OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma最新文献

Orthopaedic infections remain challenging complications to treat, with profound economic impact in addition to patient morbidity. The overall estimates of infection after orthopaedic surgery with internal devices has been estimated at 5%, with hospital costs eight times that of those without fracture-related infections and with significantly poorer functional and pain interference PROMIS scores. Orthopaedic infection interventions have been focused on prevention and treatment options. The creation of new modalities for orthopaedic infection treatment can benefit from the understanding of the temporal relationship between bacterial colonization and host-cell integration, a concept referred to as "the race for the surface." Regarding prevention, host modulation and antibiotic powder use have been explored as viable options to lower infection rates. Orthopaedic infection treatment has additionally continued to evolve, with PO antibiotics demonstrating equivalent efficacy to IV antibiotics for the treatment of orthopaedic infections in recent studies. In conclusion, orthopaedic infections remain difficult clinical dilemmas, although evolving prevention and treatment modalities continue to emerge.

At the 2021 annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, the Basic Science Focus Forum hosted its first ever debate-style symposium focused on biomechanics and fracture repair. The 3 subjects of debate were "Mechanics versus Biology-Which is 'More Important' to Consider?" "Locked Plate versus Forward Dynamization versus Reverse Dynamization-Which Way Should I Go?" and "Sawbones versus Cadaver Models-What Should I Believe Most?" These debates were held because fracture healing is a highly organized synergistic response between biological factors and the local mechanical environment. Multiple studies have demonstrated that both factors play roles in governing bone healing responses, and the causal relationships between the 2 remain unclear. The lack of clarity in this space has led to a spectrum of research with the common goal of helping surgeons make good decisions. Before reading further, the reader should understand that the questions posed in the debate titles are unanswerable and might represent a false choice. Instead, the reader should appreciate that the debates were held to gain a more thorough understanding of these topics based on the current state of the art of experimental and clinical studies, by using an engaging and thought-provoking format.

Posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) is a subset of osteoarthritis that occurs after joint injury and is associated with degradation of articular cartilage and subchondral bone. As compared with primary osteoarthritis, PTOA occurs in a time window initiated by a traumatic event resulting in damage to layers of joint structure and alterations in joint shape. As techniques in open reduction and internal fixation continue to mature, our success in preventing posttraumatic osteoarthritis has not kept pace. Advances in research in the subchondral bone, inflammatory response, and joint mechanics continue to open our understanding of this posttraumatic process. In addition, there are possibilities emerging as biological agents to therapeutically alter the progression of PTOA.

Orthopaedics as a field and a profession is fundamentally concerned with the treatment of musculoskeletal disease, in all of its many forms. Our collective understanding of the cellular mechanisms underlying musculoskeletal pathology resulting from injury continues to evolve, opening novel opportunities to develop orthobiologic treatments to improve care. It is a long path to move from an understanding of cellular pathology to development of successful clinical treatment, and this article proposes to discuss some of the challenges to achieving translational therapies in orthopaedics. The article will focus on challenges that clinicians will likely face in seeking to bring promising treatments forward to clinical practice and strategies for improving success in translational efforts.

Femoral neck fracture displacement with subsequent vascular disruption is one of the factors that contribute to trauma-induced avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Iatrogenic damage of the intraosseous arterial system during fixation of femoral neck fracture is another possible cause of avascular necrosis that is less well understood. Recently, Zhao et al (2017) reconstructed 3D structures of intraosseous blood supply and identified the epiphyseal and inferior retinacular arterial system to be important structures for maintaining the femoral head blood supply after femoral neck fracture. The authors therefore recommended placing implants centrally to reduce iatrogenic vascular injuries. Our in vitro study compared the spatial footprint of a traditional dynamic hip screw with an antirotation screw versus a newly developed hip screw with an integrated antirotation screw on intraosseous vasculature.

Methods: Three dimensional (3D) µCT angiograms of 9 cadaveric proximal femora were produced. Three segmented volumes-porous or cancellous bone, filled or cortical bone, and intraosseous vasculature-were converted to surface files. 3D in silico models of the fixation systems were sized and implanted in silico without visibility of the vascular maps. The volume of vasculature that overlapped with the devices was determined. The ratio of the vascular intersection to the comparator device was calculated, and the mean ratio was determined. A paired design, noninferiority test was used to compare the devices.

