Complications of anterior subcutaneous internal fixation for unstable pelvis fractures: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Stabilization after a pelvic fracture can be accomplished with an anterior external fixator. These devices are uncomfortable for patients and are at risk for infection and loosening, especially in obese patients. As an alternative, we recently developed an anterior subcutaneous pelvic internal fixation technique (ASPIF). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked if the ASPIF (1) allows for definitive anterior pelvic stabilization of unstable pelvic injuries; (2) is well tolerated by patients for mobility and comfort; and (3) has an acceptable complication rate. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 91 patients who incurred an unstable pelvic injury treated with an anterior internal fixator and posterior fixation at four Level I trauma centers. We assessed (1) healing by callous formation on radiographs and the ability to weightbear comfortably; (2) patient function by their ability to sit, stand, lie on their sides, and how well they tolerated the implants; and (3) complications during the observation period. The minimum followup was 6 months (mean, 15 months; range, 6-40 months). RESULTS: All 91 patients were able to sit, stand, and lie on their sides. Injuries healed without loss of reduction in 89 of 91 patients. Complications included six early revisions resulting from technical error and three infections. Irritation of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve was reported in 27 of 91 patients and resolved in all but one. Heterotopic ossification around the implants, which was asymptomatic in all cases, occurred in 32 of 91 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The anterior internal fixator provided high rates of union for the anterior injury in unstable pelvic fractures. Patients were able to sit, stand and ambulate without difficulty. Infections and aseptic loosening were reduced but heterotopic ossification and irritation of the LFCN are common. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Open tibial shaft fractures: I. Evaluation and initial wound management.

Open fractures of the tibial diaphysis are often associated with severe bone and soft-tissue injury. Contamination of the fracture site and devitalization of the soft-tissue envelope greatly increase the risk of infection, nonunion, and wound complications. Management of open tibial shaft fractures begins with a thorough patient evaluation, including assessment of the bone and soft tissue surrounding the tibial injury. Classification of these injuries according to the system of Gustilo and Anderson at the time of surgical débridement is useful in guiding treatment and predicting outcomes. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis as soon as possible after injury as well as urgent and thorough débridement, irrigation, and bony stabilization are done to minimize the risk of infection and improve outcomes. The use of antibiotic bead pouches and negative-pressure wound therapy has proved to be efficacious for the acute, temporary management of severe bone and soft-tissue defects.

Open tibial shaft fractures: II. Definitive management and limb salvage.

Definitive treatment of open fractures of the tibial diaphysis is challenging. The high-energy nature of these fractures, as well as the contamination of the fracture site and devitalization of the soft-tissue envelope, greatly increases the risk of infection, nonunion, and wound complications. The goals of definitive treatment include wound coverage or closure; prevention of infection; restoration of length, alignment, rotation, and stability; fracture healing; and return of function. Advances in orthobiologics, modern plastic surgical techniques, and fracture stabilization methods, most notably locked intramedullary nailing, have led to improved prognosis for functional recovery and limb salvage. Despite improved union and limb salvage rates, the prognosis for severe type III open fracture of the tibial shaft remains guarded, and outcomes are often determined by patient psychosocial variables.

Predictors of poor outcome after both column acetabular fractures: a 30-year retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acetabular fractures are often combined with associated injuries to the hip joint. Some of these associated injuries seem to be responsible for poor long-term results and these injuries seem to affect the outcome independent of the quality of the acetabular reduction. The aim of our study was to analyze the outcome of both column acetabular fractures and the influence of osseous cofactors such as initial fracture displacement, hip dislocation, femoral head lesions and injuries of the acetabular joint surface. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in patients with both column acetabular fractures treated over a 30 year period was performed. Patients with a follow-up of more than two years were invited for a clinical and radiological examination. Displacement was analyzed on initial and postoperative radiographs. Contusion and impaction of the femoral head was grouped. Injuries of the acetabular joint surface consisting of impaction, contusion and comminution were recorded. The Merle d'Aubigné Score was documented and radiographs were analysed for arthritis (Helfet classification), femoral head avascular necrosis (Ficat/Arlet classification) and heterotopic ossifications (Brooker classification). RESULTS: 115 patients were included in the follow up examination. Anatomic reduction (malreduction ≤ 1mm) was associated with a significantly better clinical outcome than nonanatomical reduction (p = 0.001). Initial displacement of more than 10mm (p = 0.031) and initial intraarticular fragments (p = 0.041) were associated with worse outcome. Other associated injuries, such as the presence of a femoral head dislocation, femoral head injuries and injuries to the acetabular joint surface showed no significant difference in outcome individually, but in fractures with more than two associated local injuries the risk for joint degeneration was significant higher (p < 0.001) than in cases with less than two of them.In the subgroup of anatomically reconstructed fractures no significant influence of the analyzed cofactors could be observed. CONCLUSION: Anatomical reduction appears to be an important parameter for a good clinical outcome in patients with both column acetabular fractures. Additional fracture characteristics such as the initial displacement and intraarticular fragments seem to influence the results. Patients should also be advised that both column acetabular fractures with more than two additional associated factors have a significantly higher risk of joint degeneration.