Secondary Bony Defects after Soft Tissue Reconstruction in Limb-Threatening Lower Extremity Injuries: Does the Approach to Flap Elevation Matter?

BACKGROUND: Limb-threatening lower extremity injuries often require secondary bone grafting after soft tissue reconstruction. We hypothesized that there would be fewer wound complications when performing secondary bone grafting via a remote surgical approach rather than direct flap elevation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a single Level 1 trauma center comparing complications after secondary bone grafting in patients who had undergone previous soft tissue reconstruction after open tibia fractures between 2006 and 2020. Comparing bone grafting via a remote surgical incision versus direct flap elevation, we evaluated wound dehiscence requiring return to the operating room as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were deep infection and delayed amputation. RESULTS: We identified 129 patients (mean age: 40 years, 82% male) with 159 secondary bone grafting procedures. Secondary bone grafting was performed via a remote surgical approach in 54% (n = 86) and direct flap elevation in 46% (n = 73) of cases. Wound dehiscence requiring return to the operating room occurred in one patient in the flap elevation group (1%) and none of the patients in the remote surgical approach. The odds of deep wound infection (OR, 1.77; p = 0.31) or amputation (OR, 1.43; p = 0.73) did not significantly differ between surgical approaches. No significant differences were found in complications between the reconstructive surgeon elevating and re-insetting the flap and the orthopaedic trauma surgeon performing the flap elevation and re-inset. CONCLUSION: Direct flap elevation for secondary bone grafting after soft tissue reconstruction for open tibia fractures did not result in more complications than bone grafting via a remote surgical approach. These findings should reassure surgeons to allow other clinical factors to influence the surgical approach for bone grafting.

The Biomechanical Effects of Intramedullary Fixation to the Level of the Physeal Scar on Distal Tibia Fracture Stability.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether intramedullary nail contact with physeal scar improves construct mechanics when treating distal tibial shaft fractures. METHODS: Axially unstable extra-articular distal tibia fractures were created in 30 fresh frozen cadaveric specimens (15 pairs, mean age 79 years). Specimens underwent intramedullary nailing to the level of the physeal scar locked with one or two interlocks or short of the physeal scar locked with two interlocks (reference group). Specimens were subjected to 800N of axial load for 25,000 cycles. Primary outcomes were stiffness before and after cyclic loading. Secondary outcomes were load to failure, load at 3 mm displacement, plastic deformation, and total deformation. RESULTS: The physeal scar with one interlock cohort demonstrated 3.8% greater stiffness before cycling ( P = 0.75) and 1.7% greater stiffness after cycling ( P = 0.86) compared with the reference group. The physeal scar with two interlocks group exhibited 0.3% greater stiffness before cycling ( P = 0.98) and 8.4% greater stiffness after cycling ( P = 0.41) in relation to the reference group. No differences were identified regarding load to failure or load at 3 mm displacement. In specimens with two interlocks, those in contact with the physeal scar demonstrated significantly less plastic ( P = 0.02) and total ( P = 0.04) deformation. CONCLUSIONS: Constructs ending at the physeal scar demonstrated stiffness and load to failure similar to those without physeal scar contact. Less plastic and total deformation was noted in two-interlock constructs with physeal scar contact, suggesting a possible protective effect provided by the physeal scar. These data argue that physeal scar contact may offer a small mechanical benefit in nailing distal tibia fractures, but clinical relevance remains unknown.

Technical Factors Contributing to Nonunion in Supracondylar Distal Femur Fractures Treated With Lateral Locked Plating: A Risk-Stratified Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify technical factors associated with nonunion after operative treatment with lateral locked plating. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ten Level I trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients with supracondylar distal femur fractures (OTA/AO type 33A or C) treated with lateral locked plating from 2010 through 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Surgery for nonunion stratified by risk for nonunion. RESULTS: The cohort included 615 patients with supracondylar distal femur fractures. The median patient age was 61 years old (interquartile range: 46 -72years) and 375 (61%) were female. Observed were nonunion rates of 2% in a low risk of nonunion group (n = 129), 4% in a medium-risk group (n = 333), and 14% in a high-risk group (n = 153). Varus malreduction with an anatomic lateral distal femoral angle greater than 84 degrees, was associated with double the odds of nonunion compared to those without such varus [odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-4.2; P = 0.03]. Malreduction by medial translation of the articular block increased the odds of nonunion, with 30% increased odds per 4 mm of medial translation (95% CI, 1.0-1.6; P = 0.03). Working length increased the odds of nonunion in the medium risk group, with an 18% increase in nonunion per 10-mm increase in working length (95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = 0.01). Increased proximal screw density was protective against nonunion (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.92; P = 0.02) but yielded lower mRUST scores with each 0.1 increase in screw density associated with a 0.4-point lower mRUST (95% CI, -0.55 to -0.15; P < 0.001). Lateral plate length and type of plate material were not associated with nonunion. ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Malreduction is a surgeon-controlled variable associated with nonunion after lateral locked plating of supracondylar distal femur fractures. Longer working lengths were associated with nonunion, suggesting that bridge plating may be less likely to succeed for longer fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A deep surgical site infection risk score for patients with open tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nail.

