Risk factors for fracture-related infection after ankle fracture surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Ankle fracture surgery comes with a risk of fracture-related infection (FRI). Identifying risk factors are important in preoperative planning, in management of patients, and for information to the individual patient about their risk of complications. In addition, modifiable factors can be addressed prior to surgery. The aim of the current paper was to identify risk factors for FRI in patients operated for ankle fractures. METHODS: A cohort of 1004 patients surgically treated for ankle fractures at Haukeland University Hospital in the period of 2015-2019 was studied retrospectively. Patient charts and radiographs were assessed for the diagnosis of FRI. Binary logistic regression was used in analyses of risk factors. Regression coefficients were used to calculate the probability for FRI based on the patients' age and presence of one or more risk factors. RESULTS: FRI was confirmed in 87 (9%) of 1004 patients. Higher age at operation (p < .001), congestive heart failure (CHF), p = 0.006), peripheral artery disease (PAD, p = 0.001), and current smoking (p = .006) were identified as risk factors for FRI. PAD and CHF were the risk factors displaying the strongest association with FRI with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.2 (95% CI 1.8-10.1) and 4.7 (95% CI 1.6-14.1) respectively. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of FRI was 9% after surgical treatment of ankle fractures. The combination of risk factors found in this study demonstrate the need for a thorough, multidisciplinary, and careful approach when faced with an elderly or frail patient with an ankle fracture. The results of this study help the treating surgeons to inform their patients of the risk of FRI prior to ankle fracture surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective case-control study.

Fracture-related infection: Prevalence and application of the new consensus definition in a cohort of 1004 surgically treated ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of ankle fractures comes with a substantial risk of complications, including infection. An unambiguously definition of fracture-related infections (FRI) has been missing. Recently, FRI has been defined by a consensus group with a diagnostic algorithm containing suggestive and confirmatory criteria. The aim of the current study was to report the prevalence of FRI in patients operated for ankle fractures and to assess the applicability of the diagnostic algorithm from the consensus group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of all patients with surgically treated ankle fractures from 2015 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for signs of postoperative infections. Patients with suspected infection were stratified according to confirmatory or suggestive criteria of FRI. Rate of FRI among patients with confirmatory and suggestive criteria were calculated. RESULTS: Suspected infection was found in 104 (10%) out of 1004 patients. Among those patients, confirmatory criteria were met in 76/104 (73%) patients and suggestive criteria were met in 28/104 (27%) at first evaluation. Patients with clinical confirmatory criteria (N = 76) were diagnosed with FRI. Patients with suggestive criteria were further examined with either bacterial sampling at the outpatient clinic, revision surgery including bacterial sampling, or a wait-and-see approach. Eleven (39%) of the 28 patients had positive cultures and were therefore diagnosed as having FRI at second evaluation. In total 87 (9%) patients were diagnosed with FRI according to the consensus definition. Only 73 (70%) of the 104 patients with suspected FRI had adequate bacterial sampling. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of FRI, applying the FRI-consensus criteria, for patients with surgically treated ankle fractures was 9%. Twenty-two percent of patients who met the confirmatory criteria had negative bacterial cultures. The current study shows that we did not have a systematic approach to patients with suspected FRI as recommended by the consensus group. A systematic approach to adequate bacterial sampling when FRI is suspected is paramount. The consensus definition of FRI and its diagnostic algorithm facilitates such an approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III - retrospective cohort study.

Association of Delayed Surgery for Ankle Fractures and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Several studies probe the association between prolonged time to surgery and postoperative complications in ankle fractures, but little is known about how a longer wait time affects clinical outcomes. The present study aims to assess the association between time from injury to surgery and patient-reported outcomes after operative treatment of severe ankle fractures. METHOD: Patients treated operatively for low-energy ankle fractures that also involve the posterior malleolus from 2014 to 2016 were included. Patient charts were reviewed for patient demographics, type of trauma, fracture characteristics, treatment given, and complications. Ankle function was evaluated on a follow-up visit by clinical examination, radiographs, and patient-reported outcome measures (Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score [SEFAS], RAND-36, visual analog scale [VAS] of Pain, VAS of Satisfaction). We compared patients treated within 1 week to those treated later than a week from injury for analyses. RESULTS: Follow-up visits of 130 patients were performed at mean 26 (SD 9) months after surgery. Patient demographics and fracture characteristics were similar between groups. Mean SEFAS was 34 (SD 10) in patients treated later than a week from injury vs 38 (SD 9) in those treated earlier (P = .012). Patients operated on later than 7 days from injury reported more pain (P = .008) and lower satisfaction than those treated earlier (P = .016). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective patient series of low-energy ankle fractures with posterior malleolar fragments, we found that waiting >7 days for definitive surgery was associated with poorer clinical outcomes and more pain compared with those who had surgery earlier. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Is there a correlation between functional results and radiographic findings in patients with distal radius fracture A0 type A3 treated with volar locking plate or external fixator?

