Extra-articular Osteotomy for the Management of Intra-articular Tibial Plateau Valgus Malunion.

OBJECTIVES: To report a case series of extra-articular osteotomies for the management of intra-articular tibial plateau malunions and to assess the ability to correct deformity and improve knee range of motion (ROM). METHODS: . DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Academic, tertiary, referral center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients with tibial plateau fracture malunion treated with extra-articular osteotomy of the femur and/or tibia between 2014 and 2023. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISON: Mechanical axis deviation (MAD), medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), and posterior proximal tibia angle (PPTA) correction; knee ROM; and time to weight bearing. RESULTS: There were 7 patients included, 6 (85.7%) were female and 1 (14.3%) were male. The median age was 43.5 years (IQR 38.5-51, range 32-62). Four (57.1%) patients were treated with a high tibial osteotomy (HTO), and 3 (42.9%) patients were treated with an HTO and distal femoral osteotomy. One patient had concomitant supramalleolar osteotomy with HTO to address distal tibia procurvatum and valgus. Four were treated with hexapod frames, and 3 were treated with plates and screws. Median follow-up was 22.5 months (IQR 10.5-107 months, range 7-148 months). Surgical intervention corrected median radiographic measures of valgus malalignment preoperatively relative to postoperative values. This included MAD (42.5 mm-0 mm), valgus angle (12.5 degrees-1.5 degrees), MPTA (95 degrees-88.0°), and LDFA (86.0°-87.3 degrees). Surgical intervention increased maximal knee range of motion preoperatively to postoperatively. Median time to full weight bearing was 81.5 days (IQR 46-57 days, range 41-184 days). Two patients were converted to total knee arthroplasty after 5 and 10 years following HTO with hexapod frame. CONCLUSIONS: Extra-articular osteotomy is an effective treatment for addressing intra-articular malunion after tibia plateau fractures. It is effective in correcting the MAD, valgus deformity, MPTA, LDFA, PPTA, and improving knee ROM (measured through knee extension and flexion). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Percutaneous removal of hardware after orthopedic surgery: Is it safe? and What are patients saying?

OBJECTIVES: To analyze our patient's complication profile and rate after removal of hardware (ROH) surgery, and survey our patients to ask their overall status and improvement in symptomatology post-operatively. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and survey. SETTING: Academic, tertiary referral center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: 173 patients with 314 pieces of hardware. Seventy-six patients (43.9%) responded to our survey. INTERVENTION: ROH surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics and complications were recorded. All patients were sent a brief 3-question survey which asked: (1) Why did you get your hardware removed? (2) How did your overall status change after ROH? (3) How did the ROH affect your stiffness, pain, swelling, and mobility? RESULTS: There were 10 complications (5.5%): 5 infections, 2 with unresolved pain, 1 hematoma, 1 chronic regional pain syndrome exacerbation, and 1 recurrent deformity. All infections were treated with oral antibiotics and improved. All other complications resolved with treatment except for the patient who developed recurrent deformity. Patients underwent ROH surgery because their doctor suggested it (76.3%) and to improve mobility (39.5%). 86.9% reported their overall status improved after ROH. They improved regarding stiffness (73.7%), pain (73.6%), swelling (61.8%), and mobility (76.3%). Similar results were seen among different implants removed. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who underwent percutaneous ROH were satisfied. They reported improvement in stiffness, pain, swelling and mobility (greatest improvement). The complication rate was low (5.5%). ROH can be a meaningful operation to patients allowing them to improve their quality of life with a low complication rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Infection After Lower-Limb Osseointegration: A Single-Center Retrospective Evaluation of Pathogens, Management, and Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Osseointegration (OI) is a novel alternative to traditional socket-suspended prostheses for lower-limb amputees, eliminating the socket-skin interface and allowing for weight bearing directly on the skeletal system. However, the stoma through which the implant attaches to the external prosthesis creates an ingress route for bacteria, and infection rates as high as 66% have been reported. The aims of this study are to classify infection management and long-term outcomes in this patient population to maximize implant salvage. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent lower-limb OI at our institution between 2017 and 2022. Demographic, operative, and outcome data were collected for all patients. Patients were stratified by the presence and severity of infection. Chi-square and t tests were performed on categorical and continuous data, respectively, using an alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred two patients met our study criteria; 62 had transfemoral OI and 40 had transtibial OI. Patients were followed for 23.8 months on average (range, 3.5-63.7). Osteomyelitis was more likely than soft tissue infection to be polymicrobial in nature (71% vs 23%, P < 0.05). Infections at the stoma were mostly (96%) managed with oral antibiotics alone, whereas deeper soft tissue infections also required intravenous antibiotics (75%) or operative washout (19%). Osteomyelitis was managed with intravenous antibiotics and required operative attention; 5 (71%) underwent washout and 2 (29%) underwent explantation. Both implants were replaced an average of 3.5 months after explantation. There was no correlation between history of soft tissue infection and development of osteomyelitis (P > 0.05). The overall implant salvage rate after infection was 96%. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes our institution's experience managing infection after OI and soft tissue reconstruction. Although infections do occur, they are easily treatable and rarely require operative intervention. Explantation due to infection is rare and can be followed up with reimplantation, reaffirming that OI is a safe and effective treatment modality.

