Does Flipping From Prone to Supine for Medial Malleolar Fixation of Trimalleolar Ankle Fractures Improve Results?

There has been a paradigm shift towards fixing the posterior malleolus in trimalleolar ankle fractures. This study evaluated whether a surgeon's preference to intraoperatively flip or not flip patients from prone to supine for medial malleolar fixation following repair of fibular and posterior malleoli impacted surgical outcomes. A retrospective patient cohort treated at a large urban academic center and level 1 trauma center was reviewed to identify all operative trimalleolar ankle fractures initially positioned prone. One hundred and forty-seven patients with mean 12-month follow-up were included and divided based on positioning for medial malleolar fixation, prone or supine (following closure, flip and re-prep, and drape). Data was collected on patient demographics, injury mechanism, perioperative variables, and complication rates. Postoperative reduction films were reviewed by orthopedic traumatologists to grade the accuracy of anatomic fracture reduction. Overall, 74 (50.3%) had the medial malleolus fixed prone, while 73 (49.7%) were flipped and fixed supine. No differences in demographics, injury details, and fracture type existed between the groups. The supine group had a higher rate of initial external fixation (p = .047), longer operative time in minutes (p < .001), and a higher use of plate and screw constructs for medial malleolar fixation (p = .019). There were no differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes and complication rates. This study demonstrated that intraoperative change in positioning for improved medial malleolar visualization in trimalleolar ankle fractures results in longer operative times but similar radiographic and clinical results. The decision of operative position should be based on surgeon comfort.

Screws Alone for Acute Lisfranc Injuries Fixed Without Arthrodesis: A Better "Value" Than Plating in the Short Term.

This study compares outcomes of patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with screw only fixation constructs to those treated with dorsal plate and screw constructs. Seventy patients who underwent surgical treatment for acute Lisfranc injury without arthrodesis and minimum 6-month (mean >1-year) follow-up were identified. Demographics, surgical information, and radiographic imaging were reviewed. Cost data were compared. The primary outcome measure was the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Surgery (AOFAS) midfoot score. Univariate analysis through independent sample t tests, Mann-Whitney U, and chi-squared compared the populations. Twenty-three (33%) patients were treated with plate constructs and 47 (67%) with screw only fixation. The plate group was older (49 ± 18 vs 40 ± 16 years, p = .029). More screw constructs treated isolated medial column injuries compared to plate constructs (92% vs 65%, p = .006). At latest follow-up (mean 14 ± 13 months), all tarsometatarsal joints were aligned. There was no difference in AOFAS midfoot scores. Plate patients experienced longer operations (131 ± 70 vs 75 ± 31 minutes, p < .001) and tourniquet time (101 ± 41 vs 69 ± 25 minutes, p = .001). Plate constructs were more expensive than screw ($2.3X ± $2.3X vs $X ± $0.4X, p < .001) ($X is the mean cost of screws alone). Plate patients had a higher incidence of wound complications (13% vs 0%, p = .012). Treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocation injuries with screws only demonstrated a higher value procedure as similar outcomes were found amidst lower implant costs. Screw only fixation required a shorter operative and tourniquet time with less frequent wound complications. Screw only fixations proved mechanically sound enough to achieve goals of repair without inferior outcomes.

Home discharge location is safest following fracture of the hip.

