Patient experiences and desires for recovery after ankle fracture surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates patients' experiences of commencing weight-bearing after ankle fracture surgery and their recovery priorities to inform a new rehabilitation intervention. METHODS: Embedded within the Weight bearing in Ankle Fractures (WAX) trial, this qualitative study conducted semi-structured interviews with patients following ankle fracture surgery. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework guided the interview questions to ensure comprehensive domain coverage. A purposive, maximum variation sampling strategy was used for participant selection. Data analysis employed a combined deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were interviewed, revealing five key themes: understanding the recovery journey, navigating the healthcare system, understanding personal physical capabilities, building confidence for weight-bearing, and resuming daily activities. Themes emphasised the variability in healthcare access, the impact of non-weight-bearing on independence, and the role of self-efficacy in recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the diversity in patient experiences and recovery challenges post-ankle fracture surgery. Patients' recovery was influenced by access to consistent healthcare advice, self-efficacy, and the physical and psychological impact of non-weight-bearing. The findings suggest a need for tailored, patient-centred rehabilitation interventions that consider individual recovery trajectories and promote self-management. These insights provide a foundational understanding for developing interventions that more effectively address patient priorities and barriers to recovery.

Transobturator-cable-fixation in pelvic ring injuries with symphyseal disruption - a last resort?

PURPOSE: The role of transobturator-cable-fixation (TOCF) in traumatic symphyseal rupture of the pelvic ring remains unclear. This case series aims to evaluate TOCF in complex and revision cases in pelvic surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a chronological case series was conducted, studying pelvic fractures stabilized using TOCF between January 2006 and December 2022. The variables considered included age, gender, fracture classification, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Body Mass Index (BMI), trauma mechanism, time to surgery, fixation technique, hospital duration, complications, status on discharge (Glasgow Outcome Scale; GOS), follow-up time and indication for the use of TOCF. RESULTS: All patients (N = 7) were male with a mean age of 64 years and a mean BMI of 29. The mean ISS was 45, with the lowest ISS of 25, indicating that only polytraumatized patients were included. Two anterior-posterior-compression-, four lateral-compression-, and one vertical-shear-pelvic-injury were identified. TOCF was added in six cases to support symphyseal plating and in one case to external fixation. The mean hospital stay was 49 days and the mean follow-up duration was 8.5 months. No complications associated with TOCF were observed during the surgical procedure or follow-up. CONCLUSION: TOCF showed no procedure-associated complications and effectively supported symphyseal healing in all cases. The main indications were obesity, poor bone quality in elderly patients, and revision cases. TOCF could be considered as a last treatment option in open-book pelvic injuries where plating or external fixation is at risk to fail.

The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study : epidemiology of open fracture care in the UK.

AIMS: Understanding of open fracture management is skewed due to reliance on small-number lower limb, specialist unit reports and large, unfocused registry data collections. To address this, we carried out the Open Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study, and report the demographic details and the initial steps of care for patients admitted with open fractures in the UK. METHODS: Any patient admitted to hospital with an open fracture between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 was included, excluding phalanges and isolated hand injuries. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture. Demographic details, injury, fracture classification, and patient dispersal were detailed. RESULTS: In total, 1,175 patients (median age 47 years (interquartile range (IQR) 29 to 65), 61.0% male (n = 717)) were admitted across 51 sites. A total of 546 patients (47.1%) were employed, 5.4% (n = 63) were diabetic, and 28.8% (n = 335) were smokers. In total, 29.0% of patients (n = 341) had more than one injury and 4.8% (n = 56) had two or more open fractures, while 51.3% of fractures (n = 637) occurred in the lower leg. Fractures sustained in vehicle incidents and collisions are common (38.8%; n = 455) and typically seen in younger patients. A simple fall (35.0%; n = 410) is common in older people. Overall, 69.8% (n = 786) of patients were admitted directly to an orthoplastic centre, 23.0% (n = 259) were transferred to an orthoplastic centre after initial management elsewhere, and 7.2% were managed outwith specialist units (n = 81). CONCLUSION: This study describes the epidemiology of open fractures in the UK. For a decade, orthopaedic surgeons have been practicing in a guideline-driven, network system without understanding the patient features, injury characteristics, or dispersal processes of the wider population. This work will inform care pathways as the UK looks to the future of trauma networks and guidelines, and how to optimize care for patients with open fractures.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):746-752.

