Orthopaedic and trauma surgery in the time of COVID-19 in France: A nationwide survey.

INTRODUCTION: The year 2020 was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic. The entire French health system was mobilized. Surgical services were asked to reschedule all elective procedures. We wondered about the impact of this pandemic on French orthopaedic surgeons. The main objective of this survey was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on emergency and non-emergency orthopaedic surgical activities. The secondary objectives were: to report how orthopaedic surgeons had mobilized and reorganized, and to assess the physical and psychological consequences on their state of health. HYPOTHESIS: The COVID-19 epidemic has led to the suspension of all elective orthopaedic surgeries and has also led to changes in the management of urgent surgeries and traumatology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This descriptive epidemiological study was conducted in France. A 40-question survey was sent to all French orthopaedic surgeons (senior surgeons and residents) via the mailing lists of the French Society of Orthopaedic and Traumatological Surgery (SoFCOT), the French Society of Pediatric Orthopaedics (SoFOP) and the College of Young Orthopedists (CJO). RESULTS: Over a period of one month, 1098 surgeons; 852 senior surgeons and 246 residents, answered the questionnaire. The complete cessation of all elective interventions was effective in 80% of cases. Urgent and semi-urgent interventions were maintained. Three hundred and twenty-six surgeons (30%) modified their trauma management, among them 55% came from the regions most affected by the pandemic. Sixty percent of surgeons did not receive training to take care of COVID+ patients and 40% took care of these patients. Among the orthopaedic surgeons surveyed, 28% were redeployed to medical services. Teleconsultation was used by 41% of surgeons. Twenty-six (2%) surgeons tested positive for COVID-19 and 54% showed at least one sign of psychological suffering. CONCLUSION: French orthopaedic surgeons reorganized and changed their practices quickly and efficiently to deal with the pandemic. However, progress remains to be seen with training of orthopaedic surgeons in the care of COVID+patients, as well as to democratize the use of telemedicine. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellar dislocation allows a good rate to return to sport.

PURPOSE: Recurrent patellar dislocation is a frequent knee disorders in young, active patients. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) can restore knee stability and function, but the rate of return to sports is less clear. The aim of this study was to evaluate rate of return to sport following treatment of recurrent patellar dislocation with isolated MPFLR. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2018, 113 patients with recurrent patellar dislocation were treated with isolated MPFLR at an academic center. Pre-injury sports participation and Tegner score, pre-operative subjective IKDC score, time to return to sports, and post-operative Tegner and subjective IKDC scores were collected, with a minimum of follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients (91%) were evaluated at a mean of 4.5 ± 2.5-year post-operative. 92 patients (89%) participated in sports prior to onset of patellar instability. At final follow-up, 84 of these 92 patients (91%) were able to return to sports. The mean time from surgery to return to sports was 10.4 ± 8.6 months (range: 2-48 months). 62 patients (67%) returned to the same (50 patients) or higher (12 patients) level. 22 patients (26%) returned at a lower level. 19 of these patients attributed this decreased participation to ongoing knee problems. The median Tegner score was noted to decrease from 5 pre-injury to 4 post-operatively (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Isolated MPFL reconstruction allowed return to pre-injury sports in 91% of patients, with 67% of patients returning to the same or higher level than pre-injury. Mean time to return to sports was 10 months and post-operative Tegner score was noted to be modestly decreased from pre-injury level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Tibial pilon fractures treated with a periarticular external fixator: Retrospective study of 47 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Tibial pilon fractures are a treatment challenge, since there is no true gold standard treatment, and because of potential skin complications. Periarticular external fixation (PAEF) appears to produce good results, but the outcomes with the TL-HEX Trauma™ (Orthofix®, Verona, Italy) have not yet been evaluated. We performed a study with the following objectives: 1) evaluate time to union and union rate; 2) determine clinical and radiological results; 3) detect complications. HYPOTHESIS: PAEF will produce comparable fracture union to other external fixator techniques for tibial pilon fractures. METHODS: A single center, retrospective study, was done between June 2016 and December 2018. Patients who had a tibial pilon fracture operated with a PAEF were included if they had a minimum of 12 months' follow-up. Forty-seven patients were included; the mean follow-up was 2.45 years (1.2-3.7). The primary endpoint was the time to union and union rate at the final assessment. The secondary endpoints were the joint range of motion, residual pain (VAS), functional scores (AOFAS and SF12) and complication rate. RESULTS: The union rate was 70% (33/47) and the mean time to union was 201±79 days (89-369). The range of motion was significantly reduced relative to the contralateral side. Twenty patients had residual pain that averaged 2.9 (1-6) on the VAS. The mean AOFAS score was 74 points (51-95). Twenty patients (43%) suffered at least one complication. DISCUSSION: While a PAEF helps to avoid skin complications, in our study, it was associated with a lower union rate and longer time to union than in other published studies. This difference is likely due to a higher rate of open fractures and high-energy trauma in our study, different protocol for return to weightbearing and a different external fixator than other studies. This is the first study reporting the results of the TL-HEX Trauma in this indication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.

