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

Objective: Open tibial shaft fractures are a leading cause of disability worldwide, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Guidelines for these injuries have been developed in many high-income countries, but treatment patterns across Africa are less well-documented.

Methods: A survey was distributed to orthopaedic service providers across sub-Saharan Africa. Information gathered included surgeon and practice setting demographics and treatment preferences for open tibial shaft fractures across 3 domains: initial debridement, antibiotic administration, and fracture stabilization. Responses were grouped according to country income level and were compared between LMICs and upper middle-income countries (UMICs).

Results: Responses from 261 survey participants from 31 countries were analyzed, with 80% of respondents practicing in LMICs. Most respondents were male practicing orthopaedic surgeons at a tertiary referral hospital. For all respondents, initial debridement occurred most frequently in the operating room (OR) within the first 24 hours, but LMIC surgeons more frequently reported delays due to equipment availability, treatment cost, and OR availability. Compared with their UMIC counterparts, LMIC surgeons less frequently confirmed tetanus vaccination status and more frequently used extended courses of postoperative antibiotics. LMIC surgeons reported lower rates of using internal fixation, particularly for high-grade and late-presenting fractures.

Conclusions: This study describes management characteristics of open tibial shaft fractures in sub-Saharan Africa. Notably, there were reported differences in wound management, antibiotic administration, and fracture stabilization between LMICs and UMICs. These findings suggest opportunities for standardization where evidence is available and further research where it is lacking.

Level of evidence: VI-Cross-Sectional Study.

Objectives: The factors that significantly influence the symptomatic implant removal rates after plate fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the symptomatic implant removal rates between 2 different types of plating technique and to evaluate independently associated factors.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Acute care center.

Patients/participants: A total of 71 patients 16 years or older who were diagnosed with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures from April 2016 to March 2020.

Intervention: Thirty-nine patients were treated with superior plating (Group SP), and the remaining 32 patients were treated with anteroinferior plating (Group AIP).

Main outcome measurements: Symptomatic implant removal rates after plate fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures.

Results: Symptomatic implant removal rates were significantly lower in Group AIP (28.1%) than in Group SP (53.8%) (P = 0.033). Multivariate analyses showed that symptomatic implant removal rates were significantly decreased by three independent factors, namely AIP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.323) (P = 0.037), greater age (45 years or older) (OR = 0.312) (P = 0.029), and high body mass index (≥25 kg/m²) (OR = 0.117) (P = 0.034).

Conclusions: AIP significantly and independently decreased the symptomatic implant removal rate. Among the three explanatory factors showing significant difference, plating technique is the only factor that can be altered by medical institutions. Therefore, we recommend this technique for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures to reduce a second surgery such as symptomatic implant removal.

Level of evidence: Level 3, retrospective cohort study.

Introduction: Lateral locked plating (LLP) development has improved outcomes for distal femur fractures. However, there is still a modest rate of nonunion in fractures treated with LLP alone, with higher nonunion risk in high-energy fractures, intra-articular involvement, poor bone quality, severe comminution, or bone loss. Several recent studies have demonstrated both the safety and the biomechanical advantage of dual medial and lateral plating (DP). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of DP for native distal femoral fractures by performing a systematic review of the literature.

Methods: Studies reporting clinical outcomes for DP of native distal femur fractures were identified and systematically reviewed. Publications without full-text manuscripts, those solely involving periprosthetic fractures, or fractures other than distal femur fractures were excluded. Fracture type, mean follow-up, open versus closed fracture, number of bone grafting procedures, nonunion, reoperation rates, and complication data were collected. Methodologic study quality was assessed using the Coleman methodology score.

Results: The initial electronic review and reverse inclusion protocol identified 1484 publications. After removal of duplicates and abstract review to exclude studies that did not discuss clinical treatment of femur fractures with dual plating, 101 potential manuscripts were identified and manually reviewed. After final review, 12 studies were included in this study. There were 199 fractures with average follow-up time of 13.72 months. Unplanned reoperations and nonunion occurred in 19 (8.5%) and 9 (4.5%) cases, respectively. The most frequently reported complications were superficial infection (n = 6, 3%) and deep infection (n = 5, 2.5%) postoperatively. Other complications included delayed union (n = 6, 3%) not requiring additional surgical treatment and knee stiffness in four patients (2%) necessitating manipulation under anesthesia or lysis of adhesions. The average Coleman score was 50.5 (range 13.5-72), suggesting that included studies were of moderate-to-poor quality.