The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study: the management of open fracture care in the UK.

AIMS: The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study was performed to provide clarity in open fracture management previously skewed by small, specialist centre studies and large, unfocused registry investigations. We report the current management metrics of open fractures across the UK. METHOD: Patients admitted to hospital with an open fracture (excluding phalanges or isolated hand injuries) between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 were included. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture software. All domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Open Fracture Management were recorded. RESULTS: Across 51 centres, 1,175 patients were analyzed. Antibiotics were given to 754 (69.0%) in the emergency department, 240 (22.0%) pre-hospital, and 99 (9.1%) as inpatients. Wounds were photographed in 848 (72.7%) cases. Median time to first surgery was 16 hrs 14 mins (interquartile range (IQR) 8 hrs 29 mins to 23 hrs 19 mins). Complex injuries were operated on sooner (median 12 hrs 51 mins (IQR 4 hrs 36 mins to 21 hrs 14 mins)). Of initial procedures, 1,053 (90.3%) occurred between 8am and 8pm. A consultant orthopaedic surgeon was present at 1,039 (89.2%) first procedures. In orthoplastic centres, a consultant plastic surgeon was present at 465 (45.1%) first procedures. Overall, 706 (60.8%) patients required a single operation. At primary debridement, 798 (65.0%) fractures were definitively fixed, while 734 (59.8%) fractures had fixation and coverage in one operation through direct closure or soft-tissue coverage. Negative pressure wound therapy was used in 235 (67.7%) staged procedures. Following wound closure or soft-tissue cover, 509 (47.0%) patients received antibiotics for a median of three days (IQR 1 to 7). CONCLUSION: OPEN provides an insight into care across the UK and different levels of hospital for open fractures. Patients are predominantly operated on promptly, in working hours, and at specialist centres. Areas for improvement include combined patient review and follow-up, scheduled operating, earlier definitive soft-tissue cover, and more robust antibiotic husbandry.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1073-1080.

The Fragility Fracture Postoperative Mobilisation multicentre audit : the reality of weightbearing practices following operations for lower limb fragility fractures.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine the weightbearing practice of operatively managed fragility fractures in the setting of publically funded health services in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: The Fragility Fracture Postoperative Mobilisation (FFPOM) multicentre audit included all patients aged 60 years and older undergoing surgery for a fragility fracture of the lower limb between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019, and 1 February 2021 and 14 March 2021. Fractures arising from high-energy transfer trauma, patients with multiple injuries, and those associated with metastatic deposits or infection were excluded. We analyzed this patient cohort to determine adherence to the British Orthopaedic Association Standard, "all surgery in the frail patient should be performed to allow full weight-bearing for activities required for daily living". RESULTS: A total of 19,557 patients (mean age 82 years (SD 9), 16,241 having a hip fracture) were included. Overall, 16,614 patients (85.0%) were instructed to perform weightbearing where required for daily living immediately postoperatively (15,543 (95.7%) hip fracture and 1,071 (32.3%) non-hip fracture patients). The median length of stay was 12.2 days (interquartile range (IQR) 7.9 to 20.0) (12.6 days (IQR 8.2 to 20.4) for hip fracture and 10.3 days (IQR 5.5 to 18.7) for non-hip fracture patients). CONCLUSION: Non-hip fracture patients experienced more postoperative weightbearing restrictions, although they had a shorter hospital stay. Patients sustaining fractures of the shaft and distal femur had a longer median length of stay than demographically similar patients who received hip fracture surgery. We have shown a significant disparity in weightbearing restrictions placed on patients with fragility fractures, despite the publication of a national guideline. Surgeons intentionally restrict postoperative weightbearing in the majority of non-hip fractures, yet are content with unrestricted weightbearing following operations for hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):972-979.