Revision of failed trapeziometacarpal prothesis by CMI pyrocarbon implant: Retrospective study of 28 patients with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on the best salvage option after a failed trapeziometacarpal prothesis. Conserving the trapezium and inserting a pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty implant will prevent thumb shortening and preserve the thumb's motion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes in the medium term of trapeziometacarpal prothesis revisions done using the CMI pyrocarbon implant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 28 patients with a mean age of 63.5 years. The mean time to revision was 6.1 years after the initial arthroplasty. The dominant side was operated in 70% of patients. The surgery consisted of removing the existing prosthesis, reconstructing the trapezium with a bone graft, and inserting the CMI pyrocarbon implant. The review consisted of a functional assessment (visual analog scale for pain, QuickDASH score, patient satisfaction), physical assessment (Kapandji, grip strength, key pinch strength, tip pinch strength) and radiological assessment (complications, radiolucent lines, scaphometacarpal height, implant centering, bone remodeling). RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, no further surgical revisions were needed. The mean QuickDASH score was 1.1 and the mean QuickDASH was 13%. Twenty-five patients (89%) were satisfied with the outcome. The Kapandji score improved significantly from 7.5 to 9.5 on average. Grip strength improved significantly from 16.7kg to 21.5kg on average. The mean postoperative key pinch strength was 93% of the contralateral side. The mean postoperative tip pinch strength was 88% of the contralateral side. There were no fractures or dislocations visible on the radiographs. However, there was bone remodeling in the trapezium related to the pyrocarbon implant's indentation that was well tolerated by patients in the medium term. CONCLUSION: For revision of failed trapeziometacarpal prothesis, inserting the CMI pyrocarbon implant combined with trapezium reconstruction appears to be a good alternative to the more commonly used trapeziectomy procedure. Reconstructing the trapezium and inserting this hemiarthroplasty implant preserves the thumb's projection, length, and stability. The functional improvement experienced by patients makes this a relevant treatment option. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; retrospective study without control group.

Surgical management of proximal femoral metastasis: Fixation or hip replacement? A 309 case series.

INTRODUCTION: The proximal femur is the most frequent operative site for metastasis, but there is no consensus between internal fixation and hip replacement. The present multicenter retrospective observational study sought: (1) to compare early clinical results between internal fixation and hip replacement for proximal femoral metastasis (PFM), and (2) to assess events affecting survival. HYPOTHESIS: The study hypothesis was that internal fixation and hip replacement give comparable clinical results, operative site complications rates and survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The series comprised 309 cases, 10 of which were bilateral, in 182 females and 117 males, with a mean age of 67.2±11.5 years and 62.5±13.2 years, respectively. Primaries were mainly breast (118; 38.2%), lung (85; 25.5%) or kidney (40; 12.9%). PFM was revelatory in 114 cases (36.9%). There was visceral involvement in 142 patients (46%), multiple peripheral bone involvement in 212 (68.6%), and spinal involvement in 134 (43.4%). There were 124 pathologic fractures (40%), 51 of which were revelatory. Metastases were cervicocephalic in 135 cases (43.7%), metaphyseal in 166 (53.7%) and both in 8 (2.6%). PFM was osteolytic in 90% of cases, managed by hip replacement in 161 cases and internal fixation in 148 (12 screwed plates, 136 nails). Seventy-seven patients had postoperative radiation therapy. RESULTS: After hip replacement (n=144), walking was normal in 35 cases (24.3%), impaired but unassisted in 53 (36.8%), with 1 forearm crutch in 24 (16.6%), 2 crutches or a frame in 26 (18%), and impossible in 6 (4.1%). After nailing (n=125), results were respectively 38 (30.4%), 47 (37.6%), 15 (12%), 18 (14.4) and 7 (5.6%). Recovery of normal walking capacity did not significantly differ according to technique (p=0.162); nor did pain or function. Recovery of normal walking capacity was better after preventive surgery (p<0.001). Perioperative complications comprised: 10 cases of severe blood loss, 7 pulmonary embolisms, 6 digestive hemorrhages, and 5 lung infections. Secondarily, there were 11 infections (7 after hip replacement, 2 after nailing, 2 after plate fixation), 7 progressive osteolyses and 5 fractures. Complications rates were significantly higher with plate fixation, with no difference between nailing and hip replacement. Survival did not significantly differ between hip replacement (12 months [95% CI: 7-19]), nailing (7 months [95% CI: 6-11]) and plate fixation (16 months [95% CI: 6-not calculable]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical results and survival were comparable between hip replacement and nailing, confirming the study hypothesis, in agreement with the literature. Each technique has its indications. Patients with severely impaired walking capacity benefited greatly from surgery. The importance of preventive surgery was highlighted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.

ACL reconstruction with lateral extra-articular tenodesis using a continuous graft: 10-year outcomes of 50 cases.

BACKGROUND: Persistence of pivot shift is the main problem after isolated intra-articular anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Adding lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) to the ACL procedure increases the knee's stability by controlling rotational laxity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of combined ACL reconstruction with LET using a continuous hamstring graft as a first-line procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients were reviewed at 10 years postoperative. Subjective outcome scores -IKDC, Lysholm, KOOS and Tegner- were collected. A clinical and radiological assessment was done. The knees' anteroposterior laxity was measured with a rollimeter. RESULTS: The mean IKDC subjective score was 85.5, the mean Lysholm score was 90.2 and 80% of patients had a score graded as good or very good. No pivot shift was present in 94% of patients and there was a firm endpoint in the Lachman test in 86% of patients. There was a flexion deficit>5° in 5 patients and an extension deficit of 10° in one patient. Most patients (56%) had resumed their physical activities at the same level as before the surgery. Signs of osteoarthritis were found in 26% of patients (16% were Ahlback stage 1 and 10% were stage 2). There was only one graft failure. These good outcomes are consistent with other published studies on combined ACL-LET. There was neither significant stiffness, nor a higher rate of secondary osteoarthritis relative to ACL reconstruction only, particularly in the lateral tibiofemoral compartment. CONCLUSION: Adding primary LET to ACL reconstruction improves control of rotational laxity over time without increasing the complication rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study without control group.