OPerative versus non-opERAtive management of isolated ULNAr diaphyseal fractures (OPERA-Ulna): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Aims: Isolated fractures of the ulnar diaphysis are uncommon, occurring at a rate of 0.02 to 0.04 per 1,000 cases. Despite their infrequency, these fractures commonly give rise to complications, such as nonunion, limited forearm pronation and supination, restricted elbow range of motion, radioulnar synostosis, and prolonged pain. Treatment options for this injury remain a topic of debate, with limited research available and no consensus on the optimal approach. Therefore, this trial aims to compare clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of two treatment methods: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus nonoperative treatment in patients with isolated ulnar diaphyseal fractures. Methods: This will be a multicentre, open-label, parallel randomized clinical trial (under National Clinical Trial number NCT01123447), accompanied by a parallel prospective cohort group for patients who meet the inclusion criteria, but decline randomization. Eligible patients will be randomized to one of the two treatment groups: 1) nonoperative treatment with closed reduction and below-elbow casting; or 2) surgical treatment with ORIF utilizing a limited contact dynamic compression plate and screw construct. The primary outcome measured will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score at 12 months post-injury. Additionally, functional outcomes will be assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and pain visual analogue scale, allowing for a comparison of outcomes between groups. Secondary outcome measures will encompass clinical outcomes such as range of motion and grip strength, radiological parameters including time to union, as well as economic outcomes assessed from enrolment to 12 months post-injury. Ethics and dissemination: This trial has been approved by the lead site Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (CHREB; REB14-2004) and local ethics boards at each participating site. Findings from the trial will be disseminated through presentations at regional, national, and international scientific conferences and public forums. The primary results and secondary findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication.

Hip Fracture Repair by the Post-Call Surgeon: A Multicenter Retrospective Review.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate surgeons' ability to perform or supervise a standard operation with agreed-upon radiologic parameters after being on call. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with a fixed angle device at 9 centers and compared corrected tip-apex distance and reduction quality for post-call surgeons versus those who were not. Subgroup analyses included surgeons who operated the night before versus not and attending-only versus resident involved cases. Secondary outcomes included union and perioperative complications. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred fourteen patients were of average age 77 years. Post-call surgeons treated 823 patients and control surgeons treated 891. Surgical corrected tip-apex distance did not differ between groups: on-call 18 mm versus control 18 mm (P = 0.59). The Garden indices were 160° on the AP and 179° on the lateral in both groups. In 66 cases performed by surgeons who operated the night before, the TAD was 17 mm. No difference was noted in corrected tip-apex distance with and without resident involvement (P = 0.101). No difference was observed in pooled fracture-related complications (P = 0.23). CONCLUSION: Post-call surgeons demonstrated no difference in quality and no increase in complications when performing hip fracture repair the next day compared with surgeons who were not on call.

Systematic review of machine-learning models in orthopaedic trauma.

Aims: Machine-learning (ML) prediction models in orthopaedic trauma hold great promise in assisting clinicians in various tasks, such as personalized risk stratification. However, an overview of current applications and critical appraisal to peer-reviewed guidelines is lacking. The objectives of this study are to 1) provide an overview of current ML prediction models in orthopaedic trauma; 2) evaluate the completeness of reporting following the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement; and 3) assess the risk of bias following the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. Methods: A systematic search screening 3,252 studies identified 45 ML-based prediction models in orthopaedic trauma up to January 2023. The TRIPOD statement assessed transparent reporting and the PROBAST tool the risk of bias. Results: A total of 40 studies reported on training and internal validation; four studies performed both development and external validation, and one study performed only external validation. The most commonly reported outcomes were mortality (33%, 15/45) and length of hospital stay (9%, 4/45), and the majority of prediction models were developed in the hip fracture population (60%, 27/45). The overall median completeness for the TRIPOD statement was 62% (interquartile range 30 to 81%). The overall risk of bias in the PROBAST tool was low in 24% (11/45), high in 69% (31/45), and unclear in 7% (3/45) of the studies. High risk of bias was mainly due to analysis domain concerns including small datasets with low number of outcomes, complete-case analysis in case of missing data, and no reporting of performance measures. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that despite a myriad of potential clinically useful applications, a substantial part of ML studies in orthopaedic trauma lack transparent reporting, and are at high risk of bias. These problems must be resolved by following established guidelines to instil confidence in ML models among patients and clinicians. Otherwise, there will remain a sizeable gap between the development of ML prediction models and their clinical application in our day-to-day orthopaedic trauma practice.