Conclusions: Clinical research interest in DP of distal femoral fractures has markedly increased in the past few decades. The current data suggest that DP of native distal femoral fractures is associated with favorable nonunion and reoperation rates compared with previously published rates associated with LLP alone. In the current review, DP of distal femoral fractures was associated with acceptable rates of complications and generally good functional outcomes. More high-quality, directly comparable research is necessary to validate the conclusions of this review.

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.

The most common periprosthetic fractures occur around the hip. The most widely used classification is the Vancouver classification, and management requires careful planning and skill in both arthroplasty and fracture surgery. This article presents an overview of the diagnosis, classification, and management of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur. This work represents a summary review from Latin American Society Members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association.

Periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur have significant morbidity in both total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA, respectively). The incidence of these fractures is growing, with the predominant mechanism of injury being a fall from a standing height and therefore considered fragility fractures. In many countries, improved public funding and a flourishing private health care sector, when coupled with increased life expectancy, translates to more older patients receiving both TKA and THA and therefore an increased prevalence of periprosthetic fractures and their associated complications. These fractures may occur below a long stem THA, above a TKA, or between the two (so-called "interprosthetic fracture"). We will outline fracture classification, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment options, highlighting perspectives on treating these fractures in Israel, South Africa, and South Sudan. These countries represent differing access to resources, varied comorbidity factors, and differing health care systems. The points of difference and the points of similarity will be considered.

Knee arthroplasty, both total knee and unicompartmental, has had a significant impact on millions of patients globally. Although satisfaction is usually high, complications such as periprosthetic fracture are increasingly common. Distal femur periprosthetic fractures are relatively well researched and understood in comparison with periprosthetic proximal tibia fractures (PTFs). The management of PTFs is essentially an evidence-free area. This review explores the literature (or lack thereof) and integrates cases from Australia and Japan. As it stands, there is scant literature relating to all facets of PTFs, including, most concerningly, the management of them. Larger studies are required to help further investigate this important interface between arthroplasty and orthopaedic trauma. As a guide, those with loose prostheses will likely benefit most from revision total knee arthroplasty, while those with well-fixed prostheses can be managad according to the fracture with homage paid to the presence of the prosthesis. The use of periarticular locked plates is likely a better option over conventional large or small fragment plates. Nonoperative management is a viable option for selected individuals and can be associated with favorable outcomes.

Postoperative periprosthetic humeral shaft fractures represent a growing and difficult complication to treat given the aging patient population and associated bone loss. Determining the best treatment option is multifactorial, including patient characteristics, fracture pattern, remaining bone stock, and implant stability. Possible treatment options include nonoperative management with bracing or surgical intervention. Nonoperative treatment has been shown to have higher nonunion rates, thus should only be selected for a specific patient population with minimally displaced fractures or those that are unfit for surgery. Surgical management is recommended with prosthetic loosening, fracture nonunion, or failure of nonoperative treatment. Surgical options include open reduction and internal fixation, revision arthroplasty, or hybrid fixation. Careful evaluation, decision making, and planning is required in the treatment of these fractures.

Objectives: Surgical site infections in orthopaedic trauma are a significant problem with meaningful patient and health care system-level consequences. Direct application of antibiotics to the surgical field has many potential benefits in reducing surgical site infections. However, to date, the data regarding the local administration of antibiotics have been mixed. This study reports on the variability of prophylactic vancomycin powder use in orthopaedic trauma cases across 28 centers.

Methods: Intrawound topical antibiotic powder use was prospectively collected within three multicenter fracture fixation trials. Fracture location, Gustilo classification, recruiting center, and surgeon information were collected. Differences in practice patterns across recruiting center and injury characteristics were tested using chi-square statistic and logistic regression. Additional stratified analyses by recruiting center and individual surgeon were performed.

Results: A total of 4941 fractures were treated, and vancomycin powder was used in 1547 patients (31%) overall. Local administration of vancomycin powder was more frequent in open fractures 38.8% (738/1901) compared with closed fractures 26.6% (809/3040) (P < 0.001). However, the severity of the open fracture type did not affect the rate at which vancomycin powder was used (P = 0.11). Vancomycin powder use varied substantially across the clinical sites (P < 0.001). At the surgeon level, 75.0% used vancomycin powder in less than one-quarter of their cases.

Conclusions: Prophylactic intrawound vancomycin powder remains controversial with varied support throughout the literature. This study demonstrates wide variability in its use across institutions, fracture types, and surgeons. This study highlights the opportunity for increased practice standardization for infection prophylaxis interventions.

Level of evidence: Prognostic-III.