Retrospective Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness with Bone Substitutes on Volar Locking Plate Fixation of Unstable Distal Radial Fractures in the Elderly.

Background: This multicenter retrospective study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness with bone substitutes on volar locking plate (VLP) fixation of unstable distal radial fractures (DRF) in the elderly. Methods: The data of 1,980 patients of ≥65 years of age who underwent surgery for the DRF with a VLP in 2015-2019 were extracted from a database (named TRON). Patients lost to follow-up or who received autologous bone grafting were excluded. The patients (n = 1,735) were divided into the VLP fixation alone (Group VLA) and VLP fixation with bone substitutes (Group VLS). Propensity score matching of background characteristics (ratio, 4:1) was performed. The modified Mayo wrist scores (MMWS) were evaluated as clinical outcomes. The implant failure rate, bone union rate, volar tilt (VT), radial inclination (RI), ulnar variance (UV) and distal dorsal cortical distance (DDD) were evaluated as radiologic parameters. We also compared the initial surgery cost and total cost for each group. Results: After matching, the backgrounds of Groups VLA (n = 388) and VLS (n = 97) were not significantly different. The MMWS values of the groups were not significantly different. Radiographic evaluation revealed no implant failure in either group. Bone union was confirmed in all patients in both groups. The VT, RI, UV and DDD values of the groups were not significantly different. The initial surgery cost and total cost in the VLS group were significantly higher than those in the VLA group ($3,515 vs. $3,068, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In patients of ≥65 years of age with DRF, the clinical and radiological outcomes of VLP fixation with bone substitutes did not differ from those of VLP fixation alone, yet the additional use of bone augmentation was associated with higher medical costs. The indications for bone substitutes should be more strictly considered in the elderly with DRF. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).

The Wait Time for Surgery Following Injury Affects Functional Outcomes and Complications After an Ankle Fracture: A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Study, the TRON Study.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that a 1-week extension of the waiting period to perform surgery for ankle fracture might affect postoperative results and complications. METHODS: We used our multicenter database named TRON (Trauma Research Group of Nagoya). In all, 779 patients who underwent surgery for ankle fracture, who had no comorbidities were eligible. After exclusion, we analyzed 596 patients. We divided the patients into 2 groups according to whether they were operated on within 7 days after the injury with propensity score matching. RESULTS: The operative time of the delayed operation group (DO group) was significantly longer than that of the early operation group (EO group) (115.87 ± 56.59 vs 85.93 ± 34.58 minutes; P < .001). The rate of infection in the DO group was significantly higher than that of the EO group (16 patients [6.5%] vs 4 patients [1.6%]; P = .016). CONCLUSION: Waiting for more than a week to perform ankle surgery may lead to longer operative times and increased infection rates. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: III.

A prospective randomized study for postoperative pain relief of lower extremity fractures: efficacy of intrathecal morphine administration.

Systemic opioids are known to be effective for controlling postoperative pain. Intrathecal morphine administration can be performed in a simple manner concurrently with spinal anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of intrathecal morphine administration for the postoperative analgesia of lower extremity fractures. A prospective randomized study for postoperative pain relief was conducted. Fifty consecutive patients with a lower extremity fracture who underwent osteosynthesis under spinal anesthesia were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups for comparative results. No baseline variable differences between the groups were observed. Twenty-two patients were assigned to a morphine group and were administered intrathecal bupivacaine combined with a single intrathecal injection of morphine. The other 28 patients were assigned to a control group and administered intrathecal bupivacaine alone. Pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The use of supplemental analgesics, time of first request for supplemental analgesics, and side effects were investigated. During the initial 12 h after surgery, the VAS score was significantly lower in the morphine group (p < 0.05). The use of supplemental analgesic drugs was significantly less in the morphine group (p < 0.05). The time of first request of the control group was shorter than that of the morphine group (p < 0.001). Side effects were seen more frequently in the morphine group though there was no significant difference. Although the use of morphine requires appropriate postoperative care, an intrathecal morphine injection can be an attractive analgesic for the postoperative pain of lower extremity fractures.