Negative pressure wound therapy: Where are we in 2022?

The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) continues to be an important tool for surgeons. As the use and general acceptance of NPWT have grown, so have the indications for its use. These indications have expanded to include soft tissue defects in trauma, infection, surgical wound management, and soft tissue grafting procedures. Many adjuvants have been engineered into newer generations of NPWT devices such as wound instillation of fluid or antibiotics allowing surgeons to further optimize the wound healing environment or aid in the eradication of infection. This review discusses the recent relevant literature on the proposed mechanisms of action, available adjuvants, and the required components needed to safely apply NPWT. The supporting evidence for the use of NPWT in traumatic extremity injuries, infection control, and wound care is also reviewed. Although NPWT has a low rate of complication, the surgeon should be aware of the potential risks associated with its use. Furthermore, the expanding indications for the use of NPWT are explored, and areas for future innovation and research are discussed.

Squeaking Is Common and Increases Over Time Among Patients With Long-term Follow-up After Ceramic-on-ceramic THA.

BACKGROUND: Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) is a durable bearing with excellent wear characteristics, but squeaking remains a concern. The proportion of patients who report squeaking varies widely between studies performed at short- and mid-term follow-up. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of patients treated with CoC THA bearings report squeaking at a minimum of 10 years of follow-up? (2) Are patient, implant, or radiographic factors associated with squeaking? (3) Are THAs that squeak more likely to be revised than those that do not? (4) Are patient-reported functional outcome scores lower between THAs that squeak and THAs that do not squeak at long-term follow-up? METHODS: Between January 1, 2003 and August 31, 2008 a total of 80 patients received THAs with third-generation alumina-on-alumina bearings at one center. Of the original 80 patients, 1% (1 of 80) had died, and 21% (17 of 80) were lost to follow-up before 10 years, leaving 62 patients for analysis at a median (range) of 14 years (11 to 16). Ceramic-on-ceramic THA represented 23% (80 of 343) of all primary THAs performed during the study period. Ceramic-on-ceramic THA was used preferentially in patients younger than 50 years of age. The mean (range) age of patients in the cohort was 44 ± 11 years (18 to 65). Sixty-eight percent (42 of 62) were men. Two separate manufacturers' implants were included. There were uncemented acetabular and femoral components included in this study. All CoC bearings were third-generation alumina-on-alumina. Squeaking was determined through a mailed questionnaire or telephone interview. The 10-question survey developed by the researchers queried patients whether audible "squeaking" could be heard from their hip replacement. Patients were asked to write in their description of the noise to distinguish squeaking from other noises not relevant to the current study. Implant information, component position, and patient demographics were obtained via chart review and postoperative radiographs reviewed by one of the investigators not involved with the index operative procedure. Using revision for any reason as an endpoint, a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare survivorship between THAs that squeaked versus those that did not. Patient-reported outcomes were surveyed using the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS JR), which comprises six items regarding patient pain and function, raw summed scores range from 0 (perfect hip health) to 24 (total hip disability). RESULTS: Squeaking was self-reported by 53% (33 of 62) of patients in this group. Squeaking was more common in patients who received the titanium-molybdenum-zirconium-iron stem than in patients with the titanium-aluminum-vanadium stem (63% [29 of 46] versus 31% [4 of 13]; odds ratio 3.8 [95% CI 1.02 to 14.4]; p = 0.046). We found no differences in the likelihood a patient would report squeaking based on component position, component size, patient age, sex, or BMI. Ten-year survivorship free from revision was not lower in patients who reported squeaking (91% [95% CI 74 to 97] versus 90% [95% CI 71 to 96]; p = 0.69). Patient-reported outcome scores (HOOS JR) were not lower in those who reported squeaking (3 ± 3 [95% CI 1.5 to 4.0] versus 3 ± 5 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.5]; p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: At long-term follow-up, we found that CoC bearing squeaking in patients who underwent THA is more common than previously reported. Survivorship was lower than expected in this cohort, and most revisions in this series were for squeaking. Although implant-dependent, surgeons should counsel patients about the potential for squeaking in CoC THA, which may occur years after index procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Spinopelvic Dissociation: Assessment, Reduction Strategies, and Fixation Techniques.

Spinopelvic dissociation is a rare injury associated with 2% to 3% of transverse sacral fractures and 3% of sacral fractures associated with pelvic ring injuries. When spinopelvic dissociation is expediently identified and treated appropriately, patient outcomes can be maximized, highlighting the importance of early diagnosis and treatment. Because of its rarity and complexity, there remains a paucity of high-level evidence-based guidance on treating this complex issue. No consensus exists on fixation techniques or reduction maneuvers to achieve stability, allowing for early functional rehabilitation. The purpose of this article is to review the current body of literature to better understand this injury pattern to help establish a treatment algorithm that appropriately guides the treating surgeons in the surgical planning and perioperative care of these patients.

