Predictors of wound leakage in patients undergoing surgery for neck of femur fractures.

AIMS: Persistent wound leakage following joint arthroplasty is a known risk for periprosthetic joint infection. Little is known of the predictors of wound leakage, particularly in patients with a fractured neck of femur. We aimed to determine patient and surgical risk factors for wound leakage in this cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing surgery for a fractured neck of femur at Leicester Royal Infirmary between May and August 2017 were included. Patients were identified from a prospective database and placed into two groups: those with wound leakage later than three days postoperatively and those without leakage. All previously reported potential risk factors for wound leakage were compared between groups using a chi-square test and logistic regression. A Kattan-style nomogram was also created to allow probabilities output for the regression predictive models in a visual representation. RESULTS: Two hundred patients underwent surgery for a fractured neck of femur. Overall, 17% of patients (33/200) developed a persistent leaky wound. A multivariable model highlighted increased age (p = 0.01), raised body mass index (BMI; > 25 kg/m2; p = 0.047), diabetes (p = 0.03) and intramedullary hip screw fixation (p = 0.03) as significant risk factors for wound leakage. Patients with persistent wound leakage had significantly longer hospital admission than those without (p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: Our analysis identified four perioperative risk factors for wound leakage following fractured neck of femur surgery. We also developed a novel tool to identify those patients at highest risk of leakage. Once identified, the aggressive management of certain medical comorbidities in these patients may help to reduce their incidence of wound issues and the prolonged admissions that result.

Extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis: A review of management, current guidance and unanswered questions.

Extra abdominal desmoid fibromatosis is a complex condition with many recognised treatments including active observation, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgical resection. There is large variation in the natural history of individual desmoid tumours, with some cases progressing aggressively and others regressing spontaneously when observed alone. This combined with an absence of accurate clinical predictors of a desmoid tumour's behaviour has led to difficulties in identifying which patients would benefit most from aggressive treatment, and which could be adequately managed with a policy of active observation alone. This review explores the aetiology and common presentation of extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis including the condition's histopathological, clinical and radiological characteristics. The current evidence for potential predictors of desmoid tumour behaviour is also reviewed, along with the indications and evidence for the multitude of treatments available. We also summarise the published guidelines that are currently available for oncologists and surgeons managing extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis, and highlight some of the unanswered questions that need to be addressed to optimise the management of this condition.

Nationwide trends in the current management of desmoid (aggressive) fibromatosis.

AIMS: The optimal management of desmoid fibromatosis remains unclear, leading to significant variability in patient management. To assess this problem, the current approach of clinicians managing this complex condition in the UK was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hypothetical case of intramuscular limb girdle desmoid fibromatosis in a fit 65-year-old patient was devised. Surgical and non-surgical oncology members of the British Sarcoma Group were questioned on how they would manage this case in three scenarios: primary disease with function-sparing surgery possible, primary disease with neurovascular involvement and disease recurrence after a previous R0 resection. Initial management, management of symptomatic disease progression, follow-up preferences and any differences in respondents' management choices in a younger case were investigated. RESULTS: The responses from 14 sarcoma surgeons and 23 oncologists (14 clinical, nine medical) were analysed. Desmoid fibromatosis management is generally shared by surgeons and oncologists within sarcoma multidisciplinary teams in the UK. Variation exists in the chosen initial management of primary desmoid fibromatosis in the UK, with function-sparing surgery possible (observation 51%, resection 51%), primary desmoid fibromatosis with neurovascular involvement (hormone therapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 51%, radiotherapy 27%, observation 22%) and for cases of desmoid fibromatosis recurrence (radiotherapy 41%, hormone therapy and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 27%, observation 24%). There was a clear preference of surgical resection of symptomatic disease progression in cases of primary desmoid fibromatosis without neurovascular involvement (60%). By contrast, radiotherapy was the preferred treatment for progression in cases with neurovascular involvement (47%) or cases of recurrence after a previous R0 resection (34%). Clinical follow-up was selected 3 months after intervention in 68% of scenarios. Follow-up imaging was selected 3 or 6 months after intervention in 57% and 21% of cases, respectively. Most respondents would not change their chosen management in younger patients. DISCUSSION: Several groups have issued formal guidelines for clinicians managing desmoid fibromatosis, including the British Sarcoma Group, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society for Medical Oncology. However, these are in some ways contradictory and may not reflect recent publications, potentially explaining the significant variation in the management of desmoid fibromatosis in the UK shown by this survey. We propose a review of current evidence; a national consensus or a desmoid fibromatosis registry may help to standardise desmoid fibromatosis care.

Extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis--a sarcoma unit review of practice, long term recurrence rates and survival.

INTRODUCTION: Desmoid fibromatosis (DF) carries a significant morbidity and a recognised mortality. Despite this there are currently limited diagnostic or treatment algorithms specific to cases of extra-abdominal DF. Historically surgical excision has formed the cornerstone of treatment. Recently however a paradigm shift has meant many practitioners now adopt a more conservative approach, placing emphasis on active surveillance, function preserving resections, and non-surgical oncologic therapies. METHODS: We performed an 8-year retrospective review of all cases of extra-abdominal DF managed within our region to assess the consistency of diagnostics, management and long-term outcome. RESULTS: 47 eligible cases were identified. Mean age at diagnosis was 41.3 years (1-81 years). Disease location and speciality of diagnosing practitioners were varied. Management was generally inconsistent. Variation was seen in imaging, biopsy techniques, MDT involvement and management. At a median follow up of 4.9 years our local recurrence rate was 19%. DISCUSSION: The optimal management of DF is unknown. This has led to a lack of formalised guidance for practitioners managing this challenging condition, resulting in inconsistencies and areas for improvement in current management. We propose a diagnostic pathway which may improve consistency of care, reduce potentially unnecessary surgery and the associated morbidity, and significantly increase the rate of complete (R0) surgical resections when surgery is deemed appropriate whilst not significantly worsening oncological outcome. Specifically we propose all cases should be imaged appropriately (usually with MRI), undergo a planned biopsy (by radiologically guided core needle biopsy) and be managed centrally in conjunction with multidisciplinary sarcoma units.

Variations in selective nerve root block technique.

INTRODUCTION: Much literature reports on selective nerve root blocks (SNRBs) in cases of lumbosacral radiculopathy. Unfortunately, authors only inconsistently reveal the exact needle tip position relative to the causative pathology at the time of injection. Different injection sites may provide different symptomatic benefits. We investigated the variation in injection techniques of practitioners working in the UK. METHODS: A clinical scenario was devised depicting a patient with radiculopathy secondary to an L4/5 vertebral disc prolapse. Participants were questioned on their chosen management of this patient, focusing particularly on SNRB technique. Questionnaires were sent to spinal surgeons, pain management specialists and musculoskeletal radiologists. RESULTS: A total of 100 responses were detailed enough for inclusion. The majority (83%) of respondents reported they would inject local anaesthetic and steroids, 4% would inject local anaesthetic alone and 13% would inject a different substance. Over half (53%) would target the L5 nerve root, 26% the L4 nerve root, 12% the prolapsed disc itself and 9% two separate vertebral levels. Variation was also noted in needle tip location relative to the neural sheath. CONCLUSIONS: When treating lumbar radiculopathy, there are apparent variations in the use and positioning of SNRBs for a given level of disc pathology. Needle tip position may have a direct influence on clinical outcome following SNRBs. Caution is therefore required when considering the validity of previously published studies investigating SNRBs and different injectates.

Union rates after proximal scaphoid fractures; meta-analyses and review of available evidence.

We carried out a comprehensive analysis of publications to investigate long term union rates of acute proximal scaphoid fractures. Of 1147 acute scaphoid fractures managed nonoperatively that were available for analysis, 67 (5.8%) were proximal. Amalgamating publications revealed that 34% of acute proximal scaphoid fractures progress to nonunion when managed nonoperatively. A meta-analysis showed that the relative risk of nonunion for these fractures is 7.5 compared with more distal fractures, also managed nonoperatively. More trials are needed to allow direct comparison of acute proximal scaphoid fractures managed operatively and nonoperatively. Power calculations indicate that 76 cases will need to be recruited for such a study. Currently, the proximal scaphoid is defined inconsistently. To avoid misclassification we suggest the region is defined as the proximal fifth of the bone, and computer tomography is used during follow-up.