomers took nothing for granted and nothing was given to them on a silver platter. Generation X was trained under these premises and was expected to abide by similar values. Regarding the next generation of residents, current faculty hope to instill the same qualities that had been instilled in them during their training. This value transference sometimes presents a challenge because of the differences in attitudes and perspectives that may exist between Millennial residents and their predecessors regarding work-life balance, teaching styles, the regulation of duty hours, and feedback assessments. These differences require an evolution in the methods of surgical education to optimize the educational benefit and ensure good will and rapport between the generations. Trainees and faculty alike have a responsibility to understand each other's differences and come together to ensure that knowledge, experience, values, and skill sets are effectively passed on to a new generation of orthopaedic surgeons.

Discharge to inpatient care facilities following hip fracture surgery: incidence, risk factors, and 30-day post-discharge outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Discharge to an inpatient care facility (skilled-care or rehabilitation) has been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes following elective total joint arthroplasties. Current evidence with regard to hip fracture surgeries remains limited. METHODS: The 2015-2016 ACS-NSQIP database was used to query for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation for hip fractures. A total of 15,655 patients undergoing hip fracture surgery were retrieved from the database. Inpatient facility discharge included discharges to skilled-care facilities and inpatient rehabilitation units. Multi-variate regression analysis was used to assess for differences in 30-day post-discharge outcomes between home-discharge versus inpatient care facility discharge, while adjusting for baseline differences between the 2 study populations. RESULTS: A total of 12,568 (80.3%) patients were discharged to an inpatient care facility. Discharge to an inpatient care facility was associated with higher odds of any complication (OR 2.03 [95% CI, 1.61-2.55]; p < 0.001), wound complications (OR 1.79 [95% CI, 1.10-2.91]; p = 0.019), cardiac complications (OR 4.49 [95% CI, 1.40-14.40]; p = 0.012), respiratory complication (OR 2.29 [95% CI, 1.39-3.77]; p = 0.001), stroke (OR 7.67 [95% CI, 1.05-56.29]; p = 0.045, urinary tract infections (OR 2.30 [95% CI, 1.52-3.48]; p < 0.001), unplanned re-operations (OR 1.37 [95% CI, 1.03-1.82]; p = 0.029) and readmissions (OR 1.38 [95% CI, 1.16-1.63]; p < 0.001) following discharge. CONCLUSION: Discharge to inpatient care facilities versus home following hip fracture surgery is associated with higher odds of post-discharge complications, re-operations and readmissions. These results stress the importance of careful patient selection prior to discharge to inpatient care facilities to minimise the risk of complications.

Pubic Symphysis Separation and Regression in Vaginal versus Cesarean Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association of pubic symphysis separation with mode of delivery and follow the resolution of this physiologic separation in the postpartum period. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study that recruited two cohorts of primiparous women: those undergoing vaginal and cesarean delivery (45 and 46 patients, respectively). Chart review collected intrapartum factors. Patients were followed with serial anterior-posterior radiographs within 48 hours of delivery and at 6, 12, and 24 weeks postpartum, to evaluate the extent of pubic symphysis separation. Differences between the two cohorts in intrapartum factors were assesses as was pubic symphysis separation at each time point. RESULTS: Mean age of women was 25.8 (SD 5.1) years, and 56% were White. Mean birth weight was 3.5 (SD 0.52) kg. Mean immediate postpartum pubic symphysis separation was 7.6 (SD 2.2) mm and did not differ between groups, at 7.18 mm for vaginal delivery versus 8.04 mm for cesarean delivery (CD; P = 0.08). Pubic symphysis separation was not significantly different for CD with and without labour. Black race and obesity were associated with increased pubic symphysis separation. No intrapartum events were related to extent of separation. Normalization of pregnancy pubic symphysis separation to 4-5 mm occurred by 6 weeks postpartum. Separation of >10mm and <15mm occurred in 10 of the 91 women and occurred after vaginal and cesarean delivery. The widest pubic symphysis separation was observed in 3 patients after vaginal delivery. CONCLUSION: Physiological pubic symphysis separation occursduring pregnancy and regresses postpartum with minimal effects from labour and delivery. Cesarean deliverydoes not prevent physiological pubic symphysis separation.

Lower Extremity Splinting: A Head-to-Head Comparison of A Novel One-Step Spray-on Splint Versus Standard Splinting.