PURPOSE: To determine the factors associated with discharge location in patients with hip fractures and whether home discharge was associated with a lower readmission and complication rate. METHODS: Hip fracture patients who presented to our academic medical center for operative management of a hip fracture were enrolled into an IRB-approved hip fracture database. Radiographs, demographics, and injury details were recorded at the time of presentation. Patients were grouped based upon discharge disposition: home (with or without home services), acute rehabilitation facility (ARF), or sub-acute rehabilitation facility (SAR). RESULTS: The cohorts differed in marital status, with a greater proportion of patients discharged to home being married (51.7% vs. 43.8% vs. 34.1%) (P < 0.05). Patients discharged to home were less likely to require an assistive device (P < 0.05). Patients discharged to home experienced fewer post-operative complications (P < 0.05) and had lower readmission rates (P < 0.05). Being married was associated with an increased likelihood of discharge to home (OR = 1.679, CI = 1.391-2.028, P < 0.001). Being enrolled in Medicare/Medicaid was associated with decreased odds of discharge to home (OR = 0.563, CI = 0.457-0.693, P < 0.001). Use of an assistive device was associated with decreased odds of discharge to home (OR = 0.398, CI = 0.326-0.468, P < 0.001). Increases in CCI (OR = 0.903, CI = 0.846-0.964, P = 0.002) and number of inpatient complications (OR = 0.708, CI = 0.532-0.943, P = 0.018) were associated with decreased odds of home discharge. CONCLUSION: Hip fracture patients discharged to home were healthier and more functional at baseline, and also less likely to have had a complicated hospital course. Those discharged to home also had lower rates of readmission and post-operative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Decreasing Postoperative Opioid Prescriptions After Orthopedic Trauma Surgery: The "Lopioid" Protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a multimodal analgesic regimen containing "safer" opioid and non-narcotic pain medications in decreasing opioid prescriptions after surgical fixation in orthopedic trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: One urban, academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Patients with traumatic fracture from 2018 (n=848) and 2019 (n=931). METHODS: In 2019, our orthopedic trauma division began a standardized protocol of postoperative pain medications that included 50 mg of tramadol four times daily, 15 mg of meloxicam once daily, 200 mg gabapentin twice daily, and 1 g of acetaminophen every 6 hours as needed. This multimodal regimen was dubbed the "Lopioid" protocol. We compared patients who received this protocol with all patients from the prior year who had followed a standard protocol that included Schedule II narcotics. RESULTS: Greater mean morphine milligram equivalents were prescribed at discharge from fracture surgery under the standard protocol than under the Lopioid protocol (252.3 vs 150.0; P < 0.001), and there was a difference in the type of opioid medication prescribed (P < 0.001). There was a difference in the number of refills filled for patients discharged with opioids after surgical treatment between the standard and Lopioid cohorts (0.31 vs 0.21; P = 0.002). There were no differences in the types of medication-related complications (P = 0.710) or the need for formal pain management consults (P = 0.199), but patients in the Lopioid cohort had lower pain scores at discharge (2.2 vs 2.7; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Lopioid protocol was effective in decreasing the amount of Schedule II narcotics prescribed at discharge and the number of opioid refills after orthopedic surgery for fractures.

Do All Fractures Need Surgery?

Common fractures managed by orthopaedic surgeons include ankle fractures, proximal humerus fractures in patients older than 60 years, humeral shaft fractures, and distal radius fractures. Recent trends indicate that surgical management is the best option for most fractures. However, there is limited evidence regarding whether most of these fractures need surgery, or whether there is a subset that could be managed without surgery, with no change in outcomes, or even possibly having improved results with lower complication rates with nonsurgical care.

Femur Fractures: Subtrochanteric.

Femur fractures range from simple oblique or transverse fractures to complex, comminuted types. The reduction and fixation of these fractures can be challenging, with difficulty in attaining fracture alignment, length, and rotation. Added to this complexity can be associated bone loss in open fractures. Various methods and techniques have been described to achieve an acceptable reduction for fracture healing without detriment to the patient's functional outcome. This chapter describes femur fractures from the subtrochanteric to supracondylar regions with fracture reduction aids, patient position, reduction tools, and implant use including plates and nails, either individually or in conjunction. Reduction starts with closed or percutaneous techniques because these are the most biologically friendly and minimize additional iatrogenic soft-tissue injury. However, obtaining an acceptable reduction may require escalation to open techniques. This chapter is divided into sections: the first details femoral nailing and the second details femoral plating.

The demographics and outcomes in patients with bilateral distal radius fractures.

Although distal radius fractures are quite common, bilateral distal radius fractures seldomly occur. Due to this, treatment is primarily based on surgeon experience with unilateral fractures, however bi- lateral fractures add a level of complexity : loss of functional independence. The purpose of this study was to examine a cohort of patients with bilateral distal radius fractures to identify differences in demographics, mechanism of injury, and outcomes to further our understanding of these rare injuries. 23 patients were identified retrospectively over a 5-year period that met inclusion criteria. The medical records were reviewed with multiple demographic and clinical parameters recorded and analyzed. Males were more likely to sustain high-energy mechanisms (80% vs. 53%). Patients <50 years old were more likely to sustain high-energy mechanisms (90% vs. 46%) and were more likely to be treated operatively (80% vs. 62%). The most commonly associated injury was a head injury (30%). All patients treated non-operatively reported minimal/no pain upon final follow-up where 57% of patients treated operatively noted regular pain. 75% of patients with medical comorbidities had minimal/no pain upon final follow- up. Conclusions : Patients with bilateral fractures were more likely to be younger males who suffered from higher energy mechanisms. Age was a critical factor in determining treatment strategy. Rates of associated head injuries were elevated, which is an important factor for the clinician to keep in mind when treating this population. As we further our understanding of this unique population, we can improve our treatment approaches and subsequently attain better outcomes.