Limb salvage reconstruction of the lower limb with complex ankle arthrodesis and magnetic internal lengthening nail.

PURPOSE: With advances in orthopedic implants, the use of intramedullary lengthening devices has gained increasing popularity as an alternative technique compared to lengthening with external fixators, with alleged comparable or better outcomes. The aim of this study is to report our single-center technique and outcomes of combined ankle arthrodesis and proximal tibial lengthening using external fixator with a motorized intramedullary nail, respectively. METHOD: Fourteen patients with post-traumatic advanced ankle arthritis underwent staged ankle arthrodesis with external fixator and proximal tibial lengthening using the PRECICE® ILN. Amount of shortening, length achieved, bone healing index, infection rate, ankle fusion rate, and ASAMI score were evaluated. RESULTS: The average age was 44 years old (range, 30-62). The mean follow up is 70 months (range, 43-121.4). The average amount of limb shortening for patients after ankle fusion was 36.7 mm (18-50) while lengthening was 35.9 mm (range, 18-50). Patients had the nail implanted for an average of 479 days (range, 248-730). Ankle fusions were healed in an average of 178.3 days. There were no surgical infections. All osteotomy-lengthening sites healed after an average 202 days (106-365). The mean bone healing index (BHI) was 56.0 days/cm (21.2-123.6) among the whole cohort. There were no cases of nonunion. ASAMI bone scores were excellent or good among all patients. CONCLUSION: Ankle arthrodesis with external fixation along with proximal tibial lengthening using motorized IMN yielded high rates of fusion and successful lengthening. This technique could be offered as a reasonable alternative to using external fixation for both purposes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Retrospective cohort study.

Constructing an Osseointegrated Prosthetic Leg.

Background: Constructing an osseointegrated prosthetic leg is the necessary subsequent phase of care for patients following the surgical implantation of an osseointegrated prosthetic limb anchor. The surgeon implants the bone-anchored transcutaneous implant1,2 and the prosthetist constructs the prosthetic leg, which then attaches to the surgically implanted anchor. An osseointegration surgical procedure is usually considered in patients who are unable to use or are dissatisfied with the use of a socket prosthesis. Description: This present video article describes the techniques and principles involved in constructing a prosthetic leg for transfemoral and transtibial amputees, as well as postoperative patient care. Preoperatively, as part of a multidisciplinary team approach, the prosthetist should assist in patient evaluation to determine suitability for osseointegration surgery. Postoperatively, when approved by the surgeon, the first step is to perform an implant inspection and to take patient measurements. A temporary loading implant is provided to allow the patient to start loading the limb. When the patient is approved for full-length leg to begin full weight-bearing, the implant and prosthetic quality are evaluated, including torque, implant position, bench alignment, static alignment in the standing position, and initial dynamic alignment. This surgical procedure also requires long-term, continued patient care and prosthetic maintenance. Alternatives: For patients who are dissatisfied with the use of a socket prosthesis, adjustments can often be made to improve the comfort, fit, and performance of the prosthesis. Non-osseointegration surgical options include bone lengthening and/or soft-tissue contouring. Rationale: Osseointegration can be provided for amputees who are expressing dissatisfaction with their socket prosthesis, and typically provides superior mobility and quality of life compared with nonoperative and other operative options3,4. Specific differences between the appropriate design and construction of osseointegrated prostheses versus socket prostheses include component selection, component fit, patient-prosthesis static and dynamic alignment, tolerances and accommodations, and also the expected long-term changes in patient joint mobility and behavior. Providing an osseointegrated prosthesis according to the principles appropriate for socket prostheses may often leave an osseointegrated patient improperly aligned and provoke maladaptive accommodations, hindering performance and potentially putting patients at unnecessary risk for injury. Expected Outcomes: Review articles describing the clinical outcomes of osseointegration consistently suggest that patients with osseointegrated prostheses have improved prosthesis wear time, mobility, and quality of life compared with patients with socket prostheses. Importantly, studies have shown that osseointegrated prostheses can be utilized in patients with short residual limbs that preclude the use of a socket prosthesis, allowing them to regain or retain function of the joint proximal to the short residuum5,6. Osseoperception improves patient confidence during mobility7. Because there is an open skin portal, low-grade soft-tissue infection can occur, which is usually treated with a short course of oral antibiotics. Much less often, soft-tissue debridement or implant removal may be needed to treat infection8. Periprosthetic fractures can nearly always be treated with familiar fracture fixation techniques and implant retention9,10. Important Tips: Falls can lead to periprosthetic fractures.Malalignment can lead to unnecessary pathologic joint forces, soft-tissue contractures, and an accommodative gait.Inadequately sophisticated components can leave patients at a performance deficit.Wearing the prosthetic leg while sleeping may lead to rotational forces exerted on the limb, which may cause prolonged tension on the soft tissue. Acronyms and Abbreviations: QTFA = Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral AmputationLD-SRS = Limb Deformity Modified Scoliosis Research SocietyPROMIS = Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information SystemEQ-5D = EuroQol 5 Dimensions.