Does Screw Location Affect the Risk of Subtrochanteric Femur Fracture After Femoral Neck Fixation? A Biomechanical Study.

BACKGROUND: Case reports suggest that there is an increased risk of subtrochanteric femur fracture after femoral neck fixation with cannulated screws when the distal-most screw is placed distal to the lesser trochanter. However, to our knowledge, there are no biomechanical data supporting this observation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there an increased risk of subtrochanteric femur fracture after femoral neck fixation with cannulated screws in normal density and osteoporotic Sawbones when the distal-most screw is started distal to the lesser trochanter? (2) Does the screw starting point position after femoral neck fixation with cannulated screws affect load to failure when normal density and osteoporotic Sawbones are loaded through their mechanical axis? METHODS: Normal density and osteoporotic Sawbones femora were instrumented with three cannulated screws in a triangular apex distal configuration with the distal-most screw starting either proximal to, at, or distal to the level of the lesser trochanter. Specimens were loaded along the mechanical axis to failure. The fracture location and ultimate load to failure were compared between groups. RESULTS: The screw start point distal to the lesser trochanter resulted in a greater proportion of subtrochanteric femur fractures compared with screw start points at or proximal to the lesser trochanter in the subset of osteoporotic specimens (three of 10 specimens versus 0 of 20 specimens; p = 0.030). No subtrochanteric femur fractures were observed in the normal density specimens. Load to failure was lower when the distal-most screw was started distal to the lesser trochanter than when it was started at or proximal to the lesser trochanter (normal density subset 13,502 ± 1980 N versus 14,675 ±1528 N; osteoporotic subset 8946 ± 1509 N versus 10,026 ± 1256 N; linear regression coefficient 1127 N [95% CI 298 to 1956 N]; adjusted r = 0.71; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: A screw start point distal to the lesser trochanter was associated with subtrochanteric femur fractures in the osteoporotic subset. Additionally, there was decreased load to failure when the distal-most screw was started distal to the lesser trochanter. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data suggest that avoiding a screw start point distal to the level of the lesser trochanter in femoral neck fracture fixation may decrease the risk of catastrophic subtrochanteric femur fractures, especially in patients with osteoporosis. However, it should be noted that a more overall varus screw alignment could theoretically compromise the ability to achieve compression across the fracture, with attendant implications with regard to fracture union in the acute setting.

Do Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters Improve After Pilon Fracture in Patients Who Use the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis?

BACKGROUND: Pilon fractures are high-energy fractures about the ankle observed commonly in both civilian and military trauma populations. Despite surgical management, outcomes are predictably poorly characterized by functional deficits secondary to pain and stiffness. The Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO) and Return-to-Run clinical pathway were initially designed to treat military service members after complex battlefield lower extremity injuries. The IDEO has been used to treat nonbattlefield injuries, but, to our knowledge, it has not been studied specifically among patients with pilon fractures. By studying the use of the IDEO in this patient population, we hope to learn how it might improve ambulation in the community, relieve pain, and return patients to work to better identify patients who might benefit from its use. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the IDEO would improve gait parameters including velocity, cadence, stride length, and single-leg stance duration in patients with pilon fractures. Our secondary endpoints of interest were reductions in pain and return to duty. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of all active-duty IDEO users at a single institution was queried for all patients using the IDEO after a pilon fracture. Patients were included if they were using the IDEO after sustaining a surgically treated pilon fracture and had exhausted all nonoperative therapies. Exclusions were patients with an incomplete gait analysis at the two study time points. Seven patients meeting these criteria were identified. Three-dimensional gait analysis was performed two times: first wearing shoes at a self-selected speed and second after a custom-made IDEO was fabricated for the patient and completion of the Return-to-Run pathway. Patients reported their average pain while ambulating using a numeric rating scale. Gait variables of interest were velocity, cadence, stride length, and single stance time. Return to military service was assessed through the military medical record. To return to duty, a service-specific physical readiness test must be completed. RESULTS: Median gait velocity improved from 1.1 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.9-1.2) to 1.3 m/s (IQR, 1.2-1.5; p = 0.01). All other variables did not change: cadence 98.4 (IQR, 93.0-107.2) to 104.5 steps/min (IQR, 103.0-109.0; p = 0.13), affected stride length 1.3 (IQR, 1.0-1.4 m) to 1.4 m (IQR, 1.3-1.6 m; p = 0.07), and affected single stance 0.42 (IQR, 0.41-0.47) to 0.43 (IQR, 0.42-0.44; p = 0.80). Pain did not change between time points: 3 (IQR, 2-3) to 2.5 (IQR, 1-3.5; p = 0.90). Three of seven patients returned to duty. CONCLUSIONS: At self-selected walking speeds, we observed no improvements in gait parameters or pain after application of the IDEO that would likely be considered clinically important, and so the device is unlikely to be worth the cost in this setting. It is possible that for higher demand users such as elite athletes, the IDEO could have a role after severe lower extremity trauma; however, this must be considered speculative until or unless proven in future studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.