A Level 1 Trauma Center's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City: a qualitative and quantitative story.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to describe a Level 1 Trauma Center's orthopedic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to compare outcomes of acute fracture patients pre-COVID versus during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: All inpatient fracture cases performed over a 5-month period were identified and retrospective chart review performed. Patients were divided into pre- and COVID-era groups based on when surgery was performed relative to March 16, 2020 (the date elective operations were ceased), and groups were statistically compared. Patients with a COVID test result were further sub-divided into COVID negative and positive groups, and statistically compared. Statistical analysis was performed using independent t-test for continuous variables and chi-square analysis for categorical variables. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen patients were identified, 38% females with average age of 58 years. Average length of stay was 7 days with average time from injury to surgery of 3 days and average time from admission to surgery of 1.3 days. Overall in-hospital complication rate was 29.4%, and 30-day mortality and readmission rates were 2.5% and 5%, respectively. Sixty-nine patients comprised the pre-COVID group, and 50 in the COVID-era group. There was no significant difference with respect to length of stay, time from injury to surgery, time from admission to surgery, need for post-operative ICU stay, in-hospital complication rate, 30-day mortality rate and 30-day readmission rate. Thirty-four patients had COVID testing, with 24 negative and 10 positive. COVID-positive patients had longer time from injury to surgery (8.5 days vs. 2 days, p = 0.003) and longer time from admission to surgery (2.7 days vs. 1.2 days, p = 0.034). While more COVID-positive patients required ICU admission post-operatively (60% vs. 21%, p = 0.036), there was no difference in overall complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic care of acute fracture patients was not affected by a global pandemic. The response of our Level 1 Trauma Center's orthopedic department can guide other hospitals if and when new surges in COVID cases arise, in order to prevent compromising appropriate orthopedic care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic III.

Complex Proximal Tibia Fractures: Workup, Surgical Approaches, and Definitive Treatment Options.

Proximal tibia fractures including intra-articular plateau fractures are complex injuries that benefit from an algorithmic approach in terms of treatment to optimize outcomes and minimize complications. Certainly, nonsurgical treatment will be an option for some injuries; however, this chapter will focus on those injuries best addressed with surgicalsurgical treatment. Indications for surgical treatment include joint incongruity, joint instability and limb malalignment. In regard to surgical treatment, important considerations include appropriate management of the soft-tissue envelope, staged provisional reduction and stabilization versus immediate definitive fixation, single versus multiple surgical approaches, unilateral versus bicondylar fixation, and treatment of concomitant fracture-dislocation. This chapter describes surgical approaches to the proximal tibia ranging from the standard anterolateral to complex dual approaches or posterior approaches. Soft-tissue management becomes important due to the high-energy nature of these injuries with trauma both at the time of injury and then the surgical insult. Learning to identify and minimize these risks as well as addressing the soft-tissue defects that may require treatment is highlighted. Implant selection and fixation options for bicondylar plateau fractures will be discussed. Finally, use of nails, especially suprapatellar nails for proximal extra-articular proximal tibia fractures is described.

It's All About the Timing: When Do I Take This Injury to the Operating Room?

Over time, what was considered urgent or emergent in orthopaedic trauma has been revisited, and as awareness of factors associated with outcomes has increased, priorities have changed. There are multiple procedures performed urgently in the belief that early intervention allowed for better outcomes for the injury and the patient. Classic examples of conditions for which urgent intervention has been implemented include open fractures, femoral neck fractures in the young adult, talus fractures, and compartment syndrome. All of these conditions are considered nonurgent except for compartment syndrome, which requires urgent and timely intervention. Studies have demonstrated that these injuries need to be managed in a timely fashion but not necessarily in the middle of the night. Outcomes can be improved by measures such as early antibiotic administration for open fractures, closed reduction of talus fracture-dislocations, and anatomic reduction of femoral neck fractures. These measures are more important and useful than an emergent trip to the operating room by inexperienced surgeons with staff who may be unprepared. Orthopaedic surgeons should be familiar with open fractures and the timing of irrigation and débridement, the relative urgency of managing talus fractures, and the need for immediate reduction and fixation of femoral neck fractures. For each of these injuries, factors other than timing that affect outcomes will be described. Finally, the emergent nature of diagnosis and management of compartment syndrome must also be understood.

