Outcomes After Acute Versus Staged Fixation of Complete Articular Tibial Plafond Fractures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcomes after acute versus staged fixation of complete articular tibial plafond fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single Level 1 Trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: 98 skeletally mature patients with OTA/AO 43C type fractures who underwent definitive fixation with plate and screw constructs and had a minimum 6 months of follow-up. INTERVENTION: Acute open reduction internal fixation (aORIF) versus staged (sORIF) definitive fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Rates of wound dehiscence/necrosis and deep infection. RESULTS: Acute (N = 40) versus staged (N = 58) ORIF groups had comparable rates of vascular disease, renal disease, and substance/nicotine use, but aORIF patients had higher rates of diabetes mellitus (10% vs. 0%, P < 0.001), which correlated with higher American Society of Anaesthesiologist scores (>American Society of Anaesthesiologist 3: 37.5% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.02). Both groups achieved anatomic/good reductions, as determined by postoperative CT scans, at rates greater than 90%; however, the sORIF group required modestly longer operative times to achieve this outcome (aORIF vs. sORIF: 121 vs. 146 minutes, P = 0.02). Postoperatively, both groups had similar rates of wound dehiscence (2.5% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.65), superficial infections (10% vs. 17.2%, P = 0.39), and deep infections (10% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.99). While the injury pattern itself required free flap coverage in 1 patient in each group, unplanned free flap coverage occurred in 10.0% and 10.3% of aORIF and sORIF groups, respectively. Overall, rates of unplanned reoperations, excluding ankle arthrodesis, did not differ between groups (aORIF vs. sORIF:12.5% vs. 25.9%, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: In select patients managed by fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologists, acute definitive pilon fixation can produce acceptable outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

High- Versus Low-Energy Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures in Young Patients: Injury Characteristics and Factors Associated With Complications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare fracture patterns and associated injuries for young patients with high- versus low-energy intertrochanteric hip fractures and to report on factors associated with complications after surgical fixation of high-energy fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. SETTING: Academic Level 1 Trauma Center. PATIENTS: A total of 103 patients 50 years of age or younger were included: 80 high-energy fractures and 23 low-energy fractures. INTERVENTION: Cephalomedullary nailing (N = 92) or a sliding hip screw (N = 11). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic characteristics of fracture morphology, implant position, and reduction quality and postoperative complications were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: Compared with young patients with low-energy fractures, those with high-energy fractures had more fracture comminution ( P = 0.013) and higher ISS scores ( P < 0.003) and were more likely to require open reduction ( P < 0.001). Patients with low-energy fractures from a ground-level fall had higher rates of alcohol abuse (0.032), cirrhosis (0.010), and chronic steroid use (0.048). Overall reoperation rate for high-energy fractures was 7%, including 2 IT fracture nonunions (5%) and 1 deep infection (2%). For high-energy fractures, ASA class ( P = 0.026), anterior lag screw position ( P = 0.001), and varus malreduction ( P < 0.001) were associated with malunion. Four-part fracture (OTA/AO 31A2.3/Jensen 5) ( P = 0.028) and residual calcar gap >3 mm ( P = 0.03) were associated with reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of high-energy IT fractures in young patients is technically demanding with potential untoward outcomes. Injury characteristics and severity are significantly different for young patients with high-energy IT fractures compared with low-energy fractures. For young patients with a high-energy IT fracture, surgeons can anticipate a high rate of associated injuries and complex fracture patterns requiring open reduction. For young patients with a low-energy IT fracture, comanagement with a hospitalist or a geriatrician should be considered because they may be physiologically older. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcomes of Various Antibiotic Cement-Coated Intramedullary Implants on the Treatment of Long Bone Septic Nonunion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of various types of antibiotic-coated intramedullary implants in the treatment of septic long bone nonunion. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one patients with septic long bone nonunion treated with an antibiotic cement-coated intramedullary implant. INTERVENTION: Surgical debridement and placement of a type of antibiotic-coated intramedullary implant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Union and need for reoperation. RESULTS: At an average 27-month follow-up (6-104), 27 patients (66%) had a modified radiographic union score of the tibia of 11.5 or greater, 12 patients (29%) a score lower than 11.5, and 2 patients (5%) underwent subsequent amputation. Six patients underwent no further surgical procedures after the index operation. Patients treated with a rigid, locked antibiotic nail achieved earlier weight-bearing (P = 0.001), less frequently required autograft (P = 0.005), and underwent fewer subsequent procedures (average 0.38 vs. 3.60, P = 0.004) than those treated with flexible core antibiotic rods. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic-coated intramedullary implants are successful in the treatment of septic nonunions in long bones. In our cohort, rigid, statically locked nails allowed faster rehabilitation, decreased the need for autograft, and decreased the number of additional surgical procedures. Further study is needed to confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cephalomedullary Nail Fixation of Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures: Are Two Proximal Screws Better Than One?

OBJECTIVES: To analyze radiographic changes in intertrochanteric (IT) fracture alignment after treatment with either a single sliding lag screw or an integrated compressed and locked, dual screw, cephalomedullary nail construct. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. SETTING: Level 1 regional trauma center. PATIENTS: 1004 OTA/AO 31A, 31B2.1 fractures treated with either a single screw cephalomedullary nail (Gamma 3) or an integrated dual screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) between February 1, 2005, and June 30, 2013. Four hundred thirteen remained after exclusion criteria; 130 were treated with a single screw device (79 stable and 51 unstable), and 283 with an integrated dual screw device (155 stable and 128 unstable). INTERVENTION: Cephalomedullary nail insertion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic analysis included fracture pattern, fracture reduction, neck-shaft angle (NSA), and femoral neck shortening (FNS) differences at 3, 6, and 12 months. Measurements were normalized using known lag screw dimensions, digitally corrected for magnification. Rotation between x-rays was controlled using a ratio of known to measured dimensions. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The single screw device resulted in 2.5 times more varus collapse (NSA) and 2 times more FNS over 1 year, as compared to the locked, integrated dual screw device, regardless of stability (P < 0.001). NSA and FNS changes were greater for both devices in unstable fracture patterns, but significantly less movement occurred with the dual screw device (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A cephalomedullary nail with 2 integrated proximal screws that can be compressed and then locked seems to maintain initial IT fracture reduction and subsequent position over time, with less varus collapse and less shortening than a single screw device. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.