Postfasciotomy Classification System for Acute Compartment Syndrome of the Leg.

OBJECTIVE: Acute compartment syndrome (ACS) is a true emergency. Even with urgent fasciotomy, there is often muscle damage and need for further surgery. Although ACS is not uncommon, no validated classification system exists to aid in efficient and clear communication. The aim of this study was to establish and validate a classification system for the consequences of ACS treated with fasciotomy. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi method, an international panel of ACS experts was assembled to establish a grading scheme for the disease and then validate the classification system. The goal was to articulate discrete grades of ACS related to fasciotomy findings and associated costs. A pilot analysis was used to determine questions that were clear to the respondents. Discussion of this analysis resulted in another round of cases used for 24 other raters. The 24 individuals implemented the classification system 2 separate times to compare outcomes for 32 clinical cases. The accuracy and reproducibility of the classification system were subsequently calculated based on the providers' responses. RESULTS: The Fleiss Kappa of all raters was at 0.711, showing a strong agreement between the 24 raters. Secondary validation was performed for paired 276 raters and correlation was tested using the Kendall coefficient. The median correlation coefficient was 0.855. All 276 pairs had statistically significant correlation. Correlation coefficient between the first and second rating sessions was strong with the median pair scoring at 0.867. All surgeons had statistically significant internal consistency. CONCLUSION: This new ACS classification system may be applied to better understand the impact of ACS on patient outcomes and economic costs for leg ACS.

Video-based assessment (VBA) of an open, simulated orthopedic surgical procedure: a pilot study using a single-angle camera to assess surgical skill and decision making.

BACKGROUND: Videos have been used in many settings including medical simulation. Limited information currently exists on video-based assessment in surgical training. Effective assessment tools have substantial impact on the future of training. The objectives of this study were as follows: to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of video-based assessment of orthopedic surgery residents performing open cadaveric simulation procedures and to explore the benefits and limitations of video-based assessment. METHODS: A multi-method technique was used. In the quantitative portion, four residents participated in a Surgical Objective Structured Clinical Examination in 2017 at a quaternary care training center. A single camera bird's-eye view was used to videotape the procedures. Five orthopedic surgeons evaluated the surgical videos using the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation. Interclass correlation coefficient was used to calculate inter-rater reliability. In the qualitative section, semi-structured interviews were used to explore the perceived strengths and limitations of video-based assessment. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The scores using video-based assessment demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.832, p = 0.014) in assessing open orthopedic procedures on cadavers. Qualitatively, the strengths of video-based assessment in this study are its ability to assess global performance and/or specific skills, ability to reassess missed points during live assessment, and potential use for less common procedures. It also allows for detailed constructive feedback, flexible assessment time, anonymous assessment, multiple assessors and serves as a good coaching tool. The main limitations of video-based assessment are poor audio-video quality, and questionable feasibility for assessing readiness for practice. CONCLUSION: Video-based assessment is a potential adjunct to live assessment in orthopedic open procedures with good inter-rater reliability. Improving audio-video quality will enhance the quality of the assessment and improve the effectiveness of using this tool in surgical training.

Bicondylar Tibial Plateau Fractures: What Predicts Infection?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify the patient, injury, and treatment factors associated with infection of bicondylar plateau fractures and to evaluate whether center variation exists. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Eighteen academic trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,287 patients with 1,297 OTA type 41-C bicondylar tibia plateau fractures who underwent open reduction and internal fixation were included. Exclusion criteria were follow-up less than 120 days, insufficient documentation, and definitive treatment only with external fixation. INTERVENTION: Open reduction and internal fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Superficial and deep infection. RESULTS: One hundred one patients (7.8%) developed an infection. In multivariate regression analysis, diabetes (DM) (OR [odds ratio] 3.24; P ≤ 0.001), alcohol abuse (EtOH) (OR 1.8; P = 0.040), dual plating (OR 1.8; P ≤ 0.001), and temporary external fixation (OR 2.07; P = 0.013) were associated with infection. In a risk-adjusted model, we found center variation in infection rates (P = 0.030). DISCUSSION: In a large series of patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation of bicondylar plateau fractures, the infection rate was 7.8%. Infection was associated with DM, EtOH, combined dual plating, and temporary external fixation. Center expertise may also play a role because one center had a statistically lower rate and two trended toward higher rates after adjusting for confounders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-Therapeutic retrospective cohort study.

