Corticosteroid Injection in the Operative Hand Prior to a Trigger Finger or Carpal Tunnel Release: If It Is Not at the Surgical Site Then What Is the Big Deal?

BACKGROUND: Patients who have had a corticosteroid injection at the surgical site within 90 days of trigger finger release (TFR) or carpal tunnel release (CTR) have an elevated risk of postoperative infection. Currently, it remains unknown if a preoperative injection in proximity to the surgical site for a separate complaint alters the risk of a postoperative infection. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent TFR or CTR between 2010 and 2022. Patients who had a corticosteroid injection at or near the surgical site within 90 days of surgery were included. Outcome measures included uncomplicated healing, superficial infection requiring antibiotics, and deep infection (DI) requiring surgical debridement. RESULTS: There were 564 cases in which a corticosteroid injection was performed within 90 days of TFR or CTR. Superficial infections occurred in 12 (2.1%), and DIs occurred in 6 (1.1%) cases. There was no significant difference in infection rates between the two groups relative to the location of the injection nor timing of the injection (0-30, 31-60, or 61-90 days prior to surgery). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had an injection at the surgical site within 90 days of TFR or CTR had an elevated rate of postoperative infection compared with published rates in the literature. This study is unique in that preoperative injections at an adjacent site in the palm also correlated with an elevated rate of infection, similar to patients who had an injection at the surgical site. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Unique indications for internal joint stabilizer for elbow instability.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of elbow instability remains challenging despite advancements in surgical techniques. The objective of this study was to evaluate obesity, advanced age or frailty, and altered cognitive function (because of mental handicap, stroke, dementia, or traumatic brain injury) as unique indications for the use of the internal joint stabilizer (IJS) to augment surgical treatment of elbow instability. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all patients 18 years and older with elbow instability who were managed with an IJS along with standard measures of care for their specific injury, such as fracture fixation and collateral ligament reconstruction. Patients were excluded if they did not have a minimum follow-up of 3 months. All patients were treated by a single shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained orthopedic traumatologist at an urban university-based level 1 trauma center. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included in the study. Five patients were 60 years of age or older. Nine patients had a body mass index of 30 or greater. Five patients had a history of 1 or more cerebral insults or cognitive impairment. The majority of patients (21/22; 95%) regained elbow stability after the index surgery. At last follow-up, 14 of 22 patients (63%) regained a functional arc of motion, defined as at least 100° arc of motion, and 77% of patients had at least 90° of motion. Complications requiring revision surgery included culture-negative recurrent elbow instability (n = 1), deep infection (n = 1), and IJS failure without recurrent instability (n = 1). The IJS was removed in all 3 cases. Twelve patients underwent delayed IJS removal >2 months after the index surgery to grant additional time for bony and ligamentous healing and to permit secondary contracture release at the time of IJS removal. No complications were seen from delayed IJS removal. CONCLUSION: The IJS may be used to create elbow stability in complex patients, regardless of weight, frailty, cognitive function, neurologic insult, or other comorbidities. Unlike external fixation, the IJS does not require pin site care and is relatively light and low-profile. When augmenting surgical fixation for elbow instability, the IJS may be preferable for patients with complex comorbidities or social dynamics.

Results of pre-contoured titanium anterior plating of midshaft clavicle fractures.

BACKGROUND: Plating midshaft clavicle fractures anteriorly is gaining popularity because of low complication rates. Improvements in plate fixation constructs for midshaft clavicle fractures have unclear clinical significance. The purpose of this study was to present the early clinical and radiographic outcomes of pre-contoured titanium anterior plates for the treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures. METHODS: Skeletally mature patients who underwent plate fixation of a midshaft clavicular fracture from 2008 to 2015 using pre-contoured titanium anterior plates were included in this retrospective investigation. The primary outcome measures were union rate and hardware removal rate. The secondary outcome measures included reoperation for all causes and mechanical implant failure. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were included. Complete healing occurred in 96% of patients without further surgical intervention, and all patients achieved union. Medical complications occurred in 2 patients (7.7%), consisting of cellulitis (n = 1) and chronic pain (n = 1). In 1 patient (3.8%), delayed union occurred and the use of a bone stimulator was required postoperatively to achieve union. Finally, 2 patients (7.7%) had symptomatic implants that required removal. CONCLUSIONS: In the acute fracture setting, the anterior plating system used in this study led to a high rate of union with decreased rates of implant irritation. Only 7.7% of patients required hardware removal for symptomatic hardware, as opposed to the estimated 20%-60% reported in the literature in patients with symptomatic superior clavicle plates.

