Lower limb paediatric trauma with bone and soft tissue loss: Ortho-plastic management and outcome in a major trauma centre.

AIM: We examined the management and outcome of patients suffering complex paediatric lower limb injuries with bone and soft tissue loss. METHOD: Patients were identified from our prospective trauma database (2013-2018). Inclusion criteria were age (<18 years) and open lower-limb trauma. We assessed severity of soft tissue and/or bone loss, fracture complexity, surgical techniques and time to surgery. Paediatric quality of life and psychological trauma impact scores (HRQOL and CRIES), Ganga Hospital Injury Severity score (GHISS), union and complication rates were measured. RESULTS: We identified 32 patients aged between 4 and 17 years. Twenty-nine patients had open tibia fractures including 14 patients with bone loss, one patient had an open femur fracture, one patient an open talus fracture and one an open ankle fracture with dorsal degloving. Thirty injuries were classified intra-operatively as Gustilo IIIB (or equivalent) and two injuries as Gustilo IIIC. In 10 patients primary skin closure was achieved by acute shortening following segmental bone loss. Twenty-two patients required soft tissue coverage: 17 free vascularised flaps, two fascio-cutaneous flaps and three split skin grafts were used. Two patients required vascular repair. Soft tissue coverage was achieved within 72 hours in 26 patients (81%) and within a week in 30 patients (94%). The surgical techniques applied were: circular fine wire frame (19), monolateral external fixator (4) and open reduction internal fixation (8). Median follow up time was 18 (7-65) months. Paediatric quality of life scores were available in 30 patients (91%) with a median total score of 77.2 out of 100. The psychological trauma impact scores showed one in three patients was at risk of developing post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSD). The GHISS scores ranged from 6-13. All fractures went on to unite over a median time of 3.8 (2-10) months. Three patients (9%) had major complications; two flap failures requiring revision, one femur non-union requiring revision fixation. CONCLUSION: Limb salvage and timely fracture union is possible in children with complex lower limb trauma. Early intervention providing adequate debridement, skeletal stabilisation and early soft-tissue cover including the option of free microvascular reconstruction in small children when required, delivers acceptable outcomes. A multidisciplinary team approach including clinical psychologists to address the psychological impact of trauma provides optimal holistic care for these children and adolescents. Therefore, treatment for these patients should only be performed in paediatric major trauma centres.

Patient perceptions of "awake" brain tumour surgery.

BACKGROUND: Awake brain tumour surgery allows intraoperative patient assessment and is done to optimise safe tumour removal. It is an established technique but little is known about patient perceptions of the procedure. METHOD: Fifteen adult patients filled out a dedicated questionnaire to assess 10 aspects of patient perceptions of the procedure. FINDINGS: All patients, who were awake for a median of 45 minutes (range 10-105), stated they were adequately prepared for the operation. Most recollected various aspects of the procedure, although 3 patients (20%) had little memory of actually being awake during the surgery despite being cooperative. A minority reported more than minor discomfort (20%), fear (15%) or anxiety (29%), and most felt they coped with the cortical stimulations and functional testing well. Sources of discomfort and pain were the cranial pin holding device, operative position, inadequate infiltration of the cranial wound with local anesthetic, a full bladder causing a desire to micturate and a hard and uncomfortable operating table. CONCLUSIONS: These results, are very similar to a previous American report using a different anesthetic technique, in that most patients tolerate awake craniotomy remarkably well if the procedure is explained to them and some simple precautions are taken. Additionally between 8%-37% of patients (95% Confidence Interval, summing data from the two studies, n = 35) will have no recollection of being awake. Ways of minimising discomfort and problems of anxiety in this patient cohort are discussed.

External fixation indications and patient selection.

Since its modest beginnings in the mid-nineteenth century, external fixation has seen great changes in its design and application. Once thought of as chiefly a fracture management tool, this modality has found its way into the arenas of corrective osteotomies, Charcot management, limb lengthening, nonunion treatment, and malalignment correction. As external fixation has evolved, great improvements in associated complications have also occurred. This is attributed to evolving frame design, subsequent increased stability, and advances in pin/wire insertion techniques. Paley and Herzenberg describe three factors to consider when evaluating whether to use external or internal fixation [2]. 1. Risk versus benefit of the method used for that specific indication. 2. Surgeon's experience with the specific method. 3. Ability to treat the potential complications of the surgery. The authors agree with these factors but would also include psychological tolerance, compliance with postoperative self-treatment, and personal hygiene. In this article the indications for external fixation were described in terms of pathology and individual patient factors were discussed for the surgeon's consideration. The surgeon must consider the patient's bone quality, age, cognitive ability, psychological tolerance, and compliance level. With these factors kept in mind and evaluated appropriately, the surgeon should be able to select the patient and indications for which external fixation will yield a superior result.