Proximal tibia fracture dislocations: Management and outcomes of a severe and under-recognized injury.

INTRODUCTION: Proximal tibia fracture dislocations (PTFDs) are a subset of plateau fractures with little in the literature since description by Hohl (1967) and classification by Moore (1981). We sought to evaluate reliability in diagnosis of fracture-dislocations by traumatologists and to compare their outcomes with bicondylar tibial plateau fractures (BTPFs). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at 14 level 1 trauma centers throughout North America. In all, 4771 proximal tibia fractures were reviewed by all sites and 278 possible PTFDs were identified using the Moore classification. These were reviewed by an adjudication board of three traumatologists to obtain consensus. Outcomes included inter-rater reliability of PTFD diagnosis, wound complications, malunion, range of motion (ROM), and knee pain limiting function. These were compared to BTPF data from a previous study. RESULTS: Of 278 submitted cases, 187 were deemed PTFDs representing 4% of all proximal tibia fractures reviewed and 67% of those submitted. Inter-rater agreement by the adjudication board was good (83%). Sixty-one PTFDs (33%) were unicondylar. Eleven (6%) had ligamentous repair and 72 (39%) had meniscal repair. Two required vascular repair. Infection was more common among PTFDs than BTPFs (14% vs 9%, p = 0.038). Malunion occurred in 25% of PTFDs. ROM was worse among PTFDs, although likely not clinically significant. Knee pain limited function at final follow-up in 24% of both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: PTFDs represent 4% of proximal tibia fractures. They are often unicondylar and may go unrecognized. Malunion is common, and PTFD outcomes may be worse than bicondylar fractures.

Unilateral Sacral Fractures Demonstrate Slow Recovery of Patient-Reported Outcomes Irrespective of Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To report functional outcomes of unilateral sacral fractures treated both operatively and nonoperatively. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, observational study. SETTING: Sixteen Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Skeletally mature patients with unilateral zone 1 or 2 sacral fractures categorized as displaced nonoperative (DN), displaced operative (DO), nondisplaced nonoperative (NN), and nondisplaced operative (NO). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pelvic displacement was documented on injury plain radiographs. Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores were obtained at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after injury. Displacement was defined as greater than 5 mm in any plane at the time of injury. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients with unilateral sacral fractures were initially enrolled, with a mean age of 40 years and mean injury severity score of 16. One hundred twenty-three patients completed the 2-year follow-up as follows: 29 DN, 30 DO, 47 NN, and 17 NO with 56% loss to follow-up at 2 years. Highest dysfunction was seen at 3 months for all groups with mean SMFA dysfunction scores: 25 DN, 28 DO, 27 NN, and 31 NO. The mean SMFA scores at 2 years for all groups were 13 DN, 12 DO, 17 NN, and 17 NO. CONCLUSIONS: All groups (operative/nonoperative and displaced/nondisplaced) reported worst function 3 months after injury, and all but (DN) continued to recover for 2 years after injury, with peak recovery for DN seen at 1 year. No functional benefit was seen with operative intervention for either displaced or nondisplaced injuries at any time point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Smith-Petersen Versus Watson-Jones Approach Does Not Affect Quality of Open Reduction of Femoral Neck Fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To compare immediate quality of open reduction of femoral neck fractures by alternative surgical approaches. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Twelve Level 1 North American trauma centers. PATIENTS: Eighty adults 18-65 years of age with isolated, displaced, OTA/AO type 31-B2 or -B3 femoral neck fractures treated with internal fixation. INTERVENTION: Thirty-two modified Smith-Petersen anterior approaches versus 48 Watson-Jones anterolateral approaches for open reduction performed by fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME: Reduction quality as assessed by 3 senior orthopaedic traumatologists as "acceptable" or "unacceptable" on AP and lateral postoperative radiographs. RESULTS: No difference was observed in the rate of acceptable reduction by modified Smith-Petersen (81%) versus Watson-Jones (81%) approach (risk difference null, 95% confidence interval -17.4% to 17.4%, P = 1.00) with 90.4% panel agreement (Fleiss' weighted κ = 0.63, P < 0.01). Stratified analyses did not identify a significant difference in the rate of acceptable reduction between approaches when stratified by Pauwels angle, basicervical or transcervical fracture location, or posterior comminution. The Smith-Petersen approach afforded a better reduction when preoperative skeletal traction was not applied (RR = 1.67 [95% CI 1.10-2.52] vs. RR = 0.87 [95% CI 0.70-1.08], P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was observed in the quality of open reduction of displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults when a Watson-Jones anterolateral approach versus a modified Smith-Petersen anterior approach was performed by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) use for the management of instrumented, infected, and fragility non-unions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of healing proportions.