Distal Femoral Osteotomy for the Management of Coronal Deformity Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Report of 2 Cases.

CASE: We present 2 cases demonstrating the management of coronal malalignment with an existing total knee arthroplasty using opening wedge distal femur osteotomy. The mechanical axis was corrected, and the primary total knee implants were maintained. Patients resumed full activity 3 to 4 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: In certain cases, opening wedge distal femoral osteotomy is an option to correct coronal malalignment with an existing total knee arthroplasty without revising the implant.

Modern Internet Search Analytics and Osseointegration: What are Patients Asking and Reading Online?

Background: Osseointegration (OI) limb has been performed for over 30 years and is an example of an advance in technology and surgical technique which has led to improvements in patient mobility and quality of life. An increasing number of patients seek information about osseointegration. The aim of this study was to categorise the most frequently asked questions by patients using the Google search engine and the most frequently accessed websites with the highest return on answers. The secondary aims of this study were to assess the quality of the information provided on those websites and to stratify, by category, which websites provide the best quality information. Materials and methods: Ten permutations and conjugations of the word 'osseointegration' were entered into Google. The first fifty 'People also ask' and associated websites by Google's machine learning and natural language processing engine were collected for each search term. The Rothwell classification system of questions by topic (Fact, Value, Policy) and websites by category was used (Commercial, Academic, Medical Practice, Single Surgeon Personal, Government, Social Media). Website quality was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria (Likert-style rating 0-4). Pearson's Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were performed for statistical analysis as appropriate (significance, p < 0.05). Results: The 10 search terms generated 454 questions and referenced 408 websites. Of the 454 questions generated, the most common question categories were fact (70.8%), value (19.2%), and policy (10%). The most common website type was social media (37.4%). The most common question types were technical details (30.4%), specific activity (20.6%), and cost (14.1%). Only 1.6% of questions related to risks and complications. Generally, website quality was poor with 64.1% having a JAMA score of 0 or 1. Websites that were categorised as 'Government' had the highest overall JAMA scores: 71.4% had a score of 4. Conclusion: Based on Google search engine's results, the most commonly asked questions about osteointegration related to technical details, specific activities and cost; only 1.6% related to risks and complications. Interestingly, social media websites represented the highest volume of search result referrals. Overall, the quality of websites was poor with the most factual information coming from governmental websites. How to cite this article: Murphy EP, Sheridan GA, Page BJ, et al. Modern Internet Search Analytics and Osseointegration: What Are Patients Asking and Reading Online? Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(3):163-168.

Universal Long Bone Nonunion Classification.

Aim and background: The management of bone union disorders is a complex problem in orthopaedics, requiring a reliable and comprehensive classification system for accurate diagnosis and treatment. Despite advances in understanding pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment in this area, there is no generally accepted classification system. The aim of our work was to create a comprehensive classification, which will systemize the vast majority of bone union disorders, underline their differences and form the basis for their treatment. Methods: The key criteria for nonunion evaluation and treatment were identified based on the conducted literature review: Time from the initial event (delayed union or nonunion), location, type of pathology (A, Hypertrophic; B, Normotrophic; C, Oligotrophic) and the presence of hardware. Based on these criteria the ULBNC has been developed. Atrophic nonunions were excluded from this classification as they are considered segmental bone defects with special classification. Results: The ULBNC is based on the same principles of coding as the "gold standard" AO/OTA Fractures Classification system with alpha-numeric coding "from simple to complex." The choice of treatment method depends on the type, group, and subgroup of the nonunion as described. Conclusion: Universal Long Bone Nonunion Classification (ULBNC) is an alphanumeric system that describes the localization, type of pathology and morphologic characteristics of a nonunion. The use of ULBNC in practice and research will optimize and standardize the treatment of various types of bone healing disorders and eventually improve clinical outcomes. How to cite this article: Solomin LN, Semenistyy AA, Komarov AV, et al. Universal Long Bone Nonunion Classification. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(3):169-173.