INTRODUCTION: Splinting is an essential component of treating many lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries; however, little development has been made in splinting technology. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of current immobilization equipment for lower extremity fractures by testing a novel one-step spray-on foam splint (Fast Cast) against structural aluminum malleable (SAM) lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries and 6-inch ACE (3M Corp., Minneapolis, MN, USA) bandage splints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six orthopedic surgical residents and two medical students participated in a prospective analysis of austere splinting techniques and equipment that utilized a cadaveric model with a distal third tibia-fibula shaft fracture. Each participant was observed and scored by three fellowship trained attending orthopedic surgeons. All scoring was independent using a 5-point Likert scale based on 10 splinting criteria (50 total points possible), including quality of radiographic reduction, time to completion, safety, and sustain longitudinal traction. The Likert scale is a set of questions that reflects the respondent's degree of agreement or disagreement with a statement. Each of the 10 questions has a range of 1-5. A score of 50 means the splint performed perfectly. The lowest possible score is a 10. The participants utilized standard equipment that included SAM splints and 6-inch ACE wraps (3M Corp., Minneapolis, MN, USA) in their first attempt. A second immobilization attempt was done with a one-step spray-on foam splint (Fast Cast). After each splinting attempt, the reduction was verified with radiographic imaging. Data analysis was performed using standard descriptive statistics, Student's t-tests, and inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha scores. This project is Institutional Review Board (IRB) exempt. RESULTS: The one-step spray-on foam splinting technique was superior (P < .05) in all parameters of the Likert scale, yielding a mean overall score of 45.1 points (±3.8), safety 4.7 points, longitudinal traction 4.5 points, and time 136 seconds (±23). The SAM resulted in a mean overall score of 33.8 points (±7.3), safety 2.8 points, longitudinal traction 4.1 points, and time 170 seconds (±52). Radiographic rating was 4.1 points (±0.7) for the SAM splint and 4.5 (±0.6) for Fast Cast. The differences in time to completion and radiograph rating did not reach statistical significance (P = .12 and P = .07, respectively). CONCLUSION: A one-step spray-on foam splinting technique demonstrated consistent superiority in reducing fracture motion, potential soft-tissue damage, and sustained longitudinal traction as compared to the standard technique.

Pubic root fractures are commonly misread as anterior column fractures by radiologists: Single-institution study from a level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine how frequently pubic root fracture is incorrectly identified as anterior column fracture by radiologists and describe differences in characteristics and outcomes between injury patterns. METHODS: We identified 155 patients who sustained pelvic or acetabular fractures at a single, level 1 trauma academic institution. Pelvis computed tomography (CT) scans were evaluated to determine whether patients sustained an anterior column fracture or pubic root fracture. Demographic and clinical factors such as mortality, ambulatory status, type of treatment (nonoperative/surgery), and mechanism of energy were assessed. RESULTS: There were a total of 83 patients in the anterior column group and 72 patients in the pubic root cohort. Eighty-five percent of pubic root fractures were read as anterior column fractures by radiologists. A total of 77.8% of pubic root fractures had posterior ring involvement. Patients with true anterior column acetabular fracture were more likely to need surgery (63.86% vs 41.70%, P = 0.01) and be discharged to skilled nursing or inpatient rehabilitation (59.04% vs 40.27%, P = 0.02) compared to patients with pubic root fracture. CONCLUSION: Pubic root fractures are frequently misread as anterior column fractures in radiology reports. Correctly diagnosing pubic root fractures and differentiating them from anterior column acetabular fractures can have significant impact on patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Therapeutic.

Octogenarian and Nonagenarians Are at a Higher Risk for Experiencing Adverse 30-Day Outcomes Following ORIF of Ankle Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Despite an increasing number of elderly individuals undergoing surgical fixation for ankle fractures, few studies have investigated peri-operative outcomes and safety of surgery in an octogenarian and nonagenarian population (age >80 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons database was queried for patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation for isolated uni-malleolar, bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar ankle fractures. The study cohort was divided into 3 comparison groups (age <65 years, 65-75 and >80). Multi-variate regression analyzes were used to compare the independent effect of varying age groups on 30-day post-operative outcomes while controlling for baseline clinical characteristics and co-morbidity burdens. RESULTS: A total of 19,585 patients were included: 5.3% were >80 years, 18.1% were 65-79 years, and 76.6% were <65 years. When compared to the non-geriatric population, individuals >80 years were at a significantly Abstract: higher risk of 30-day wound complications (OR 1.84; p = 0.019), pulmonary complications (OR 3.88; p < 0.001), renal complications (OR 1.96; p = 0.015), septic complications (OR 3.72; p = 0.002), urinary tract infections (OR 2.24; p < 0.001), bleeding requiring transfusion (OR 1.90; p = 0.025), mortality (or 7.44; p < 0.001), readmissions (OR 1.65; p = 0.004) and non-home discharge (OR 13.91; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Octogenarians undergoing ankle fracture fixation are a high-risk population in need of significant pre-operative surgical and medical optimization. With the majority of patients undergoing non-elective ORIF procedures, it is critical to anticipate potential complications and incorporate experienced geriatric providers early in the surgical management of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians and nonagenarians are fundamentally distinct and vulnerable age groups with a high risk of complications, readmissions, mortality and non-home discharges compared to other geriatric (65-79 years) and non-geriatric (<65 years) patients. Pre-operative counseling and risk-stratification are essential in this vulnerable patient population.