Risk Factors for Wound Failure After Primary Closure of Type IIIA Open Tibia Fractures

The objective of our investigation was to explore risk factors associated with primary closure of type IIIA tibial fractures resulting in subsequent flap coverage. A retrospective study identified 278 patients with acute type IIIA open tibial fractures who underwent primary closure at a single center during an 8-year period. Treatment factors, including the number of debridements before closure, duration of external fixation, and timing of wound closure, were reported. The primary outcome was complication requiring unplanned operation of the study injury resulting in flap coverage. Fifty-five (20%) patients underwent flap coverage following complication after attempted primary closure. Patients who required a flap experienced a 42% complication rate after delayed flap coverage. The limb salvage rate was 95% for the study population. Three significant complication predictors were identified: 3 or more debridements before closure (odds ratio [OR], 29.8; 95% CI, 5.9-150.1; P<.001), wound closure more than 2 days after injury (OR, 9.8; 95% CI, 1.6-60.2; P=.01), and external fixation more than 14 days (OR, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.6-34.6; P=.01). Patients who had 3 or more debridements before closure had a 70.7% chance of having a complication resulting in a flap (29 of 41) compared with only a 6.8% chance of complication for those who had 2 or fewer debridements (14 of 205; P<.001). Risk factors for complication after primary closure of type IIIA open tibial fractures include number of debridements, wound closure after 2 days, and external fixation use for more than 14 days. Wounds requiring 3 or more debridements failed 70.7% after closure, suggesting alternative approaches should be considered in more severe cases. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(2):108-112.].

What is the Optimal Reconstruction Option after the Resection of Proximal Humeral Tumors? A Systematic Review

Purpose:

The proximal humerus is a common location for both primary and metastatic bone tumors. There are numerous reconstruction options after surgical resection. There is no consensus on the ideal method of reconstruction.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed with a focus on the surgical reconstructive options for lesions involving the proximal humerus.

Results:

A total of 50 articles and 1227 patients were included for analysis. Reoperation rates were autograft arthrodesis (11%), megaprosthesis (10%), RSA (17%), hemiarthroplasty (26%), and osteoarticular allograft (34%). Mechanical failure rates, including prosthetic loosening, fracture, and dislocation, were highest in allograft-containing constructs (APC, osteoarticular allograft, arthrodesis) followed by arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, RSA, megaprosthesis) and lowest for autografts (vascularized fibula, autograft arthrodesis). Infections involving RSA (9%) were higher than hemiarthroplasty (0%) and megaprosthesis (4%).

Postoperative function as measured by MSTS score were similar amongst all prosthetic options, ranging from 66% to 74%, and claviculo pro humeri (CPH) was slightly better (83%). Patients were generally limited to active abduction of approximately 45° and no greater than 90°. With resection of the rotator cuff, deltoid muscle or axillary nerve, function and stability were compromised even further. If the rotator cuff was sacrificed but the deltoid and axillary nerve preserved, active forward flexion and abduction were superior with RSA.

Discussion:

Various reconstruction techniques for the proximal humerus lead to relatively similar functional results. Surgical choice should be tailored to anatomic defect and functional requirements.

Does Surgical Stabilization of Lateral Compression-type Pelvic Ring Fractures Decrease Patients' Pain, Reduce Narcotic Use, and Improve Mobilization?

BACKGROUND

Debate remains over the role of surgical treatment in minimally displaced lateral compression (Young-Burgess, LC, OTA 61-B1/B2) pelvic ring injuries. Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) injuries are defined by an impaction fracture at the sacrum; type 2 (LC2) are defined by a fracture that extends through the posterior iliac wing at the level of the sacroiliac joint. Some believe that operative stabilization of these fractures limits pain and eases mobilization, but to our knowledge there are few controlled studies on the topic.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does operative stabilization of LC1 and LC2 pelvic fractures decrease patients' narcotic use and lower their visual analog scale pain scores? (2) Does stabilization allow patients to mobilize earlier with physical therapy?

METHODS

This retrospective study of LC1 and LC2 fractures evaluated patients treated definitively at one institution from 2007 to 2013. All patients treated surgically, all nonoperative LC2, and all nonoperative LC1 fractures with complete sacral injury were included. In general, LC1 or LC2 fractures with greater than 10 mm of displacement and/or sagittal/axial plane deformity on static radiographs were treated surgically. One hundred fifty-eight patients in the LC1 group (107 [of 697 screened] nonoperative, 51 surgical) and 123 patients in the LC2 group (78 nonoperative, 45 surgical) met inclusion criteria. The surgical and nonoperative groups were matched for fracture type. To account for differences between patients treated surgically and nonoperatively, we used propensity modeling techniques incorporating treatment predictors. Propensity scores demonstrated good overlap and were used as part of multiple variable regression models to account for selection bias between the surgically treated and nonoperative groups. Patient-reported pain scores and narcotic administration were tallied in 24-hour increments during the first 24 hours of hospitalization, at 48 hours after intervention, and in the 24 hours before discharge. Time from intervention to mobilization out of bed was recorded; intervention was defined as the date of definitive surgical intervention or the day the surgeon determined the patient would be treated without surgery.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the narcotics distributed to any of the groups with the exception that the patients with surgically treated LC2 fractures used, on average (mean [95% confidence interval]) 40.2 (-72.9 to -7.6) mg morphine less at the 48-hour mark (p = 0.016). In general, there were no differences between the groups' pain scores. The surgically treated patients with LC1 fractures mobilized 1.7 (-3.3 to -0.01) days earlier (p = 0.034) than their nonoperative counterparts. There was no difference in the LC2 cohort in terms of time to mobilization between those treated with and without surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few differences in pain scores and morphine use between the surgical and nonoperative groups, and the differences observed likely were not clinically important. We found no evidence that surgical stabilization of certain LC1 and LC2 pelvic fractures improves patients' pain, decreases their narcotic use, and improves time to mobilization. A randomized trial of patients with similar fractures and similar degrees initial displacement would help remove some of the confounders present in this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Comparison of intramedullary fixation techniques in the maintenance of functional anatomy of the elbow after fixation of the proximal ulna

The objective of this study was to compare intramedullary (IM) nail and IM screw fixation for reattachment of the proximal ulna. Preserved elbow anatomy served as the primary outcome and was defined as the distance between the coronoid process and the olecranon. A retrospective cohort study of 31 patients treated with IM fixation of the proximal ulna was performed. Radiographs were used to compare displacement distances between the coronoid process and the olecranon, with average follow-up of approximately 5 months. IM nail fixation corresponded to a mean displacement of -0.65 mm between the olecranon and coronoid process, versus 0.23 mm for IM screw fixation. No patients were identified with loss of reduction of bone fragments. Both IM fixation techniques maintained the functional anatomy of the elbow. Minimal displacement of bone fragments and no identified loss of reduction suggest that both techniques could be reasonable alternatives to more traditional approaches.