Predictive factors for docking site procedure in bone transport for large lower extremity segmental defects.

BACKGROUND: Segmental bone transport is a common technique for treating large segmental bone defects. However, a docking site procedure is often necessary in segmental bone transport. To date, no prognostic factors for the need of docking site procedure have been reported. Thus, the decision is often made at random, based on the surgeon's subjective judgment and experience. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors for the need of docking site operation. METHODS: Patients with segmental bone transport in lower extremity bone defects were included regardless of age, aetiology, and defect size. We excluded patients undergoing treatments that were not yet completed, and those who discontinued therapy by any reason. The need for docking site operation was modelled with logistical and linear regression as well as univariate analysis of variances (ANOVA). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients from age 12 to 74 years (mean age: 39.07 ± 18.20 years) were included. The mean defect size was 76.39 ± 41.10 mm. The duration of transport (days) showed a significant influence (p = 0.049, 95%CI: 1.00-1.02) on the need for docking site operation. No other significant influences were detected. CONCLUSION: A link between the duration of transport and the need for docking site operation was detected. Our data showed that if a threshold of about 188 days is exceeded, docking surgery should be considered.

[Patient volume, diagnosis and injury mechanisms in a level 1 trauma center at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the mean of the 3 previous years : A retrospective, epidemiological evaluation of 4967 patients]. / Patientenaufkommen, Diagnosen und Verletzungsmechanismen eines überregionalen Traumazentrums mit Beginn der COVID-19-Pandemie im Vergleich zum Mittelwert der 3 Vorjahre : Eine retrospektive, epidemiologische Auswertung von 4967 Patienten.

BACKGROUND: As part of the COVID-19 pandemic, political decisions were made to reduce social interaction and to reduce the number of infections. The aim was to create capacities for the in-hospital care of the patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to check whether a reduction in the number of trauma patients compared to the mean of the previous 3 years could be observed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who presented in the emergency admission from 1 March to 15 April 2020 with the mean of the patients from the previous 3 years 2017-2019. The age of the patients, time of presentation, diagnoses, whereabouts of the patients, inpatient or outpatient, number and duration of the operative care and required capacity on the normal ward and intensive care units (ICU) were recorded. The injury mechanism was also examined. RESULTS: A total of 4967 patients between 1 March and 15 April were included. On average over the 3 previous years, a total of 1348 patients, i.e. 29.3 patients per day were counted in our emergency room. In 2020 a total of 923, i.e. 20 patients per day (p < 0.01) were counted. On average 227 (24.6%) were admitted to hospital compared to 311.5 (23.1%) in 2020. On average 143 operations were performed compared to 136 in 2020. The days on the ward were reduced from 2442 on average for the previous years, in 2020 to 1172 days by 52.1% (p < 0.01). The number of days on the ICU was 450 days on average in previous years and 303 days in 2020 (-32.7%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The number of patients in the emergency admission was significantly reduced in the observation period in 2020 compared to the mean of the previous 3 years. This directly made resources available for the care of COVID-19 patients.

Development of an intraoperative 3D C-arm technique for torsion control of femur fractures: a cadaver study.

AIM: This study aims to test the accuracy and feasibility of a measurement of femoral torsion of a 3D C-arm system (Linea aspera method) in a cadaver setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 11 intact femora were used. Schanz screws were inserted in the femoral bone in a parallel manner with the help of a fixed drill sleeve. Femur bones were then fractured in a controlled manner and three different internal and external torsion angles were fixed with the help of a Goniometer. After that, a 3D scan was performed. The 3D data set was analyzed using a radiologic software (Visage 7, Visage Imaging Inc, USA). Measurements were then compared in the two methods with a dependent t test. RESULTS: Specific measurements for different angles did not show any differences between those two utilities. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative estimation of femoral antetorsion using a 3D C-Arm system and the Linea aspera method seems to be an accurate and feasible method. Nevertheless, more studies with higher patient numbers, comparison to CT seems to be the next step and can be recommended.

The rotational fixator: A new device.

OBJECTIVES: Malrotation after surgical treatment of femoral shaft fractures is a common problem and often leads to follow-up procedures with uncertain outcome. The aim of this study is the validation of a new device (Rotational Fixator) to perform the correction safely and accurately. METHODS: In an in-vitro study, we tested the Rotational Fixator on 21 corpse bones against a commercially available standard goniometer for measurement inaccuracies. For this purpose, we varied the rotation width from 10 to 30° in inside and outside rotation. RESULTS: We found a small measurement inaccuracy of 1-2° with increasing rotation. The smallest differences are found at 10° IR with 0.9524° (SD ± 1.0713; p = 0.001) difference and 10° ER with at 0.5952° (SD ± 0.6823; p = 0.001) difference and increase up to 30° (IR 1.6667°, SD ± 1.7121, p < 0.000/ER 1.5000°, SD ± 1.0488, p < 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The measurement results of the device show a constant deviation from the gold standard but are constant in the measurement error and slightly in relation to the desired correction range, so that a further review of the device and further testing in in vivo studies makes sense. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.