Secondary Bony Defects after Soft Tissue Reconstruction in Limb-Threatening Lower Extremity Injuries: Does the Approach to Flap Elevation Matter?

BACKGROUND: Limb-threatening lower extremity injuries often require secondary bone grafting after soft tissue reconstruction. We hypothesized that there would be fewer wound complications when performing secondary bone grafting via a remote surgical approach rather than direct flap elevation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a single Level 1 trauma center comparing complications after secondary bone grafting in patients who had undergone previous soft tissue reconstruction after open tibia fractures between 2006 and 2020. Comparing bone grafting via a remote surgical incision versus direct flap elevation, we evaluated wound dehiscence requiring return to the operating room as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were deep infection and delayed amputation. RESULTS: We identified 129 patients (mean age: 40 years, 82% male) with 159 secondary bone grafting procedures. Secondary bone grafting was performed via a remote surgical approach in 54% (n = 86) and direct flap elevation in 46% (n = 73) of cases. Wound dehiscence requiring return to the operating room occurred in one patient in the flap elevation group (1%) and none of the patients in the remote surgical approach. The odds of deep wound infection (OR, 1.77; p = 0.31) or amputation (OR, 1.43; p = 0.73) did not significantly differ between surgical approaches. No significant differences were found in complications between the reconstructive surgeon elevating and re-insetting the flap and the orthopaedic trauma surgeon performing the flap elevation and re-inset. CONCLUSION: Direct flap elevation for secondary bone grafting after soft tissue reconstruction for open tibia fractures did not result in more complications than bone grafting via a remote surgical approach. These findings should reassure surgeons to allow other clinical factors to influence the surgical approach for bone grafting.

Patients value their own pain over braking safety when deciding when to return to driving: a discrete choice experiment on lower extremity injuries.

Objective: To quantify patient preferences towards time to return to driving relative to compromised reaction time and potential complication risks. Design: Cross-sectional discrete choice experiment. Setting: Academic trauma center. Patients: Ninety-six adult patients with an operative lower extremity fracture from December 2019 through December 2020. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measurement: Patient completed a discrete choice experiment survey consisting of 12 hypothetical return to driving scenarios with varied attributes: time to return to driving (range: 1 to 6 months), risk of implant failure (range: 1% to 12%), pain upon driving return (range: none to severe), and driving safety measured by braking distance (range: 0 to 40 feet at 60 mph). The relative importance of each attribute is reported on a scale of 0% to 100%. Results: Patients most valued a reduced pain level when resuming driving (62%), followed by the risk of implant failure (17%), time to return to driving (13%), and braking safety (8%). Patients were indifferent to returning to driving at 1 month (median utility: 28, interquartile range [IQR] -31 to 80) or 2 months (median utility: 59, IQR: 41 to 91) postinjury. Conclusion: Patients with lower extremity injuries demonstrated a willingness to forego earlier return to driving if it might mean a decrease in their pain level. Patients are least concerned about their driving safety, instead placing higher value on their own pain level and chance of implant failure. The findings of this study are the first to rigorously quantify patient preferences toward a return to driving and heterogeneity in patient preferences. Level of Evidence: V.