Epidemiology & management of complex ankle fractures in the United Kingdom: A multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patient factors are known to contribute to decision making and treatment of ankle fractures. The presence of poor baseline mobility, diabetes, neuropathy, alcoholism, cognitive impairment, inflammatory arthritis or polytrauma can result in a higher risk of failure or complications. Limited evidence is available on the optimum management for this challenging cohort of patients herein described as complex ankle fractures. This UK multicentre study assessed and evaluated the epidemiology of ankle fractures complicated by significant comorbidity and patient factors and use of specialist surgical techniques such as hindfoot nails (HFN) / tibiotalarcalcaneal (TCC) nails and enhanced open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A UK-wide collaborative study was performed of adult distal AO43/AO44 fractures, associated with 1 or more of the patient factors listed above. Primary outcomes included patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical technique and implants. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and early post-operative weight bearing instructions. Statistical analysis was performed to assess patient and fracture characteristics on outcome, including propensity matching.

RESULTS

One-thousand three hundred and sixty patients, with at least one of the above complex factors, from 56 centres were included with a mean age of 53.1 years. 90.2% (1227) patients underwent primary fixation which included 78.9% (1073) standard open reduction internal fixations (ORIF), 3.25% (43) extended ORIF and 8.1% (111) primary HFN / TCC. Overall wound complications and thromboembolic events were similar in the hindfoot nail group and the ORIF group (11.7% vs 10.7%). Wound complications were greater in diabetic patients versus non-diabetic patients independent of fixation method (15.8% vs 9.0%). After propensity matching for comorbidities and fracture type, overall complications were lower in the hindfoot nail (11.8%) and extended ORIF groups (16.7%), than the standard ORIF group (18.6%).

CONCLUSION

Only a minority of complex ankle fractures are treated with specialised techniques (HFN/TCC or extended ORIF). Though more commonly used in older and frail patients their perceived advantages are often negated by a reluctance to bear weight early. These techniques demonstrated a better complication profile to standard ORIF but hindfoot nail with joint preparation for fusion was associated with more complications than hindfoot nail for fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Weight-bearing in Trauma Surgery (WiTS) Study: A national survey of UK Trauma & Orthopaedic multidisciplinary health professionals

INTRODUCTION

Weight-bearing (WB) status following a fracture or surgical fixation is an important determinant of the mechanical environment for healing. In order for healthcare professionals to communicate and understand the extent of bearing weight through a limb, clear terminology must be used. There is widespread variation in the usage and definitions of WB terminology in the literature and clinical practice. This study sought to define the understanding and extent of variation across the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A nationwide online survey of UK-based Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) multidisciplinary healthcare professionals was conducted. Participants answered seven questions assessing their usage and understanding of various WB terminology.

RESULTS

A total of 707 responses were received: 48% by doctors, 32% by physiotherapists, 13% by occupational therapists and 7% from other healthcare professionals. In terms of understanding of WB terminology with respect to percentage body weight (BW), 89% of respondents interpret 'full WB' as 100% BW, 97% interpret 'non WB' as 0% BW, 80% interpret 'partial WB' as 50% BW, and 89% interpret 'touch/toe-touch WB' as 10% or 20% BW. There were statistically significant differences between the responses of doctors and therapists for these four terms, with doctors tending to give higher %BW values. 'Protected WB' and 'WB as tolerated' had less consensus and more variability in responses. The majority (68%) of respondents do not usually quantify terminology such as 'partial WB' with a value, and 94% agreed that standardisation of WB terminology would improve communication amongst professionals.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence of the substantial variation in the understanding of WB terminology amongst healthcare professionals, which likely results in ambiguous rehabilitation advice. Existing literature has shown that patients struggle to comply with terms such as 'partial weight-bearing'. We recommend consensus within the T&O multidisciplinary community to standardise and define common weight-bearing terminology.

Pelvic and acetabular fracture care in England: current workload and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Fractures of the pelvis and acetabulum (PAFs) are challenging injuries, requiring specialist surgical input. Since implementation of the major trauma network in England in 2012, little has been published regarding the available services, workforce organisation and burden of PAF workload. The aim of this study was to assess the recent trends in volume of PAF workload, evaluate the provision of specialist care, and identify variation in available resources, staffing and training opportunity.

METHODS

Data on PAF volume, operative caseload, route of admission and time to surgery were requested from the Trauma Audit and Research Network. In order to evaluate current workforce provision and services, an online survey was distributed to individuals known to provide PAF care at each of the 22 major trauma centres (MTCs).

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2019, 23,823 patients with PAF were admitted to MTCs in England, of whom 12,480 (52%) underwent operative intervention. On average, there are 3,971 MTC PAF admissions and 2,080 operative fixations each year. There has been an increase in admissions and cases treated operatively since 2013. Three-quarters (78%) of patients present directly to the MTC while 22% are referred from regional trauma units. Annually, there are on average 37 operatively managed PAF injuries per million population. Notwithstanding regional differences in case volume, the average number of annual PAF operative cases per surgeon in England is 30. There is significant variation in frequency of surgeon availability. There is also variation in rota organisation regarding consistent specialist surgeon availability.

CONCLUSIONS

This article describes the provision of PAF services since the reorganisation of trauma services in England. Future service development should take into account the current distribution of activity, future trends for increased volume and casemix, and the need for a PAF registry.