Synovial Chondromatosis in Patient Presenting with Chronic Venous Stasis Ulcers.

Synovial chondromatosis (SC) is a rare, benign synovial growth most frequently involving the knee or hip joint. Common presenting symptoms include pain throughout the affected joint, reduced range of motion, and a palpable mass. We present an unusual case of SC presenting with symptoms of chronic venous stasis ulcer. A 49-year-old patient presented with swelling, hyperpigmentation, and ulcerations of his right lower extremity. Work-up including duplex and computed tomography scan revealed a calcified mass in the hip joint, highly suspicious for SC. A joint surgical approach from a vascular and orthopedic surgeon successfully removed the growths and decompressed the surrounding vessels. The mass effect of the SC on overlying veins resulted in obstruction of venous return due and subsequent venous stasis ulcerations and symptoms of venous hypertension. We present this case due to the unique vascular sequelae related to the SC to explore this as a new diagnosis to consider in patients who present with venous stasis ulceration and radiographic findings consistent with SC.

Does Brachial Plexus Blockade Result in Improved Pain Scores After Distal Radius Fracture Fixation? A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures are very common injuries and surgical treatment for them can be painful. Achieving early pain control may help improve patient satisfaction and improve functional outcomes. Little is known about which anesthesia technique (general anesthesia versus brachial plexus blockade) is most beneficial for pain control after distal radius fixation which could significantly affect patients' postoperative course and experience. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Did patients receiving general anesthesia or brachial plexus blockade have worse pain scores at 2, 12, and 24 hours after surgery? (2) Was there a difference in operative suite time between patients who had general anesthesia or brachial plexus blockade, and was there a difference in recovery room time? (3) Did patients receiving general anesthesia or brachial plexus blockade have higher narcotic use after surgery? (4) Do patients receiving general anesthesia or brachial plexus blockade have higher functional assessment scores after distal radius fracture repair at 6 weeks and 12 weeks after surgery? METHODS: A randomized controlled study was performed between February, 2013 and April, 2014 at a multicenter metropolitan tertiary-care referral center. Patients who presented with acute closed distal radius fractures (Orthopaedic Trauma Association 23A-C) were potentially eligible for inclusion. During the study period, 40 patients with closed, displaced, and unstable distal radius fractures were identified as meeting inclusion criteria and offered enrollment and randomization. Three patients (7.5%), all with concomitant injuries, declined to participate at the time of randomization as did one additional patient (2.5%) who chose not to participate, leaving a final sample of 36 participants. There were no dropouts after randomization, and analyses were performed according to an intention-to-treat model. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups, general anesthesia or brachial plexus blockade, and among the 36 patients included, 18 were randomized to each group. Medications administered in the postanesthesia care unit were recorded. Patients were discharged receiving oxycodone and acetaminophen 5/325 mg for pain control, and VAS forms were provided. Patients were called at predetermined intervals postoperatively (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours) to gather pain scores, using the VAS, and to document the doses of analgesics consumed. In addition, patients had regular followups at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Pain scores were again recorded using the VAS at these visits. RESULTS: Patients who received general anesthesia had worse pain scores at 2 hours postoperatively (general anesthesia 6.7 ± 2.3 vs brachial plexus blockade 1.4 ± 2.3; mean difference, 5.381; 95% CI, 3.850-6.913; p < 0.001); whereas reported pain was worse for patients who received a brachial plexus blockade at 12 hours (general anesthesia 3.8 ± 1.9 vs brachial plexus blockade 6.3 ± 2.4; mean difference, -2.535; 95% CI, -4.028 to -1.040; p = 0.002) and 24 hours (general anesthesia 3.8 ± 2.2 vs brachial plexus blockade 5.3 ± 2.5; mean difference, -1.492; 95% CI, -3.105 to 0.120; p = 0.031).There was no difference in operative suite time (general anesthesia 119 ± 16 minutes vs brachial plexus blockade 125 ± 23 minutes; p = 0.432), but time in the recovery room was greater for patients who received general anesthesia (284 ± 137 minutes vs 197 ± 90; p = 0.0398). Patients who received general anesthesia consumed more fentanyl (64 µg ± 93 µg vs 6.9 µg ± 14 µg; p < 0.001) and morphine (2.9 µg ± 3.6 µg vs 0.0 µg; p < 0.001) than patients who received brachial plexus blockade. Functional outcome scores did not differ at 6 weeks (data, with mean and SD for both groups, and p value) or 12 weeks postoperatively (data, with mean and SD for both groups, and p value). CONCLUSIONS: Brachial plexus blockade pain control during the immediate perioperative period was not significantly different from that of general anesthesia in patients undergoing operative fixation of distal radius fractures. However, patients who received a brachial plexus blockade experienced an increase in pain between 12 to 24 hours after surgery. Acknowledging "rebound pain" after the use of regional anesthesia coupled with patient counseling regarding early narcotic administration may allow patients to have more effective postoperative pain control. It is important to have a conversation with patients preoperatively about what to expect regarding rebound pain, postoperative pain control, and to advise them about being aggressive with taking pain medication before the waning of regional anesthesia to keep one step ahead in their pain control management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, therapeutic study.

