High risks of failure observed for A1 trochanteric femoral fractures treated with a DHS compared to the PFNA in a prospective observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Both the DHS and the PFNA are common and well-studied treatment options for stable trochanteric fractures. The aim of the current study was to compare the implant failure rates of these two implants in 31A1 type trochanteric femoral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-centre observational cohort study was conducted in the Hip Fracture Unit of a multicentre level 1 trauma teaching hospital between December 2016 and October 2018. Patients with an AO/OTA type 31A1 fracture were included. Pathological fractures, bilateral fractures, high-energy traumas and patients younger than 18 years of age were excluded. Surgery was performed using either a DHS or PFNA. Both were used routinely for stable trochanteric fractures, and allocation was decided by the surgeon performing the operation. The primary outcome of this study was the implant failure rate in the first postoperative year. Secondary outcomes included the reoperation rate, functional recovery, pain and morphine use. RESULTS: Data were available from 126 patients treated with a DHS (n = 32, 25.4%) or PFNA (n = 95, 74.6%). Minor differences were observed in the patient characteristics including the prevalence of cognitive impairment (18.8% vs 40.2%; P = 0.028), prefracture independence in activities of daily living (87.1% vs 67.4%; P = 0.034) and prefracture mobility (independently without aides: 61.3% vs 40.4%; P = 0.033). Fractures treated with a DHS showed 25% implant failures, compared to 1.1% for fractures treated with a PFNA (P = 0.004). No differences were observed in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly more implant failures were observed for the DHS compared the PFNA within 1 year after surgery. Despite the fact that this did not result in differences in revision surgery, we conclude that the PFNA, considering the minimal number of implant-related fractures is a viable implant for A1 type trochanteric fractures.

Medium-sized posterior fragments in AO Weber-B fractures, does open reduction and fixation improve outcome? the POSTFIX-trial protocol, a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for treatment of the posterior fracture fragment in trimalleolar fractures are scarce and show varying advices. Did the increasing size of the posterior fragment seem to relate to worse outcome in the past, nowadays this has changed to the amount of dislocation of the posterior fragment post-operatively. Despite many retrospective cohort studies and some prospective cohort studies, no consistent guideline could be derived from the current literature. METHODS: The POSTFIX-study is designed as a multicenter randomized clinical trial to analyse the effects of anatomical reduction and fixation of the posterior fragment in AO 44-B3 fractures with medium-sized posterior fragment. A total of 84 patients will be included and online allocated to either anatomical reduction and fixation of the posterior fragment via the posterolateral approach (n = 42) or no fixation of the posterior fragment (n = 42). The concomitant fractured medial and lateral malleoli are treated according to the AO-principles. Functionality of the ankle as measured by the AAOS-questionnaire (American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons) 1 year post-operatively was set as primary outcome. Main secondary outcome measures are the AAOS-questionnaire 5 years postoperatively and osteoarthritis as measured on plain radiographs 1 year and 5 years post-operatively. The Olerud and Molander score, the AOFAS-score, the VAS-pain, the Euroqol-5D and Range of Motion by physical examination will also be evaluated during the follow-up period. DISCUSSION: The POSTFIX-trial is the first high quality multicenter randomized clinical trial worldwide to analyse the effects of anatomical fixation of the posterior fragment in trimalleolar fractures. New guidelines on anatomical reduction and fixation of the posterior fragment can in future be based on the results of this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with reference number: NCT02596529 . Registered 3 November 2015, retrospectively registered.

Histological evaluation disqualifies IMT and calcification scores as surrogates for grading coronary and aortic atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Carotid intimal media thickness (IMT) and coronary calcium scores (CCS) are thought to reflect atherosclerotic burden. The validity of this assumption for IMT is challenged by recent meta-analyses; for CCS by absence of a relationship between negative scores, and freedom of future events. As such, we considered evaluation of the relationship between tissue IMT and CCS, and extend of atherosclerotic disease relevant. METHODS: Analyses were performed on donor aortas obtained during renal graft procurement, and on coronary arteries collected during heart valve procurement for tissue donation. Movat pentachrome and Hematoxylin staining was performed, and the degree of atherosclerosis histologically graded. IMT and presence of calcium deposits were quantified on graded tissue sections. RESULTS: 304 aortas and 185 coronary arteries covering the full atherosclerotic spectrum were evaluated. Aortas and coronaries showed similar relationships between tissue IMT and degree of atherosclerosis, with gradual increase in tissue IMT during earlier phases of atherosclerosis (r=0.68 and r=0.30, P<0.00001 for aorta and coronaries respectively), followed by plateauing of the curve in intermediate and advanced stages. Results for tissue IMT reveal high variability, resulting in wide confidence intervals. Results for CCS are similar for aorta and coronaries, with calcium depositions limited to advanced lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Histological IMT measurements for the aorta and coronaries show large variations around the trend and plateauing of, and possibly reductions in IMT in late stage atherosclerotic disease. These observations for the aorta and coronaries may (partly) explain the limited benefit of including carotid IMT in risk prediction algorithms.