OBJECTIVES: To identify deep infection risk factors in patients with open tibial shaft fractures and to develop a scoring algorithm to predict the baseline deep infection risk in this patient population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study conducted at a single academic trauma center identified patients with open tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nail fixation from December 2006 to October 2020. The primary outcome was a deep surgical site infection requiring surgical debridement. The outcome was identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes and confirmed with a medical chart review documenting evidence of a tibial draining wound or sinus tract. RESULTS: Deep surgical site infection occurred in 13% of patients (97/769). Factors that predicted deep surgical site infection were identified. Gustilo-Anderson type IIIB or IIIC was the strongest predictor with a 12-fold increase in the odds of deep infection (OR 11.8, p < 0.001). Additional factors included age >40 years (OR 1.7, p = 0.03), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 (OR 1.9, p < 0.01), Gustilo-Anderson type IIIA vs. type I or II (OR 2.8, p = 0.004), and gunshot wounds (OR 2.9, p = 0.02). The risk scoring model predicted patients who would develop an infection with an acceptable level of accuracy (AUC 0.79). The risk score categorized patients from a low probability of deep infection 2%-6% with <10 points to high risk (58%-69%) with >40 points. CONCLUSIONS: This risk score model predicts deep postoperative infection in patients with open tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nails. The ability to accurately estimate deep infection risk at the time of presentation might aid patient expectation management and allow clinicians to focus infection prevention strategies on the high-risk subset of this population.

The Use of Vancomycin Powder in Tibial Plateau Fractures at Lower Risk of Infection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of vancomycin powder in preventing infection after plate and screw fixation of tibial plateau fractures considered at low risk of infection. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single, Level I trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: This study included 459 patients with tibial plateau fractures (OTA/AO 41-B/C) who underwent open reduction and internal fixation from 2006 to 2018 and were considered at low risk of infection based on not meeting the "high risk" definition of the VANCO trial. INTERVENTION: Vancomycin powder administration on wound closure at the time of definitive fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Deep surgical site infection with at least 1 gram-positive bacteria culture. RESULTS: Vancomycin powder administration was associated with reduction in gram-positive infection from 4% to 0% (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.32; P < 0.01). No significant effect was reported in gram-negative only infections, which were observed in 0.3% in the control group, compared with 0.9% in the intervention group (odds ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-69; P = 0.54). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism isolated in the control group, growing in 9 of 18 infections (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with low-risk tibial plateau fractures, vancomycin powder at the time of definitive fixation showed a reduction in the incidence of gram-positive deep surgical site infection. The observed relative effect was relatively larger than that observed in a previous randomized trial on high-risk fractures. These data might support broadening the indication for use of vancomycin powder to include tibial plateau fractures at low risk of infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What Outcomes Are Most Important to Patients Following a Lower Extremity Limb-threatening Injury?

OBJECTIVE: To determine what outcomes are most important to patients after a limb-threatening injury, and if those preferences vary based on the patients' treatment (salvage vs amputation), health, demographics, or time since injury. BACKGROUND: The preferences that motivate the patients' choice of treatment following a limb-threatening injury are poorly understood. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a robust survey methodology to quantify preferences. METHODS: Patients with a history of traumatic limb-threatening injury, January 2010 to December 2020, completed a survey with our DCE and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaire. The DCE attributes included recovery time, function, appearance, cost, and time in hospital. We used conditional logit modeling to estimate the relative importance of each attribute on a scale of 0% to 100%, determine willingness to pay for improvements in the included attributes, and assess variation in preferences based on patient characteristics, including PROMIS score. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients completed the survey (104 limb salvage, 46 amputation; mean age, 48±16 years; 79% male). Regaining preinjury function [relative importance=41%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 37%-45%] and minimizing costs (24%; 95% CI, 21%-28%) were of greatest importance. Changes in appearance were least important (7%; 95% CI, 5%-9%). The hierarchy of preferences did not vary between those who had limb salvage or amputation, but patient age, physical and mental health, and income were associated with preference variation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with limb-threatening injuries most valued gains in function and reduced out-of-pocket costs.

Are Pelvic Binders an Effective Prehospital Intervention?

