Introduction. Traditionally, radiological union of fractures treated with an Ilizarov frame is confirmed by a period of dynamization - destabilisation of the frame for a period prior to removal. Reduced clinic availability during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a shift to selective dynamisation in our department, whereby lower risk patients had their frames removed on the same day as destabilisation. This study investigates the effects of this change in practice on outcomes and complication rates. Materials & Methods. Adult patients treated with circular frames between April 2020 and February 2022 were identified from our Ilizarov database. Patients were divided into 2 groups: - “dynamised” if their frame was destabilised for a period to confirm union prior to removal; or “not dynamised” if the decision was taken to remove the frame without a period of dynamisation, other than a short period in the clinic. A retrospective review of clinical notes was conducted to determine outcome. Results. 175 patients were included in the final analysis, 70 in the dynamised and 103 in the not dynamised groups, median follow-up was 33 months. 3 patients in the dynamised group failed dynamisation and had their period of fixation extended, subsequently having their frames removed without complication. Two patients suffered a refracture or non-union after frame removal in the dynamised group and none in the not dynamised group, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions. In our practice, selective frame removal without a period of dynamisation appears safe. This has the potential to shorten frame time and reduce the number of clinic appointments and radiographic investigations for these patients. Some patients find the period of dynamisation uncomfortable and associated with pin site infection, which can be avoided. We plan to continue this practice and collect further data to confirm these findings in a larger dataset

Introduction. Frame configuration for the management of complex tibial fractures is highly variable and is dependent not only on fracture pattern and soft tissue condition but also surgeon preference. The optimal number of rings to use when designing a frame remains uncertain. Traditionally, larger, stiffer constructs with multiple rings per segment were thought to offer optimal conditions for bone healing, however, the concept of reverse dynamisation questions this approach. Materials & Methods. We compared clinical outcomes in 302 consecutive patients with tibial fractures treated in our unit with either a two-ring circular frame or a three-or-more-ring (3+) frame. The primary outcome measure was time spent in frame. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of malunion and the need for further surgical procedures to achieve bone union. The groups were evenly matched for age, co-morbidities, energy of injury mechanism, fracture classification, post-treatment alignment and presence of an open fracture. Results. The mean time in frame was 168 days for the 2-ring group and 200 days for the 3+ rings group (p=0.003). No significant difference was found in the rate of malunion (p=0.428) or the requirement for secondary surgical intervention to achieve union (p=0.363). No significant difference in time in frame was found between individual surgeons. Conclusions. This study finds that 2-ring frame constructs are a reliable option associated with significantly shorter duration of treatment and no increase in rates of adverse outcomes compared with larger, more complex frame configurations. Although this study cannot identify the underlying cause of the difference in treatment time between frame designs, it is possible that differences in mechanical stability lead to a more favourable strain environment for fracture healing in the 2-ring group

Aim. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the results of Expert tibial nailing for distal tibial fractures. Methods. All patients who had a distal third or distal end fracture of the tibia treated with the Expert tibial nail over a three year period at our institution were included in the study. A total of 44 distal tibial fractures in the same number of patients were treated with the nailing system. One patient died in the immediate post operative period from complications not directly related to the procedure and 3 were lost to follow up leaving a cohort of 40 patients for evaluation. 31 of the fractures were closed while the remaining 9 were open. The average age group of the cohort was 46.8 years with 26 males and 14 females. Results. All 40 patients were followed up to full radiological union of their tibia fractures. The average time to radiological union was 12.5 weeks for the closed fracture group and 15.1 weeks for the open fractures. The difference in time to union between the two groups was not statistically significant. There was infection around a distal locking screw in a closed fracture which settled with screw removal. Three patients in the closed fracture group required dynamisation to hasten union while none required dynamisation in the open fracture group. No bone grafting was performed on any of the patients. One patient had non union of a distal fibula fracture which required plating of as an additional procedure. On follow-up none of the patients reported knee pain or had limitation of ankle movements. Conclusion. The Expert tibial nail is an effective implant for the treatment of both open and closed distal tibial fractures with a low complication rate