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that precise restoration of distal radius fractures is correlated to better patient-reported outcome. METHODS: The correlation between radiographic results and functional outcome was explored in 156 patients with extra-articular distal radius fractures included in a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing 2 surgical interventions, Volar Locking Plate or External Fixator. The primary functional outcome was the Patient Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation score (PRWHE). Radiographically we assessed volar tilt, radial inclination, radial height, ulnar variance, and the presence of ulnar styloid fracture. The Pearson correlation analysis was used to estimate correlations between parameters. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up the mean difference in radiographic findings compared with the uninjured side (min, max) was: reduced volar tilt 5.3° (-15°, 25°), reduced radial inclination 2.3° (-6°, 12°), radial height 1.3 mm (-4 mm, 7 mm), and ulnar variance -0.5 mm (-6 mm, 3 mm). Overall, we found no correlation between radiographic parameters and the PRWHE at 1-year follow-up within the whole group, regardless of which treatment was chosen. At the time of injury 53% (N = 80) had sustained an additional ulnar styloid fracture. After 1 year this fracture was still radiographically present in 31% (N = 43) of the patients. No correlation between PRWHE score and the presence of an ulnar styloid fracture at 1-year follow-up was found. CONCLUSIONS: We found no correlation between functional outcome (PRWHE) and radiographic findings after 1 year in patients operated on with a Volar Locking Plate or External Fixator. Patient-specific factors were more important than radiographic measurements in this study group.Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level 2Trial registration: Norway: National Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics 213/555ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01904084Randomization of first patient: 02.09.2013.

Traditional Approach vs Posterior Approach for Ankle Fractures Involving the Posterior Malleolus.