BACKGROUND: Non-union occurs in approximately 5 to 10% of fracture patients, with certain bones at greater risk of failing to heal. Non-unions have a significant impact on socioeconomic costs and the patients short and long-term quality of life. Low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a non-invasive therapy for non-union treatment that can improve the long-term outcome. The purpose of this study is to summarize the available literature assessing LIPUS potential to improve the union rate in instrumented, infected, and fragility non-unions. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for all relevant literature on the healing rates of LIPUS utilized in instrumented, infected, and fragility non-unions. Study characteristics were summarized for each of the included studies. The percentage of healed patients (healing rate), for instrumented, infected, and fragility fracture non-union patients were pooled from each included study. RESULTS: The literature search identified a total of 326 articles, while searching reference lists and grey literature identified an additional 3 articles. There was a total of 29 articles included in this review, with 20 articles included within the quantitative synthesis of healing rates. The most common design of included studies was case series (17 articles), followed by case reports (9 articles). Studies were primarily retrospective (18 studies), with an additional 10 prospective studies. Non-union healing rates were 82% (95% CI: 76 to 87%) in instrumented, 82% (95% CI: 70 to 95%) in infected, and 91% (95% CI: 87 to 95%) in fragility fracture patients with non-unions. CONCLUSION: This study has provided a thorough overview of the current literature on LIPUS treatment for instrumented, infected, and fragility fracture non-unions. The healing rates for non-unions in these subgroups were comparable to healing rates observed with LIPUS use in general non-union literature. LIPUS treatment should be considered as a conservative non-surgical treatment option to potentially reduce the socioeconomic impact and improve the quality of life of these unfortunate patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 (systematic review of primarily case series data).

A Reevaluation of the Risk of Infection Based on Time to Debridement in Open Fractures: Results of the GOLIATH Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies and Limited Trial Data.

BACKGROUND: Open fractures are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. The threshold time to debridement that reduces the infection rate is unclear. METHODS: We searched all available databases to identify observational studies and randomized trials related to open fracture care. We then conducted an extensive meta-analysis of the observational studies, using raw and adjusted estimates, to determine if there was an association between the timing of initial debridement and infection. RESULTS: We identified 84 studies (18,239 patients) for the primary analysis. In unadjusted analyses comparing various "late" time thresholds for debridement versus "early" thresholds, there was an association between timing of debridement and surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.49, p < 0.001, I2 = 30%, 84 studies, n = 18,239). For debridement performed between 12 and 24 hours versus earlier than 12 hours, the OR was higher in tibial fractures (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.87, p = 0.05, I2 = 19%, 12 studies, n = 2,065), and even more so in Gustilo type-IIIB tibial fractures (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.89, p = 0.004, I2 = 23%, 12 studies, n = 1,255). An analysis of Gustilo type-III fractures showed a progressive increase in the risk of infection with time. Critical time thresholds included 12 hours (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.78, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%, 16 studies, n = 3,502) and 24 hours (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.73 to 2.72, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%, 29 studies, n = 5,214). CONCLUSIONS: High-grade open fractures demonstrated an increased risk of infection with progressive delay to debridement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instruction for Authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence.

What is the Real Rate of Radial Nerve Injury After Humeral Nonunion Surgery?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the radial nerve palsy (RNP) rate and predictors of injury after humeral nonunion repair in a large multicenter sample. DESIGN: Consecutive retrospective cohort review. SETTING: Eighteen academic orthopedic trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred seventy-nine adult patients who underwent humeral shaft nonunion repair. Exclusion criteria were pathologic fracture and complete motor RNP before nonunion surgery. INTERVENTION: Humeral shaft nonunion repair and assessment of postoperative radial nerve function. MAIN OUTCOME: Measurements: Demographics, nonunion characteristics, preoperative and postoperative radial nerve function and recovery. RESULTS: Twenty-six (6.9%) of 379 patients (151 M, 228 F, ages 18-93 years) had worse radial nerve function after nonunion repair. This did not differ by surgical approach. Only location in the middle third of the humerus correlated with RNP (P = 0.02). A total of 15.8% of patients with iatrogenic nerve injury followed for a minimum of 12 months did not resolve. For those who recovered, resolution averaged 5.4 months. On average, partial/complete palsies resolved at 2.6 and 6.5 months, respectively. Sixty-one percent (20/33) of patients who presented with nerve injury before their nonunion surgery resolved. CONCLUSION: In a large series of patients treated operatively for humeral shaft nonunion, the RNP rate was 6.9%. Among patients with postoperative iatrogenic RNP, the rate of persistent RNP was 15.8%. This finding is more generalizable than previous reports. Midshaft fractures were associated with palsy, while surgical approach was not. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Open Reduction Is Associated With Greater Hazard of Early Reoperation After Internal Fixation of Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures in Adults 18-65 Years.

OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) which factors are associated with the choice to perform an open reduction and (2) by adjusting for these factors, if the choice of reduction method is associated with reoperation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with radiograph and chart review. SETTING: Twelve Level 1 North American trauma centers. PATIENTS: Two hundred thirty-four adults 18-65 years of age with an isolated, displaced, OTA/AO type 31-B2 or type 31-B3 femoral neck fracture treated with internal fixation with minimum of 6-month follow-up or reoperation. Exclusion criteria were pathologic fractures, associated femoral head or shaft fractures, and primary arthroplasty. INTERVENTION: Open or closed reduction technique during internal fixation. MAIN OUTCOME: Cox proportional hazard of reoperation adjusting for propensity score for open reduction based on injury, demographic, and medical factors. Reduction quality was assessed by 3 senior orthopaedic traumatologists as "acceptable" or "unacceptable" on AP and lateral postoperative radiographs. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 1.5 years. One hundred six (45%) patients underwent open reduction. Reduction quality was not significantly affected by open versus closed approach (71% vs. 69% acceptable, P = 0.378). The propensity to receive an open reduction was associated with study center; younger age; male sex; no history of injection drug use, osteoporosis, or cerebrovascular disease; transcervical fracture location; posterior fracture comminution; and surgery within 12 hours. A total of 35 (33%) versus 28 (22%) reoperations occurred after open versus closed reduction (P = 0.056). Open reduction was associated with a 2.4-fold greater propensity-adjusted hazard of reoperation (95% confidence interval 1.3-4.4, P = 0.004). A total of 35 (15%) patients underwent subsequent total hip arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Open reduction of displaced femoral neck fractures in nonelderly adults is associated with a greater hazard of reoperation without significantly improving reduction. Prospective randomized trials are indicated to confirm a causative effect of open versus closed reduction on outcomes after femoral neck fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Nonunions of Bisphosphonate Fractures of the Femur: Presentation, Etiopathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Operative Treatment.

Patients presenting with femoral fractures and long-term use of bisphosphonate treatment are at risk of developing a delayed union and/or nonunion as a result of the atypical metabolic activity prevailing at the fracture edges of the affected extremity. The treatment of these nonunions poses a serious challenge to orthopaedic surgeons worldwide and necessitates specialized techniques and materials to design a construct that will last a long period (greater than 6 months), while still allowing weight-bearing in this elderly population. Treatment options, timing of intervention, selection of implant, and the option of bone grafting are discussed to assist the clinician to make the right decisions in these complex clinical cases.

Does Operative Intervention Provide Early Pain Relief for Patients With Unilateral Sacral Fractures and Minimal or No Displacement?

