Comparison of Lateral versus Medial Entry Femoral Traction Pin Complication Rates.

Distal femoral skeletal traction is a common procedure for the stabilization of fractures of the pelvis, acetabulum, and femur following trauma. Femoral traction pins are traditionally inserted via medial-to-lateral (MTL) entry to accurately direct the pin away from the medial neurovascular bundle. Alternatively, cadaveric studies have demonstrated low risk to the neurovascular bundle using a lateral-to-medial (LTM) approach. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of complications of LTM and MTL femoral traction pin placement at a single institution. This was a retrospective review of patients from the orthopaedic consult registry at a academic Level I Trauma Center. We identified 233 LTM femoral traction pin procedures in 231 patients and 29 MTL pin procedures in 29 patients. The two pin placement techniques were compared with respect to complications, specifically the incidence of neurovascular injury, cellulitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, and heterotopic ossification after femoral traction pin placement. Two complications were reported. One patient developed heterotopic ossification along the pin tract after LTM traction pin placement. Another patient developed septic arthritis after LTM pin placement, likely attributable to retrograde intramedullary nailing of his open femur fracture rather than his traction pin. There were no reports of neurovascular injury, cellulitis, or osteomyelitis associated with pin placement. The complication rate was 0.9% for LTM group and 0.0% for MTL group (p = 0.616). LTM femoral traction pin placement is a safe procedure with a similarly low complication rate compared with traditional MTL placement when the limb is positioned in neutral alignment. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 32(4):259-262, 2023).

Smartphone Applications for Assessing Ankle Range of Motion in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Measuring ankle range of motion (ROM) following injury or intervention is necessary for monitoring recovery as well as for calculating permanent impairment ratings in workers' compensation cases. In recent years, smartphone application developers have created applications (apps) that emulate ROM measurement tools like the universal goniometer. This study assessed the correlation between smartphone ROM measurements and universal goniometer measurements, as well as the reliability and usability of these apps in clinical practice. METHODS: Three raters used the Goniometer app (Gonio), Clinometer app (Clino), DrGoniometer app (DrG), and a universal goniometer (UG) to assess the ankle ROM in plantarflexion and dorsiflexion of 24 patients with ankle pathology. Each patient completed a survey on the usability of the apps. RESULTS: Lin's concordance correlation coefficient test showed moderate correlation between the smartphone and UG measurements (Lin's correlation coefficient [rLC] = 0.931, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.911-0.946 for UG-Gonio; rLC = 0.908, 95% CI = 0.881-0.929 for UG-Clino; rLC = 0.935, 95% CI = 0.915-0.950 for UG-DrG). A 2-way mixed model showed good to excellent interrater reliability for each app for plantarflexion and dorsiflexion (ICCp = 0.836, ICCd = 0.912, P < .001 for Gonio; ICCp = 0.788, ICCd = 0.893, P < .001 for Clino; ICCp = 0.777, ICCd = 0.897, P < .001 for DrG). Most participants surveyed were very comfortable with having their ankle ROM measured by a smartphone. CONCLUSION: Smartphone apps may be a more convenient way to measure ankle ROM than UG. Physicians can use these apps to measure a patient's ROM in clinic, a patient could send a picture of his or her dorsiflexed or plantarflexed ankle to the physician to remotely track ROM, or a patient could measure his or her own ROM at home using a personal smartphone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Effect of the Strengthening Opioid Misuse Prevention (STOP) Act on Opioid Prescription Practices After Ankle Fracture Fixation.

BACKGROUND: In North Carolina, the Strengthen Opioid Misuse Prevention Act of 2017 (STOP Act) went into effect on January 1, 2018, intending to increase oversight over opioid prescriptions. This study compares postoperative narcotic prescription practices following operative fixation of ankle fractures before and after the STOP Act. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of patients 18 years and older who underwent operative fixation of ankle fractures between January 1 and June 30, 2017 (before STOP Act), and between January 1 and June 30, 2018 (after STOP Act). Variables of interest included demographics, amount of opioids prescribed postoperatively, number of prescription refills, and number of pain-related calls or visits to the emergency department (ED) or clinic after surgery. This study assessed 71 patients in the Pre group and 47 patients in the Post group. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease in the average number of postoperative narcotic pills prescribed after the STOP Act (52.7 vs 76.2, P < .001). There was also a statistically significant decrease in the average number of prescription refills (0.6 vs 1.0, P = .037). There were no significant changes in pain-related clinic calls (35.2% Pre vs 34.0% Post, P = .896), pain-related clinic visits ahead of schedule (4.2% Pre vs 6.4% Post, P = .681), or pain-related ED visits (2.8% Pre vs 10.6% Post, P = .113). CONCLUSION: In the postoperative period after operative fixation of ankle fractures, the volume of narcotic prescriptions decreased after the new legislation, without an associated strain on medical resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic, comparative study.