BACKGROUND: In the past, posterior malleolus fragments (PMFs) commonly have been indirectly reduced and fixed when fragments involve 25% or more of the tibial articular surface, while smaller fragments were left unfixed. The posterior approach has become increasingly popular and allows fixation of even smaller fragments. This study compares clinical outcome for the 2 treatment strategies. METHODS: Patients with ankle fractures involving a PMF treated from 2014 to 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated to group A (treated with a posterior approach) or group B (treated with the traditional approach) according to the treatment given. A one-to-one matching of patients from each group based on the size of the PMF was performed. Patient charts were reviewed, and outcome evaluation was performed clinically, radiographically, and by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score, RAND-36, visual analog scale [VAS] of pain, and VAS of satisfaction). Forty-three patients from each group were matched. Median follow-up was 26 (interquartile range [IQR], 19-35) months postoperatively. RESULTS: The median PMF size was 17% (IQR, 12-24) in both groups, and they reported similar results in terms of PROMs. Fixation of the PMF was performed in 42 of 43 (98%) patients in group A and 7 of 43 (16%) patients in group B (P < .001). The former group more frequently got temporary external fixation (56% vs 12%, P < .01) and less frequently had syndesmotic fixation (14% vs 49%, P < .01), and they had less mechanical irritation and hardware removal but more noninfectious skin problems (28% vs 5%, P < .01). Median time from injury to definitive surgery (8 vs 0 days, P < .001) and median length of stay (12 vs 3 days, P < .001) were longer in group A. CONCLUSION: Comparison of treatment strategies for ankle fractures involving the posterior malleolus showed similar results between patients treated with a traditional approach and a posterior approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Surgical Treatment of Distal Radial Fractures with External Fixation Versus Volar Locking Plate: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of volar locking plate fixation (VLP) for unstable extra-articular distal radial fractures has increased in the last decades. External fixation (EF) is less frequently used. This change of surgical approach has only to some extent been evidence-based. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, we compared VLP and EF in patients between 18 and 70 years of age who had a displaced extra-articular distal radial fracture (OTA/AO type A3). The patients were examined at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation score (PRWHE). Secondary outcomes were the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), pain score on a visual analog scale (VAS), and radiographic measurements. Range of motion, grip strength, finger stiffness, complications, and reoperations were also recorded. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six patients were included. One hundred and forty-two (91%)-127 women (89%) and 15 men (11%)-completed 1 year of follow-up. Sixty-nine patients were treated with VLP and 73, with EF. The mean age was 56 years. At 6 weeks, the median PRWHE score was significantly higher in the EF group (44) compared with the VLP group (27) (p < 0.001). At 3 months and 1 year, the difference between groups was not significant. The median QuickDASH score was 27 in the VLP group and 43 in the EF group at 6 weeks (p < 0.001), and a significant difference persisted at 3 months (p = 0.023). The VLP group had superior results in terms pain during activity, wrist extension, and ulnar and radial deviation at 1 year, whereas the number of major complications was similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with VLP had earlier recovery of function compared with patients treated with EF. One year postoperatively, we found no significant functional difference. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical Efficacy of Combined Surgical Patient Safety System and the World Health Organization's Checklists in Surgery: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Checklists have been shown to improve patient outcomes in surgery. The intraoperatively used World Health Organization surgical safety checklist (WHO SSC) is now mandatory in many countries. The only evidenced checklist to address preoperative and postoperative care is the Surgical Patient Safety System (SURPASS), which has been found to be effective in improving patient outcomes. To date, the WHO SSC and SURPASS have not been studied jointly within the perioperative pathway. Objective: To investigate the association of combined use of the preoperative and postoperative SURPASS and the WHO SSC in perioperative care with morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a stepped-wedge cluster nonrandomized clinical trial, the preoperative and postoperative SURPASS checklists were implemented in 3 surgical departments (neurosurgery, orthopedics, and gynecology) in a Norwegian tertiary hospital, serving as their own controls. Three surgical units offered additional parallel controls. Data were collected from November 1, 2012, to March 31, 2015, including surgical procedures without any restrictions to patient age. Data were analyzed from September 25, 2018, to March 29, 2019. Interventions: Individualized preoperative and postoperative SURPASS checklists were added to the intraoperative WHO SSC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were in-hospital complications, emergency reoperations, unplanned 30-day readmissions, and 30-day mortality. The secondary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: In total, 9009 procedures (5601 women [62.2%]; mean [SD] patient age, 51.7 [22.2] years) were included, with 5117 intervention procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 51.8 [22.4] years; 2913 women [56.9%]) compared with 3892 controls (mean [SD] patient age, 51.5 [21.8] years; 2688 women [69.1%]). Parallel control units included 9678 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 57.4 [22.2] years; 4124 women [42.6%]). In addition to the WHO SSC, adjusted analyses showed that adherence to the preoperative SURPASS checklists was associated with reduced complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P = .04) and reoperations (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.76; P = .004). Adherence to the postoperative SURPASS checklists was associated with decreased readmissions (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.64; P = .001). No changes were observed in mortality or LOS. In parallel control units, complications increased (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; P = .04), whereas reoperations, readmissions, and mortality remained unchanged. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized clinical trial, adding preoperative and postoperative SURPASS to the WHO SSC was associated with a reduction in the rate of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01872195.

Evaluation of Timed Up and Go Test as a tool to measure postoperative function and prediction of one year walking ability for patients with hip fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the Timed Up and Go Test is a useful tool to measure postoperative function and to predict one-year results of rehabilitation in patients operated owing to hip fracture. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The department of orthopaedic surgery at five hospitals in Norway. Patients were assessed five days postoperatively and after one year. SUBJECTS: A total of 684 patients over 60 years with trochanteric or subtrochanteric hip fractures were included. A total of 171 (25%) patients died within a year and 373 (73% of patients still alive) attended follow-up one year after surgery. MAIN MEASURES: Timed Up and Go Test and walking ability. RESULTS: A total of 258 (38%) patients passed the postoperative Timed Up and Go Test. A total of 217 (56%) patients with a prefracture independent outdoor walking ability, passed the test. The average Timed Up and Go Test score was 71 seconds. A total of 171 (25%) patients could not rise from a chair without assistance; 8% of the patients with cognitive impairment, and 8% of those admitted from nursing homes, were able to pass the postoperative Timed Up and Go Test. The sensitivity and specificity of the Timed Up and Go Test in predicting walking ability one year after the operation were low. At one year follow-up, 38% of the patients not able to perform the postoperative Timed Up and Go Test, passed the test. A total of 81 (21%) patients did not use any walking-aid, 17 of them did not pass the postoperative Timed Up and Go Test. CONCLUSION: The Timed Up and Go Test performed the fifth postoperative day was not a suitable tool to assess functional mobility for the majority of the patients with hip fractures in our study. Neither was the postoperative Timed Up and Go Test a suitable tool to predict the walking ability one year after the operation.