Results: Results indicate both significant (P < 0.001) superiority and noninferiority of the hip screw with an integrated antirotation screw when compared with a dynamic hip screw and antirotation screw for the volume of vasculature that overlapped with each device in the femoral neck.

Conclusions: Combining established methods of vascular visualization with newer methods enables an implant's impact on vascular intersection to be assessed in silico. This methodology suggests that when used for femoral neck fracture management, the new device intersects fewer blood vessels than the comparator. Comparative clinical studies are needed to investigate whether these findings correlate with the incidence of avascular necrosis and clinical outcomes.

Many investigations have evaluated local and systemic consequences of intramedullary (IM) reaming and suggest that reaming may cause, or exacerbate, injury to the soft tissues adjacent to fractures. To date, no study has examined the effect on local muscular physiology as measured by intramuscular pH (IpH). Here, we observe in vivo IpH during IM reaming for tibia fractures.

Methods: Adults with acute tibia shaft fractures (level 1, academic, 2019-2021) were offered enrollment in an observational cohort. During IM nailing, a sterile, validated IpH probe was placed into the anterior tibialis (<5 cm from fracture, continuous sampling, independent research team). IpH before, during, and after reaming was averaged and compared through repeated measures ANOVA. As the appropriate period to analyze IpH during reaming is unknown, the analysis was repeated over periods of 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes prereaming and postreaming time intervals.

Results: Sixteen subjects with tibia shaft fractures were observed during nailing. Average time from injury to surgery was 35.0 hours (SD, 31.8). Starting and ending perioperative IpH was acidic, averaging 6.64 (SD, 0.21) and 6.74 (SD, 0.17), respectively. Average reaming time lasted 15 minutes. Average IpH during reaming was 6.73 (SD, 0.15). There was no difference in IpH between prereaming, intrareaming, and postreaming periods. IpH did not differ regardless of analysis over short or long time domains compared with the duration of reaming.

Conclusions: Reaming does not affect IpH. Both granular and broad time domains were tested, revealing no observable local impact.

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard to establishing causal relationships in clinical research. However, these studies are expensive and time consuming to conduct. This article aims to provide orthopaedic surgeons and clinical researchers with methodology to optimize inference and minimize bias in observational studies that are often much more feasible to undertake. To mitigate the risk of bias arising from their nonexperimental design, researchers must first understand the ways in which measured covariates can influence treatment, outcomes, and missingness of follow-up data. With knowledge of these relationships, researchers can then build causal diagrams to best understand how to control sources of bias. Some common techniques for controlling for bias include matching, regression, stratification, and propensity score analysis. Selection bias may result from loss to follow-up and missing data. Strategies such as multiple imputation and time-to-event analysis can be useful for handling missingness. For longitudinal data, repeated measures allow observational studies to best summarize the impact of the intervention over time. Clinical researchers familiar with fundamental concepts of causal inference and techniques reviewed in this article will have the power to improve the quality of inferences made from clinical research in orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Periacetabular periprosthetic fractures are rare but potentially disastrous for the longevity of the adjacent implants, leading to multiple revision surgeries. It is of paramount importance to identify and treat intraoperative fractures, which will lead to satisfactory results. Postoperative fractures may be managed operatively or nonoperatively depending on the patient's pain and function, the fracture pattern, and the stability of the acetabular component.

Background: Open tibial fractures have a high risk of infection that can lead to severe morbidity. Antibiotics administered locally at the site of the open wound are a potentially effective preventive measure, but there are limited data evaluating aminoglycoside antibiotics. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of a clinical trial to test the efficacy of local gentamicin in reducing the risk of fracture-related infection after open tibial fracture.

Methods: This study is a single-center, pilot, masked, randomized controlled trial conducted at the Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute. Participants were randomized intraoperatively after wound closure to receive gentamicin solution or normal saline solution injected at the fracture site. Follow-ups were completed at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The primary feasibility outcomes were the rate of enrollment and retention. The primary clinical outcome was the occurrence of fracture-related infection.

Results: Of 199 patients screened, 100 eligible patients were successfully enrolled and randomized over 9 months (11.1 patients/month). Complete data were recorded at baseline and follow-up for >95% of cases. The rate of follow-up at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 1 year were 70%, 68%, 69%, 61%, and 80%, respectively. There was no difference in adverse events or any of the measured primary and secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: This pilot study is among the first to evaluate locally administered gentamicin in open tibial fractures. Results indicate a rigorous clinical trial with acceptable rates of enrollment and follow-up to address this topic is possible in this setting.