Nonunion and Reoperation After Internal Fixation of Proximal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Nonunion after fixation of a proximal femur fracture is associated with increased disability, pain, and cost to both patient and health care system. Understanding the effect of fixation method and fracture pattern on healing is important to optimize healing. The authors evaluated surgical healing, nonunion rate, and reoperation rate after internal fixation of proximal femur fracture, especially since the year 2000. They performed a systematic review of all published records from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Review system. The burden of proximal femoral fracture extends beyond acute disability, as it carries a high risk of long-term morbidity and mortality. Choice of fixation method for high-risk fractures is critical to reduce nonunion and reoperation rates. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(2):e162-e171.].

Healing, nonunion, and re-operation after internal fixation of diaphyseal and distal femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Nonunion is a highly morbid complication that exacerbates the pain, disability and financial burden of distal and diaphyseal femur fractures. This study examined the modern rates of healing, nonunion, and other complications requiring reoperation of different fixation methods for distal and diaphyseal femur fractures. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of all records from PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Review system was performed. Included studies had >20 acute, non-pathologic distal or diaphyseal femur fractures treated with primary internal fixation. Excluded were studies on abnormal patient/fracture populations, external fixation, or cement/bone graft use. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies with 2,829 femoral shaft fractures and 11 studies with 505 distal femur fractures were included. Distal fractures had a lower healing rate (86.6% vs. 93.7%) and a higher re-operation rate (13.4% vs 6.1%) than shaft fractures (p < 0.00001), primarily due to higher rates of mechanical failure (p < 0.00001). Nonunion was the most frequent complication, occurring in 4.7% of distal fractures and 2.8% of shaft fractures. There was no difference between plate and nail fixation of distal fractures in healing, nonunion, or other causes of re-operation. Shaft fractures developed nonunion in 6.6% of unreamed nails and 2.1% of reamed nails (p = 0.002). Nonunion occurred in 2.3% of antegrade nailed fractures and 1.5% of retrograde nailed fractures (p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one out of every eight distal fractures and one of every 16 shaft fractures requires re-operation. The most common cause of fixation failure is nonunion. Further research is needed to improve outcomes, particularly in distal femur fractures.

Hip Fracture in the Elderly Patients: A Sentinel Event.

IMPORTANCE: Hip fracture in the elderly patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. There is great need for advance care planning should a patient fail to rehabilitate or experience an adverse event during or after recovery. This study was performed to evaluate for palliative care consultation and changes in code status and/or advance directives in elderly patients with hip fracture. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 186 consecutive patients aged 65 years and older with a hip fracture due to a low-energy fall who underwent surgery at a large academic institution between August 1, 2013, and September 1, 2014. Risk factors assessed were patient demographics, home status, mobility, code status, comorbidities, medications, and hospitalizations prior to injury. Outcomes of interest included palliative care consultation, complications, mortality, and most recent code status, mobility, and home. RESULTS: About 186 patients with hip fractures were included. Three patients died, and 12 (6.5%) sustained major complications during admission. Nearly one-third (51 patients) died upon final follow-up approximately 1.5 years after surgery. Of the patients who died, palliative care consulted on 6 (11.8%) during initial admission. Eleven (21.6%) were full code at death. Three patients underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 1 underwent massive transfusion and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation prior to changing their code status to do not attempt resuscitation. CONCLUSION: Hip fracture in elderly patients is an important opportunity to reassess the patient's personal health-care priorities. Advance directives, goals of care, and code status documentation should be updated in all elderly patients with hip fracture, should the patient's health decompensate.