TRIGEN INTERTAN intramedullary nail versus sliding hip screw: a prospective, randomized multicenter study on pain, function, and complications in 684 patients with an intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture and one year of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Both intramedullary nails and sliding hip screws are used with good results in the treatment of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. The aim of our study was to assess whether use of the TRIGEN INTERTAN nail, as compared with a sliding hip screw, resulted in less postoperative pain, improved functional mobility, and reduced surgical complication rates for patients with an intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized multicenter study, 684 elderly patients were treated with the INTERTAN nail or with a sliding hip screw with or without a trochanteric stabilizing plate. The patients were assessed during their hospital stay and at three and twelve months postoperatively. A visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score was recorded at all time points, and functional mobility was assessed with use of the timed Up & Go test. The Harris hip score (HHS) was used to assess hip function more specifically. Quality of life was measured with the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Radiographic findings as well as intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Patients treated with an INTERTAN nail had slightly less pain at the time of early postoperative mobilization (VAS score, 48 versus 52; p = 0.042), although this did not influence the length of the hospital stay and there was no difference at three or twelve months. Regardless of the fracture and implant type, functional mobility, hip function, patient satisfaction, and quality-of-life assessments were comparable between the groups at three and twelve months. The numbers of patients with surgical complications were similar for the two groups (twenty-nine in the sliding-hip-screw group and thirty-two in the INTERTAN group, p = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: INTERTAN nails and sliding hip screws are similar in terms of pain, function, and reoperation rates twelve months after treatment of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures.

Sliding hip screw versus IM nail in reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A study of 2716 patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register.

BACKGROUND: Intramedullary nailing is commonly recommended as the treatment of choice for transverse/reverse oblique trochanteric (AO/OTA type A3=intertrochanteric) and subtrochanteric fractures. However, only to a limited extent is this approach supported by superior results in well designed clinical trials, and the sliding hip screw (SHS) is still a frequently used implant for these fractures. The aim of the present study was to compare IM nails and SHS in the treatment of transverse/reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures using data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR). METHODS: Data on 2716 operations for acute transverse/reverse oblique trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures were collected from the NHFR from 2005 to 2010. Surgeons reported patient characteristics and details from initial surgery and reoperations, and patients answered questionnaires about pain, satisfaction, and quality of life (EQ-5D) 4, 12, and 36 months postoperatively. Reoperation rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Primary outcome measures were pain (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)), satisfaction (VAS), quality of life (EQ-5D), and reoperation rates at one year. RESULTS: The treatment groups were similar regarding age, gender, ASA-class, cognitive impairment, and preoperative EQ-5Dindex score. At one year reoperation rates were 6.4% and 3.8% for SHS and IM nails, respectively (p=0.011). Patients treated with SHS also had slightly more pain (VAS 30 vs. 27, p=0.037) and were less satisfied (VAS 31 vs. 36, p=0.003) compared to patients treated with IM nail. There was no statistically significant difference in the EQ-5Dindex score, but the mobility was significantly better for the IM nail group. CONCLUSION: 12 months postoperatively patients with transverse/reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures operated with a SHS had a higher reoperation rate compared to those operated with an IM nail. Small differences regarding pain, satisfaction, quality of life, and mobility were also in favour of IM nailing. Consequently, a change in our treatment strategy for these fractures could be considered.

Intramedullary nails result in more reoperations than sliding hip screws in two-part intertrochanteric fractures.

BACKGROUND: Sliding hip screws (SHSs) and intramedullary (IM) nails are well-documented implants for simple two-part intertrochanteric fractures; however, there is no consensus regarding which type of implant is better. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether patients with simple two-part intertrochanteric fractures treated with IM nailing had (1) a lower reoperation rate and (2) less pain and better quality of life than patients treated with SHSs. METHODS: We used data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register on 7643 operations for simple two-part intertrochanteric fractures (AO/OTA Type A1) treated with an SHS (n=6355) or an IM nail (n=1288) between 2005 and 2010. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess reoperation percentages and a Cox regression model was used to assess the risk of reoperation. Questionnaires regarding pain and quality of life were answered by the patients at 4, 12, and 36 months postoperatively. RESULTS: We found an increased risk of reoperation after IM nailing within 1 postoperative year: 2.4% and 4.2% for SHS and IM nails, respectively. The difference persisted with time: 4.5% and 7.1% at 3 years. We also found minor differences for pain and quality of life which we judged clinically unimportant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings and a critical review of the literature, we suggest an SHS is likely the preferred implant for simple two-part intertrochanteric fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.