Femoral Medialization, Fixation Failures, and Functional Outcome in Trochanteric Hip Fractures Treated With Either a Sliding Hip Screw or an Intramedullary Nail From Within a Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if femoral medialization influences residual pain and mobility and to determine if fixation method or fracture pattern influences the tendency to medialize. DESIGN: This study used data from within a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Peterborough City Hospital, UK. PATIENT/PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred forty-four patients presenting with a trochanteric hip fracture were randomized. Five hundred thirty-eight were available for 1-year follow-up. Fractures were classified according to OTA/AO classification as 31 A1, A2, and A3. INTERVENTION: Randomized to fixation with a Targon proximal femoral nail or sliding hip screw (SHS). OUTCOME MEASURES: Femoral medialization was calculated from follow-up x-rays at a minimum of 28 days post-fixation. Pain and mobility scores were assessed at 1 year by an independent blinded observer. Fixation failure and revision procedures were assessed at a minimum of 1 year from injury. RESULTS: Patients with >50% medialization had worse pain (P = 0.012) and mobility scores (P = 0.013) at 1 year. They also had more fracture healing complications (P = 0.021) and required more revision procedures (P = 0.014). Fractures treated with SHS were more likely to medialize >50% compared with intramedullary nail (P < 0.001). A2 and A3 fractures were more likely to medialize, and A3 fractures were more likely to undergo >50% medialization (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the previously theoretical predisposition for unstable hip fractures treated with SHS to undergo femoral medialization and correlates this with worse functional outcomes. It supports the use of intramedullary nails for A3 fractures, which have a significant tendency to medialize. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations in dialysis patients in a London district general hospital.

BACKGROUND: Patients on dialysis mount reduced immune responses compared with the general population. The Department of Health advises that these patients receive influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations at regular intervals-once yearly and every five years, respectively. This article investigates the uptake of these vaccinations in this patient population and seeks to examine factors that may influence vaccination status such as patient's language and presence of a general practitioner (GP) electronic vaccination reminder system. It also explores preferred site of vaccination for patients and GPs as these are primary care vaccinations yet patients have more frequent contact with their dialysis unit than their GP, blurring the boundaries between primary and specialized care. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all patients registered as dialysing at the North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust (NMUH) in September 2011. Information was obtained through GP letters, GP and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 154 patients, 133 were included in the data analysis. Nineteen per cent were up-to-date with both vaccinations and 67% with their influenza vaccination. Fifty per cent had received the influenza vaccination in the last two consecutive years. Thirty per cent were not up-to-date with either vaccination. There was no evidence of a difference in uptake in 2009 (P = 0.7564) and in 2010 (P = 0.7435) among those who could and could not speak English. Twenty-five per cent of GPs and 58.6% of patients preferred vaccination to occur in the dialysis unit. Unfortunately a high number of GPs did not provide information on whether they used an electronic vaccination reminder but the analysis from the information provided by the few respondents did not reveal any correlation between the presence of an electronic reminder and vaccination status. CONCLUSION: Most dialysis patients were not up-to-date with both vaccinations. They were, however, more up-to-date with their influenza than their pneumococcal vaccination. Non-English speakers did not appear to be disadvantaged. GP electronic reminder systems may have influenced influenza uptake but this study did not demonstrate a correlation and this is likely due to the lack of GP respondents; the effectiveness of electronic reminders merits further studies as a tool to improve vaccination rates in at-risk populations. Most patients visited their GP at least annually but preferred to receive their vaccinations at the hospital. Vaccinating in the dialysis unit and maintaining an electronic record accessible to GPs or generating a letter for GPs may help fill the vaccination gap in these patients. Overall, more evidence is required for the effectiveness of such vaccinations and their frequency, but in the meantime UK national guidelines were not being followed with a large proportion of patients remaining unvaccinated against influenza and in particular pneumococcal disease. This audit highlights the importance of local data collection, discussions around correlations influencing outcomes and publication of results to improve standards of care at a national level.