External fixator pin placement during initial management of tibial plateau fractures: are there parameters to minimize pin-plate overlap?

PURPOSE: External fixator pin site overlap with definitive fixation implants (pin-plate overlap) has been identified as a risk factor for surgical site infection in tibial plateau fractures. Despite this, pin-plate overlap occurs in 24-38% of patients. This study sought to identify radiographic characteristics associated with pin-plate overlap to help minimize occurrences. METHODS: 283 patients at two Level I trauma centers were retrospectively reviewed. Radiographic measurements were recorded including fracture length, distance from fracture to proximal tibial pin site, and pin site distance-to-fracture (PSF) ratio. RESULTS: 70 (24.7%) cases of pin-plate overlap were identified. Pin-plate overlap was associated with increased fracture length (81.5 ± 32.1 mm vs 56.9 ± 26.1 mm, p < 0.001) and decreased distance from fracture to proximal tibial pin site (84.5 ± 37.1 mm vs 126.9 ± 35.8 mm). Pins placed greater than 100 mm and 150 mm from the fracture eliminated 36/70 (51%) and 67/70 (96%) pin-plate overlaps, respectively. Pins placed with a PSF ratio greater than 1.5 and 2.0 eliminated 47/70 (67%), and 57/70 (81%) of pin-plate overlaps, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Longer fractures, pins closer to the fracture, and decreased PSF ratio were associated with overlap. Placing proximal tibial pins more than 100 mm from the fracture eliminated most pin-plate overlaps.

Arthroscopy Should be Used With Caution for Gunshot Wounds to the Hip.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of hip arthroscopy immediately following gunshot wound (GSW) to the hip. METHODS: Patients who received hip arthroscopy for GSWs from 2006 to 2020 by 2 surgeons at a level I trauma center were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Inclusion criteria were those patients who suffered a GSW to the hip, received hip arthroscopy for treatment, and had a minimum follow-up of 2 months. The exclusion criteria were any patients younger than 18 years of age. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, surgical details, clinical outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 50 hip arthroscopy cases were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Of the 50 cases identified, 8 patients met the inclusion criteria. All 8 patients were male, African-American, and the mean age was 31 years (range, 19-54 years) with mean follow-up of 14 months. Five of 8 cases were noted to have poor visualization with arthroscopy. Common reasons for poor visualization were difficult access to the bullet fragments, morbid obesity, hematoma formation, and pre-existing arthritis. Of these 5 cases, 2 were converted to open procedures to retrieve the remaining bullet fragments. One patient developed abdominal compartment syndrome, most likely due to increased pulse pressure over a prolonged operative period and involvement of the acetabular fovea. Emergent exploratory laparotomy and abdominal compartment fluid release were performed, and the patient had an otherwise unremarkable hospital course. CONCLUSIONS: There are risks with the use of arthroscopic methods to remove GSW fragments, which may be greater than elective hip arthroscopy. Certain factors, such as the surgeon's arthroscopic experience, locations of bullets fragments, visual quality, length of procedure, and concomitant acetabular fractures, must be considered before proceeding with arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic case series.