Fix or Replace? Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Geriatric Lower Extremity Fractures: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Introduction: When considering treatment options for geriatric patients with lower extremity fractures, little is known about which outcomes are prioritized by patients. This study aimed to determine the patient preferences for outcomes after a geriatric lower extremity fracture. Materials and Methods: We administered a discrete choice experiment survey to 150 patients who were at least 60 years of age and treated for a lower extremity fracture at a Level I trauma center. The discrete choice experiment presented study participants with 8 sets of hypothetical outcome comparisons, including joint preservation (yes or no), risk of reoperation at 6 months and 24 months, postoperative weightbearing status, disposition, and function as measured by return to baseline walking distance. We estimated the relative importance of these potential outcomes using multinomial logit modeling. Results: The strongest patient preference was for maintained function after treatment (59%, P < .001), followed by reoperation within 6 months (12%, P < .001). Although patients generally favored joint preservation, patients were willing to change their preference in favor of joint replacement if it increased function (walking distance) by 13% (SE, 66%). Reducing the short-term reoperation risk (12%, P < .001) was more important to patients than reducing long-term reoperation risk (4%, P = .33). Disposition and weightbearing status were lesser priorities to patients (9%, P < .001 and 7%, P < .001, respectively). Discussion: After a lower extremity fracture, geriatric patients prioritized maintained walking function. Avoiding short-term reoperation was more important than avoiding long-term reoperation. Joint preservation through fracture fixation was the preferred treatment of geriatric patients unless arthroplasty or arthrodesis provides a meaningful functional benefit. Hospital disposition and postoperative weightbearing status were less important to patients than the other included outcomes. Conclusions: Geriatric patients strongly prioritize function over other outcomes after a lower extremity fracture.

The Association of Cavovarus Foot Deformity With an Os Peroneum.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess whether the presence of an os peroneum is correlated with cavovarus foot alignment in patients without a neurologic explanation for their foot shape. We hypothesized that a large os peroneum would increase the power of the peroneus longus and lead to a forefoot-driven, hindfoot varus deformity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a single institution and reviewed patients with 3 weightbearing views of the foot on plain radiography. Patients were characterized into having either no os peroneum (235), a small os peroneum (18), or a large os peroneum (23). The control group included the first 101 of the 235 patients without an os peroneum based on a power analysis of the primary outcome, which was the difference in the mean Meary's angle (lateral talo-first metatarsal angle) between groups. The kite angle (anterior-posterior [AP] talocalcaneal angle), as well as 4 other angles were measured as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Those with a large os peroneum had on a mean 7.7° (P < .01) more apex dorsal angulation of Meary's angle than controls, and a kite angle 4.2° varus to that of the control group. There were no differences between the small os peroneum and control groups. CONCLUSION: These findings add to the existing literature surrounding the etiology of cavovarus foot shape and link the presence of an ossified os peroneum, an oftentimes incidental radiographic finding, to cavovarus foot deformity in those without an underlying neurologic diagnosis. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level III: Retrospective Case-Control.

Financial Toxicity Is Common in Patients After Tibia Fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the presence of financial distress and identify risk factors for financial toxicity in patients after tibial shaft fracture. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: All patients within 4 years after tibial shaft fracture (open, closed, or fracture that required flap reconstruction). INTERVENTION: Injury-related financial distress. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Financial distress related to the injury, as reported by the patient in a binary question. Financial toxicity using the LIMB-Q, scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more financial toxicity. RESULTS: Data were collected from 142 patients after tibial shaft fracture [44% closed (n = 62), 41% open (n = 58), and 15% flap (n = 22)]. The mean age was 44 years (SD 17), 61% were men, and the mean time from injury was 15 months. Financial distress was reported by 64% of patients (95% confidence interval, 56% to 72%). Financial toxicity did not differ by fracture severity ( P = 0.12). Medical complications were associated with a 14-point increase in financial toxicity ( P = 0.04). Age older than 65 years (-15 points, P = 0.03) and incomes of $70,000 or more ($70,000-$99,999, -15 points, P = 0.02; >$100,000, -19 points, P < 0.01) protected against financial toxicity. CONCLUSION: We observed financial distress levels more than twice the proportion observed after cancer. Medical complications, lower incomes, and younger age were associated with increased financial toxicity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does treatment at a level I trauma center reduce disparities in patient outcomes for open tibia fractures? A retrospective analysis of the National trauma Databank.

Background: Race and insurance status are independent predictors of healthcare outcomes following lower-extremity trauma. Level 1 trauma centers show better outcomes overall, but it is has not been extensively studied as to whether they specifically lower complication rates and shorten length of stay in those with Black race, with low socioeconomic status, and/or a lack of private health insurance. We performed a study with the objective of determining whether Level I trauma centers can improve the complication rate of those shown to be at high risk of experiencing adverse outcomes due to socioeconomic differences. Hypothesis: Level 1 trauma centers will be successful in mitigating the disparity in complication rates and length of stay associated with racial and socioeconomic differences among trauma patients experiencing an open tibia fracture. Patients and methods: The National Trauma Databank was reviewed from 2008 to 2015, identifying 81,855 encounters with an open tibia fracture, and 33,047 at a Level I trauma center. Regression models determined effects of race and insurance status on outcomes by trauma center while controlling for confounders. Results: Black race [OR 1.36, 95% CI, 1.17-1.58; p < 0.05] and "other" race [OR 1.28, 95% CI, 1.07-1.52; p < 0.05] were associated with higher odds of injury-specific complications. Patients without private insurance and of non-White or Black race in comparison to White patients had a significantly longer length of stay [coefficient 1.66, 95% CI, 1.37-1.94; p < 0.001]. These differences persisted in patients treated at an American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level I trauma center. Discussion: Treatment at an ACS Level I trauma center did not reduce the independent effects of race and insurance status on outcomes after open tibia fracture, emphasizing the need to recognize this disparity and improve care for at-risk populations.