OBJECTIVES: To compare pain after operative versus nonoperative pelvic ring injuries with unilateral sacral fractures. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, observational. SETTING: Sixteen trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Skeletally mature patients with pelvic ring injury and minimally displaced unilateral zone 1 or 2 sacral fractures and without anteroposterior compression injuries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pelvic displacement was documented on injury plain radiographs and computed tomography scans; a 10 point Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain was obtained in the anterior and posterior pelvic ring during the time of union (12 weeks). RESULTS: One hundred ninety-four patients with unilateral sacral fractures displaced less than 5 mm, mean age of 38.7, and mean Injury Severity Score of 14.5 were included. Ninety-nine percent had lateral compression injuries, and 62% were in zone 1. Seventy-four percent were treated nonoperatively. Nonoperative patients had more zone 1 fractures (71%, P = 0.004). Nonoperative patients reported mean VAS 2.7 points higher in the posterior pelvis (P = 0.01) and 1.9 points higher anteriorly (P = 0.11) 24 hours after injury compared with patients treated operatively. After 3 months, nonoperative patients reported higher VAS scores than operative patients: 4.0 versus 2.9 posteriorly (P = 0.019) and 3.2 versus 2.3 anteriorly (P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: For sacrum fractures with minimal or no displacement, slight differences in the VAS were noted within 24 hours after injury or surgery, but limited differences were seen at 3 months for either operatively treated minimally or undisplaced sacrum fractures. It is unknown whether this represents clinical relevance. These differences were below the minimally important clinical difference for VAS scores for other orthopaedic conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Surgery for Unilateral Sacral Fractures: Are the Indications Clear?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate unilateral sacral fractures and compare those treated operatively versus nonoperatively to determine indications for surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, observational study. SETTING: Sixteen trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Skeletally mature patients with pelvic ring injury and unilateral zone 1 or 2 sacral fractures and without anteroposterior compression injuries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Injury plain anteroposterior, inlet, and outlet radiographs and computed tomography scans of the pelvis were evaluated for fracture displacement. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-three patients with unilateral sacral fractures and a mean age of 41 years with a mean Injury Severity Score of 15 were included. Ninety-two percent sustained lateral compression injuries, and 63% of all fractures were in zone 1. Thirty-three percent of patients were treated operatively, including all without lateral compression patterns. Operative patients were more likely to have zone 2 fractures (54%) and to have posterior cortical displacement (29% vs. 6.2%), both with P < 0.001. Over 60% of all patients had no posterior displacement. Mean rotational displacements comparing the injured side versus the intact side were no different for patients treated operatively compared with those treated nonoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Most unilateral sacral fractures are minimally or nondisplaced. Many patients with radiographically similar fractures were treated operatively and nonoperatively by different surgeons. This suggests an opportunity to develop consistent indications for treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Osteosynthesis Technique for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Case of Interprosthetic Fracture Between a Total Knee Arthroplasty and a Dynamic Hip Screw.

Periprosthetic fractures remain a challenging component of every trauma practice. Total joints have become common in very elderly patients, creating a variety of implanted stress risers that make subsequent fractures unique challenges to address. This creates the need to build a construct that will allow for early weight bearing while trying to reduce the potential for further fractures in the same bone. A minimally invasive submuscular approach with long periprosthetic locking plates can be used for a periprosthetic femoral fracture.

Short Versus Long InterTAN Fixation for Geriatric Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures: A Multicentre Head-to-Head Comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if geriatric intertrochanteric hip fracture patients achieve equivalent postoperative functional status after management with either a short (180-200 mm) or a long (260-460 mm) InterTAN intramedullary device. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective randomized control trial. SETTING: Four Level I Trauma Centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eight patients with OTA/AO classification 31A-1 and 31A-2 intertrochanteric hip fractures were included in the study. INTERVENTION: Internal fixation using an IT device. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcomes included Functional Independence Measure and Timed Up and Go. Secondary outcomes included blood loss, surgical time, length of stay, adverse events, and mortality. RESULTS: Seventy-one short and 37 long IT patients met study inclusion criteria. Demographics were similar between groups. There was no difference in Functional Independence Measure or Timed Up and Go scores between the 2 IT groups at any of the time points collected. Mean operative time was lower in the short IT group than in the long IT group (60 vs. 73 minutes; P = 0.021). A higher proportion of long IT patients had reamed constructs (95% vs. 48% short IT, P < 0.001). Postoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the long IT group without a significant influence on the number of patients requiring transfusion (P = 0.582) or average units transfused (P = 0.982). There was no significant difference in the proportion of postoperative adverse events between the 2 cohorts despite a higher number of peri-implant femur fractures in the short IT group than in the long IT group (5 vs. 1, P = 0.350). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative functional status was not influenced by the length of IT device in the management of geriatric intertrochanteric hip fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Trauma systems in North America.

North American trauma systems are well developed yet vary widely in form across the continent. Comparatively, the Canadian trauma system is more unified, and approximately 80% of Canadians live within 1 hour of a level I or II center. In the United States, trauma centers are specifically verified by the individual states and thus there tends to be more variability across the country. Although many states use the criteria developed by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, the individual agencies are free to utilize their own verification standards. Both Canada and the United States utilize efficient prehospital care, and both countries recognize that postdischarge care is a financial challenge to the system. Population dense areas offer rapid admission to well-developed trauma centers, but injured patients in remote areas may have challenges regarding access. Trauma centers are classified according to their capabilities from level I (highest ability) to level IV. Although each trauma system has opportunities for improvement, they both provide effective access and quality care to the vast majority of injured patients.