OBJECTIVE: Widespread adoption of prehospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) by emergency medical services (EMS) systems has been slow and variable across the United States. We sought to determine the frequency of prehospital PCCD use by EMS providers. Secondarily, we hypothesized that prehospital PCCD use would improve early hemorrhagic shock outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 162 unstable pelvic ring injuries transported directly to our center by EMS from 2011 to 2020. Included patients received a PCCD during their resuscitation (prehospital or emergency department). Prehospital treatment details were obtained from the EMS medical record. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a PCCD by EMS before hospital arrival. Secondarily, we explored factors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD, and its association with changes in vital signs, blood transfusion, and mortality. RESULTS: EMS providers documented suspicion of a pelvic ring fracture in 85 (52.8%) patients and 52 patients in the cohort (32.2%) received a prehospital PCCD. Wide variation in prehospital PCCD use was observed based on patient characteristics, geographic location, and EMS provider level. Helicopter flight paramedics applied a prehospital PCCD in 46% of the patients they transported (38/83); in contrast, the EMS organizations geographically closest to our hospital applied a PCCD in ≤5% of cases (2/47). Other predictors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD included lower body mass index (p = 0.005), longer prehospital duration (p = 0.001) and lower Injury Severity Score (p < 0.05). We were unable to identify any improvements in clinical outcomes associated with prehospital PCCD, including early vital signs, number of blood transfusions within 24 hours, or mortality during admission (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate wide practice variation in the application of prehospital PCCDs. Although disparate PCCD application across the state is likely explained by differences across EMS organizations and provider levels, our study was unable to identify any clinical benefits to the prehospital use of PCCDs. It is possible that the benefits of a prehospital PCCD can only be observed in the most displaced fracture patterns with the greatest early hemodynamic instability.

Patients value their own pain over braking safety when deciding when to return to driving: a discrete choice experiment on lower extremity injuries.

Objective: To quantify patient preferences towards time to return to driving relative to compromised reaction time and potential complication risks. Design: Cross-sectional discrete choice experiment. Setting: Academic trauma center. Patients: Ninety-six adult patients with an operative lower extremity fracture from December 2019 through December 2020. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measurement: Patient completed a discrete choice experiment survey consisting of 12 hypothetical return to driving scenarios with varied attributes: time to return to driving (range: 1 to 6 months), risk of implant failure (range: 1% to 12%), pain upon driving return (range: none to severe), and driving safety measured by braking distance (range: 0 to 40 feet at 60 mph). The relative importance of each attribute is reported on a scale of 0% to 100%. Results: Patients most valued a reduced pain level when resuming driving (62%), followed by the risk of implant failure (17%), time to return to driving (13%), and braking safety (8%). Patients were indifferent to returning to driving at 1 month (median utility: 28, interquartile range [IQR] -31 to 80) or 2 months (median utility: 59, IQR: 41 to 91) postinjury. Conclusion: Patients with lower extremity injuries demonstrated a willingness to forego earlier return to driving if it might mean a decrease in their pain level. Patients are least concerned about their driving safety, instead placing higher value on their own pain level and chance of implant failure. The findings of this study are the first to rigorously quantify patient preferences toward a return to driving and heterogeneity in patient preferences. Level of Evidence: V.

Association of Radial Head Fracture Treatment With Long-Term Function.

BACKGROUND: Radial head fractures are often associated with poor outcomes. Both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and radial head arthroplasty (RHA) might be considered in operative cases. This study aimed to compare long-term patient-reported functional outcomes among patients with operatively treated radial head fractures. METHODS: A cross sectional study conducted at a Level I trauma center was used to identify patients with a radial head fracture who underwent ORIF or RHA between 2006 and 2018, and agreed to complete a survey in 2020. The primary outcome measure was the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) score. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients participated in the study. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between groups. QuickDASH scores were similar for both groups (ORIF: mean = 15.7, SD = 18.4; RHA: mean = 22.8, SD = 18.6; mean difference = 0.2 [-9.0 to 9.3], P = .97). Nineteen (37%) ORIF patients and 12 (48%) RHA patients reported a need for pain medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.8 [0.3-2.4], P = .70). Thirteen (25%) ORIF patients and 6 (24%) RHA patients required additional surgery (adjusted OR = 1.7 [0.5-6.2], P = .39). A subgroup analysis of multi-fragmentary fractures revealed similar findings. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes, which included a subgroup analysis of multi-fragmentary fractures, were similar between ORIF and RHA groups at an average of 7.5 years from surgery. Reconstructing the radial head might not result in worse outcomes than RHA when both options are employed according to the best judgment of the operating surgeon.