Outcome after olecranon fracture repair: Does construct type matter?

PURPOSE: This study compares clinical and functional outcomes of patients with displaced olecranon fractures treated with either tension band wiring (TBW) or a hook plate construct. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of olecranon fractures operatively treated with either TBW or plate fixation (PF) using a hook plate over a 7-year period. Patient demographics, injury information, and surgical management were recorded. Fractures were classified according to the Mayo system. Measured outcomes included range of elbow motion, time to union, and development of postoperative complications. Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) scores were obtained for all patients. All patients were followed for a minimum of 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients were included in this study, 23 treated with TBW and 25 treated with hook PF. Groups did not differ with respect to patient demographics, Mayo fracture type, or duration of follow-up. Patients undergoing PF had less terminal extension than TBW patients (-8.6° ± 7° vs. -3.5° ± 9.3°, p = 0.036) and a longer time to radiographic union (19 ± 8 vs. 12 ± 6 weeks, p = 0.001). There were no differences in rates of symptomatic hardware, MEPI scores, or other clinical outcomes. Two patients in each group required a second surgery. CONCLUSIONS: TBW and PF of olecranon fractures had similarly excellent functional outcomes in this study. Patients undergoing PF had a longer time to union and slightly worse extension at final follow-up. TBW remains an effective treatment for appropriately selected olecranon fractures and in this cohort outperformed plate osteosynthesis.

External fixation of tibial fractures.

External fixation for definitive or initial management of tibial fractures has a long history, with pin-to-bar external fixation being the standard of care for definitive management of tibial fractures. However, the use of this method lessened because of the increased popularity of intramedullary nailing and drawbacks associated with external fixation. This method is still commonly in use in the military environment and can be used for temporary stabilization of tibial fractures, especially in the setting of periarticular injuries. These fixators also may be useful for salvage of open and/or infected fractures that are unsuitable for internal fixation.

Controversies in the intramedullary nailing of proximal and distal tibia fractures.

Management of tibia fractures by internal fixation, particularly intramedullary nails, has become the standard for diaphyseal fractures. However, for metaphyseal fractures or those at the metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction, the choice of fixation device and technique is controversial. For distal tibia fractures, nailing and plating techniques may be used, the primary goal for each being to achieve acceptable alignment with minimal complications. Different techniques for reduction of these fractures are available and can be applied with either fixation device. Overall outcomes appear to be nearly equivalent, with minor differences in complications. Proximal tibia fractures can be fixed using nailing, which is associated with deformity of the proximal short segment. A newer technique--suprapatellar nailing--may minimize these problems, and use of this method has been increasing in trauma centers. However, most data are still largely based on case series.

External fixation of tibial fractures.

External fixation for definitive or initial management of tibial fractures has a long history, with pin-to-bar external fixation being the standard of care for definitive management. However, the use of this method has lessened because of the increased popularity of intramedullary nailing and drawbacks associated with external fixation. This method is still commonly used in the military environment and can be used for temporary stabilization of tibial fractures, especially in the setting of periarticular injuries. These fixators also may be useful for salvage of open and/or infected fractures that are unsuitable for internal fixation.

Are race and sex associated with the occurrence of atypical femoral fractures?

