Infection in osteotomy around the knee: Incidence, management and outcomes in a high-volume case series.

PURPOSE: Current evidence around the management of osteotomy-related infection is insufficient to robustly underpin the expert statements formulated by a recent European consensus statement. We present a review of a large case series in a high-volume osteotomy practice to contribute to the understanding of the incidence, management and outcome of infection in this subspecialty area. METHODS: Analyses of two prospectively collected databases for all osteotomy around the knee and infections related to osteotomy were performed, along with a review of hospital readmission data to capture all osteotomy-related infections. Clinical notes were reviewed to assess patient demographics, incidence of infection, how infection was managed and clinical outcome. RESULTS: In a series of 822 osteotomies in 755 patients, there were 21 (2.8%) cases of suspected infection. Twelve (1.6%) were contemporaneously deemed 'superficial' and nine confirmed 'deep' infections (1.2%). Deep infections were all successfully managed with wound debridement, with or without plate removal, depending on union and time from initial surgery. One of these infections was noted during a revision procedure, but no revision was carried out as a direct result of infection, no external fixation was required and no infected nonunions were experienced. CONCLUSION: All of the cases in this series were managed successfully with debridement ± removal of the plate, without the need for revision or external fixation. Any potential signs of infection around an osteotomy, especially in the case of medial high tibial osteotomy, should raise awareness for deep infection and the need for further surgery due to the limited overlying soft tissue cover. This evidence supports the recent European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy algorithm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Because of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee (RRC) approval timelines, new residency programs cannot use Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) during their first year of applicants. AIM: We sought to identify differences between program directors' subjective ratings of applicants from an emergency medicine (EM) residency program's first year (in which ERAS was not used) to their ratings of applicants the following year in which ERAS was used. METHOD: The University of Utah Emergency Medicine Residency Program received approval from the ACGME in 2004. Applicants for the entering class of 2005 (year 1) did not use ERAS, submitting a separate application, while those applying for the following year (year 2) used ERAS. Residency program directors rated applicants using subjective components of their applications, assigning scores on scales from 0-10 or 0-5 (10 or 5 = highest score) for select components of the application. We retrospectively reviewed and compared these ratings between the 2 years of applicants. RESULTS: A total of 130 and 458 prospective residents applied during year 1 and year 2, respectively. Applicants were similar in average scores for research (1.65 vs. 1.81, scale 0-5, p = 0.329) and volunteer work (5.31 vs. 5.56, scale 0-10, p = 0.357). Year 1 applicants received higher scores for their personal statement (3.21 vs. 2.22, scale 0-5, p < 0.001), letters of recommendation (7.0 vs. 5.94, scale 0-10, p < 0.001), dean's letter (3.5 vs. 2.7, scale 1-5, p < 0.001), and in their potential contribution to class characteristics (4.64 vs. 3.34, scale 0-10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the number of applicants increased, the use of ERAS in a new residency program did not improve the overall subjective ratings of residency applicants. Year 1 applicants received higher scores for the written components of their applications and in their potential contributions to class characteristics.

Clinical audit of the management of stable ankle fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Ankle fractures are common and 'stable' ankle fractures comprise 40-75% of this group. Studies show that these injuries can be managed successfully in a functional brace, with no need for further radiographs and minimal out-patient follow-up. We aimed to audit current practice and introduce change in order to improve treatment and produce financial savings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective 6-month audit was carried out to establish practice. Guidelines were then drawn up and widely distributed in the accident and emergency (A&E) and orthopaedic departments. These included criteria for diagnosis of stable ankle fractures, a management protocol for treatment of these injuries in a brace and also a follow-up algorithm in the out-patient clinic. A prospective 6-month audit was then carried out to assess the effectiveness of the guidelines. RESULTS: Of patients presenting in the second 6-month period, 91% were managed in a functional brace. The mean number of out-patient follow-up appointments, weeks until discharge and repeat radiographs all decreased significantly (P < 0.05) after the implementation of the guidelines. The cost of treating a patient with a stable ankle fracture dropped from 310.75 pounds to 129.80 pounds. CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies have shown that stable ankle fractures are more effectively treated in a functional brace than a plaster cast, do not displace and, therefore, do not need repeat radiographs. A previous audit demonstrated that 60% of patients with stable fractures could be treated in a brace. We have shown that, with effective and persistent education of colleagues, the vast majority (91%) of patients can be managed in this way and this results in a significant cost saving. We have also shown that an evidence-based treatment protocol can produce significant improvements in management for patients and savings for healthcare organisations.