Risk factors for failure of manipulation under anesthesia in posttraumatic knee stiffness.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients who fail manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) as a treatment for posttraumatic knee stiffness and determine the risk factors for MUA failure. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a level I trauma center. We identified 213 knees in 199 patients with arthrofibrosis treated by MUA within 1 year of injury from 2007 to 2020. The primary outcome was MUA failure as defined by need for repeat MUA or surgical release after MUA. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between MUA failure and potential risk factors. RESULTS: Overall, 111 knees (52%) failed treatment with MUA. An association was demonstrated between MUA failure and delay in treatment >90 days after injury (OR 3.6, p < 0.01), neurologic injury (OR 2.2, p = 0.02), and pre-procedure knee flexion <45° (OR 1.9, p < 0.01). The rate of failure for knees with no risk factors was 0% (0 of 14), 37% for knees with one risk factor (27 of 73), and 67% (84 of 126) for knees with two or more risk factors. CONCLUSION: For patients whose MUA is delayed beyond 90 days postinjury, pre-manipulation knee flexion is <45°, or those with associated neurologic injury; odds of MUA failing to correct posttraumatic arthrofibrosis are significantly increased. The likelihood of obtaining adequate range of motion (ROM) with MUA alone is lower than reported in other populations, with a higher likelihood of being treated with surgical release or additional MUA to attempt to obtain adequate ROM.

The Use of Vancomycin Powder in Tibial Plateau Fractures at Lower Risk of Infection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of vancomycin powder in preventing infection after plate and screw fixation of tibial plateau fractures considered at low risk of infection. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single, Level I trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: This study included 459 patients with tibial plateau fractures (OTA/AO 41-B/C) who underwent open reduction and internal fixation from 2006 to 2018 and were considered at low risk of infection based on not meeting the "high risk" definition of the VANCO trial. INTERVENTION: Vancomycin powder administration on wound closure at the time of definitive fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Deep surgical site infection with at least 1 gram-positive bacteria culture. RESULTS: Vancomycin powder administration was associated with reduction in gram-positive infection from 4% to 0% (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.32; P < 0.01). No significant effect was reported in gram-negative only infections, which were observed in 0.3% in the control group, compared with 0.9% in the intervention group (odds ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-69; P = 0.54). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism isolated in the control group, growing in 9 of 18 infections (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with low-risk tibial plateau fractures, vancomycin powder at the time of definitive fixation showed a reduction in the incidence of gram-positive deep surgical site infection. The observed relative effect was relatively larger than that observed in a previous randomized trial on high-risk fractures. These data might support broadening the indication for use of vancomycin powder to include tibial plateau fractures at low risk of infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does iliosacral screw removal reduce postoperative pain in unstable pelvic fracture patients? A matched prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To compare pain and function in patients with unstable posterior pelvic fractures stabilized with posterior fixation who undergo iliosacral screw removal versus those who retain their iliosacral screws. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study identified 59 patients who reported pain at least 4 months after iliosacral screw fixation of an unstable posterior pelvic ring fracture from 2015-2019. The primary intervention was iliosacral screw removal versus a matched iliosacral screw retention control group. Patient-reported pain was measured with the 10-point Brief Pain Inventory, and patient-reported function was measured with the Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score. Both measured within 6 months of the intervention. RESULTS: Before iliosacral screw removal, the mean pain was 4.7 (SD, 3.0) compared with 4.7 (SD, 3.0) in the matched control group. Following iliosacral screw removal, the average pain in the screw removal group was 3.7 (SD, 2.7) and 3.3 (SD, 2.5) in the matched control group. We found no evidence that iliosacral screw removal reduced pain in this population (mean difference, 0.2 points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 1.5; p = 0.71). In addition, the improvement in function after iliosacral screw removal was not statistically indistinguishable from zero (mean difference, 3.1 points; 95% CI, -4.6 to 10.9; p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that iliosacral screw removal offers no significant pelvic pain or function benefit when compared with a matched control group. Surgeons should consider these data when managing patients with pelvic pain who are candidates for iliosacral screw removal.

Patient preferences for physical therapy programs after a lower extremity fracture: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify patients' preferences for physical therapy programmes after a lower extremity fracture and determine patient factors associated with preference variation. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. SETTING: Level I trauma centre. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty-one adult (≥18 years old) patients with lower extremity fractures treated operatively. INTERVENTION: Patients were given hypothetical scenarios and asked to select their preferred therapy course when comparing cost, mobility, long-term pain, session duration, and treatment setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A multinomial logit model was used to determine the relative importance and willingness to pay for each attribute. RESULTS: Mobility was of greatest relative importance (45%, 95% CI: 40% to 49%), more than cost (23%, 95% CI: 19% to 27%), long-term pain (19%, 95% CI: 16% to 23%), therapy session duration (12%, 95% CI: 9% to 5%) or setting (1%, 95% CI: 0.2% to 2%). Patients were willing to pay US$142 more per session to return to their preinjury mobility level (95% CI: US$103 to US$182). Willingness to pay for improved mobility was higher for women, patients aged 70 years and older, those with bachelor's degrees or higher and those living in less-deprived areas. Patients were willing to pay US$72 (95% CI: US$50 to US$93) more per session to reduce pain from severe to mild. Patients were indifferent between formal and independent home therapy (willingness to pay: -US$12, 95% CI: -US$33 to US$9). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lower extremity fractures highly value recovering mobility and are willing to pay more for postoperative physical therapy programmes that facilitate returning to their pre-injury mobility level. These patient preferences might be useful when prescribing and designing new techniques for postoperative therapy.