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have suggested that Asian patients and women may be more likely to sustain atypical femoral fractures in association with bisphosphonate use. However, they do not account for confounders such as asymptomatic patients who are long-term bisphosphonate users or patients sustaining osteoporotic fractures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in sex and racial association with atypical femoral fractures by comparing demographic characteristics of patients who sustained an atypical bisphosphonate-associated fracture with patients on long-term bisphosphonates without fractures and with patients who sustained osteoporotic fractures. METHODS: Three groups from prospective registries were identified: (1) patients with atypical femur fractures associated with long-term bisphosphonate use (BFF) (n = 54); (2) patients on long-term bisphosphonates but with no associated fractures (BNF) (n = 119); and (3) patients with osteoporotic proximal femur fractures not associated with bisphosphonates (PFF) (n = 216). Age, sex, and self-reported race/ethnicity were documented and compared. Multivariate and univariate analyses were done as well as age- and sex-stratified analyses. RESULTS: Age and sex distributions of the BFF and BNF patients were similar. There was a higher percentage of Asian patients in the BFF group (17%) than in the BNF group (3%; p = 0.004) as well as Hispanics (13% versus 3% in BNF; p = 0.011). Patients in the BFF group were younger than those in the PFF group (67.5 versus 78.4 years; p < 0.001) and had fewer males (7% versus 14%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that Asians are at higher risk for atypical bisphosphonate-associated fractures. We recommend closer followup in Asian patients who are taking bisphosphonates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Healing delayed but generally reliable after bisphosphonate-associated complete femur fractures treated with IM nails.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis has been associated with atypical femoral fractures. To date, there have been few reports in the literature regarding the preoperative and postoperative courses of patients who have sustained bisphosphonate-associated complete atypical femur fractures. OBJECTIVES/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to (1) characterize the preoperative course of patients who eventually presented with bisphosphonate-associated complete atypical femur fractures (duration of bisphosphonate treatment, pain history, risk of converting a nondisplaced fracture to a complete fracture); (2) evaluate the percentage of patients who achieved radiographic union of those fractures after treatment; and (3) determine the patients' recovery of function using the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with 41 atypical, low-energy femur fractures associated with ≥ 5 years of bisphosphonate use were treated with intramedullary nailing between 2004 and 2011 at one center. The main outcome measurements were Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment for function and radiographic evaluation for fracture healing. Patients had been treated with bisphosphonates for an average of 8.8 years (range, 5-20 years) before presentation. RESULTS: Patients reported a mean of 6 months of pain before presentation (range, 1-8 months). Sixty-six percent of patients with surgically treated complete fractures became pain-free and 98% were radiographically healed by 12 months. Sixty-four percent of patients who underwent intramedullary nailing reported a functional return to baseline within 1 year. Patients who reported major functional limitations at latest followup listed pain and apprehension as the major causes of their limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with surgically treated bisphosphonate-associated complete femur fractures achieved generally reliable although delayed fracture healing if malaligned, and nearly two-thirds of patients returned to self-reported baseline function within 1 year. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Ulnar variance as a predictor of persistent instability following Galeazzi fracture-dislocations.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the radiographic parameters that may predict distal radial ulnar joint (DRUJ) instability in surgically treated radial shaft fractures. In our clinical experience, there are no previously reported radiographic parameters that are universally predictive of DRUJ instability following radial shaft fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients, ages 20-79 years, with unilateral radial shaft fractures and possible associated DRUJ injury were retrospectively identified over a 5-year period. Distance from radial carpal joint (RCJ) to fracture proportional to radial shaft length, ulnar variance, and ulnar styloid fractures were correlated with DRUJ instability after surgical treatment. RESULTS: Twenty patients had persistent DRUJ incongruence/instability following fracture fixation. As a proportion of radial length, the distance from the RCJ to the fracture line did not significantly differ between those with persistent DRUJ instability and those without (p = 0.34). The average initial ulnar variance was 5.5 mm (range 2-12 mm, SD = 3.2) in patients with DRUJ instability and 3.8 mm (range 0-11 mm, SD = 3.5) in patients without. Only 4/20 patients (20%) with DRUJ instability had normal ulnar variance (-2 to +2 mm) versus 15/30 (50%) patients without (p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: In the setting of a radial shaft fracture, ulnar variance greater or less than 2 mm was associated with a greater likelihood of DRUJ incongruence/instability following fracture fixation.

Open tibial shaft fracture fixation strategies: intramedullary nailing, external fixation, and plating.

Tibial shaft fractures are one of the most common orthopaedic injuries. Open tibial shaft fractures are relatively common because of the paucity of soft tissue surrounding the bone. Despite the prevalence of these injuries, the optimal fixation strategy is still a topic of debate. The purpose of this article was to review the current literature on open tibial shaft fracture fixation strategies including intramedullary nailing, external fixation, and plating.