Purpose of study. Transarticular screw fixation offers acceptably high fusion rates but is not possible in 18% of patients due to a high riding vertebral artery. It also requires pre-operative anatomical reduction which is not always possible. The Harms' technique utilises a posterior C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screw. This allows easier access due to the angle of drilling and has become an increasingly popular surgical technique. The aim of this study is to review and compare the above techniques with regard to surgery, complications and outcome. Description of methods. This study is a retrospective chart and radiographic review of patients undergoing posterior C1-2 fusion in a single institution in the period 2003 to 2011. The most common aetiology was rheumatoid arthritis and post-traumatic instability. All atlanto-axial instability patients that came to surgery are included in this study, and only cases with less than six months follow-up were excluded. We report on surgical indications, surgical outcomes, complications and radiographic outcomes. Summary of results. No statistically significant differences were found in blood loss (p=0.47) or surgical time (p=0.44) using the Mann-Whitney U test. Complications in patients undergoing transarticular screw fixation included the need to abandon transarticular screws in two cases due to technical difficulty, metalware failure in two cases and intra-operative cerebrospinal fluid leaks in 2 cases. The Harms technique was associated with a single case of cerebrospinal fluid leak. Conclusion. There is no significant difference in surgical time and blood loss between the two techniques. Both are reliable in terms of fusion. The Harms technique offers the advantage of intra-operative reduction and a smaller wound due to the direction of access. The decision to use one or the other is based on the surgeons skill levels, ability to pre-operative reduce the joint and possibly the cost. NO DISCLOSURES

The Lisfranc fracture dislocation of the tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) is a complex injury with a reported incidence of 9.2 to 14/100,000 person-years. Lisfranc fixation involves dorsal bridge plating, transarticular screws, combination or primary arthrodesis. We aimed to identify predictors of poor patient reported outcome measures at long term follow up after operative intervention. 127 patients underwent Lisfranc fixation at our Level One Trauma Centre between November 2007 and July 2013. At mean follow-up of 10.7 years (8.0-13.9), 85 patients (66.92%) were successfully contacted. Epidemiological data including age, gender and mechanism of injury and fracture characteristics such as number of columns injured, direction of subluxation/dislocation and classification based on those proposed by Hardcastle and Lau were recorded. Descriptive analysis was performed to compare our primary outcomes (AOFAS and FFI scores). Univariate analysis and multivariate regression analysis was done adjusted for age and sex to compare the entirety of our data set. P<0.05 was considered significant. The primary outcomes were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Score and the Foot Function Index (FFI). The number of columns involved in the injury best predicts functional outcomes (FFI, P <0.05, AOFAS, P<0.05) with more columns involved resulting in poorer outcomes. Functional outcomes were not significantly associated with any of the fixation groups (FFI, P = 0.21, AOFAS, P = 0.14). Injury type by Myerson classification systems (FFI, P = 0.17, AOFAS, P = 0.58) or open versus closed status (FFI, P = 0.29, AOFAS, P = 0.20) was also not significantly associated with any fixation group. We concluded that 10 years post-surgery, patients generally had a good functional outcome with minimal complications. Prognosis of functional outcomes is based on number of columns involved and injured. Sagittal plane disruption, mechanism and fracture type does not seem to make a difference in outcomes

Background. Evidence concerning the management of dorsal fracture dislocation (DFD) of the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) in the hand has been limited by small sample size and case heterogeneity within studies. This retrospective case control study examined clinical outcome of this specific subgroup managed by three different methods. Methods. Patients undergoing fixation of unstable DFD of the PIPJ between March 2005 and August 2011 were identified from theatre records. A retrospective review of case-notes and radiographs was undertaken to determine fracture characteristics, fixation methods and clinical outcomes. Results. 21 patients with DFD of the PIPJ were identified with a mean age of 40 years (range 22–65). The majority of patients were male (17/21, 81%) and the mean percentage articular surface involvement of fractures was 41% (Std. Dev. 11.3%). PIPJ DFD's were managed by reduction of the PIPJ and temporary transarticular K-wire fixation (12/21, 57%), hemi-hamate arthroplasty (7/21, 33%), or by open reduction and internal fixation (2/21,10%). PIPJ ROM following hemi-hamate arthroplasty was 65° (range 34–108°) and was greater than K-Wire fixation at 56. o. (range 9–85. o. ) (p = 0.82). Hemi-hamate arthroplasty and K-wire fixation resulted in fixed flexion deformity of 20° (range −12–52°) and 15° (range −6–50°) respectively (p = 0.61). Hand therapy data was available for one case undergoing ORIF with a post-operative ROM of 60° and 30° of fixed flexion. There was poor correlation between articular surface involvement and post-operative range of movement at the PIPJ (Co-efficient −0.16, p = 0.55). Conclusion. We present a relatively large series of outcomes following DFD of the PIPJ. We were unable to demonstrate any difference in post operative clinical outcomes between the fixation methods examined