To determine the outcome of subtrochanteric fractures treated by intramedullary (IM) nailing and identify causes for implant failure. We performed a retrospective analysis of all subtrochanteric fractures treated by intramedullary nailing in Belfast trauma units between February 2006 and 2009. This subgroup of patients was identified using the Fractures Outcome Research Database (FORD). Demographic data, implant type, operative details, duration of surgery and level of operator were collected and presented. Post-operative X-rays were assessed for accuracy of reduction. One hundred and twenty two (122) patients were identified as having a subtrochanteric fracture treated by IM nailing. There were 79 females and 43 males. Age range was 16 to 93 (mean 78). 95 (78%) cases were performed by training grades and 27 (22%) by consultants. Duration of surgery ranged from 73–129mins (mean 87mins). 47 patients (38.5%) were found to have a suboptimal reduction and 75 patients (61.5%) had an anatomical reduction on immediate post-operative x-ray. One year from surgery 73/122 patients were available for follow up. Of those patients with suboptimal reduction, 13/47 (27.7%) required further surgery. 8 required complete revision with bone grafting, and 5 underwent dynamisation. A further 6 patients had incomplete union. In the anatomical group, 4 patients underwent further surgery (5%). 3 required dynamisation and one had exchange nailing for an infected non-union. 3 patients had incomplete union at last follow up. 5/47 (10.6%) had open reduction in the suboptimal group compared to 25/75 (33.3%) in the anatomical group. Of the 27 cases performed by consultants, 13 (48%) were open reduction, compared to 17/93 (18%) by training grades. This study has shown that inadequate reduction of subtrochanteric fractures, leads to increased rates of non union and ultimately implant failure. We recommend a low threshold for performing open reduction to ensure anatomical reduction is achieved in all cases

Percutaneous grafting of non-union using bone marrow concentrates has shown promising results, we present our experience and outcomes following the use of microdrilling and marrowstim in long bone non-unions. We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing a marrowstim procedure for non-union in 2011–12. Casenotes and radiographs were reviewed for all. Details of injury, previous surgery and non-union interventions together with additional procedures performed after marrowstim were recorded for all patients. The time to clinical and radiological union were noted. We identified 32 patients, in sixteen the tibia was involved in 15 the femur and in one the humerus. Ten of the 32 had undergone intervention for non-union prior to marrowstim including 4 exchange nailings, 2 nail dynamisations, 3 caption graftings, 2 compression in circular frame and 1 revision of internal fixation. Three underwent adjunctive procedures at the time of marroswstim. In 18 further procedures were required following marrowstim. In 4 this involved frame adjustment, 5 underwent exchange nailing, 4 revision internal fixation, 2 additional marrowstim, 2 autologous bone grafting and 3 a course of exogen treatment. In total 27 achieved radiological and clinical union at a mean of 9.6 months, of these ten achieved union without requiring additional intervention following marrowstim, at a mean of 5.4 months. There were no complications relating to marrowstim harvest or application. Marrowstim appears to be a safe and relatively cheap addition to the armamentarium for treatment of non-union. However many patients require further procedures in addition to marrowstim to achieve union. Furthermore given the range of procedures this cohort of patients have undergone before and after marrowstim intervention it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding it efficacy

Introduction. Arthrodesis is usually offered to patients in whom a two stage exchange arthroplasty has already failed or is likely to fail because of local factors (such as soft tissue damage, bone loss or poor perfusion), or because of systemic conditions which categorise the patient as a C-host (e.g. immune deficiency, diabetes and malnutrition). In other words arthrodesis is selected for patients with the worst prognosis. Method. I use an intramedullary nail extending from trochanter to just above the ankle which is locked distally only. The nail is curved with an arc of a 2 meter radius. This conforms to the shape of the femur and when passed through to the straight tibia it ends against the posterior cortex of the distal tibia where the bone is thickest. It creates an angle of between 9° and 11° of flexion at the knee. The nail is bent into 5° of valgus at the point where the femur and tibia meet. This allows the two bones to coapt, dynamise and unite. The procedure is performed in two stages. At the first every effort is made to eradicate the infection by debridement and appropriate local and systemic antibiotics. The nail is inserted at the second procedure and again every effort is made to deal with infection. If infection persists one can easily remove the nail when the knee has fused, and repeat the attempt to eradicate the infection in better circumstances. I have devised a scoring system in order to evaluate the eradication of infection based on clinical grounds, laboratory investigations and radiological examination. This allows for the fact that cure of an infection is not based on any one parameter. Results. I have performed such an arthrodesis in 99 patients. Fusion occurred in 74% of those who had more than six months follow-up. The affected limb was shortened on average by 4 cm. After nailing, pain was relieved in 80% of patients using a sliding scale. Using the scoring system, 31% were definitely cured of infection, 34.5% were intermediate and 34.5% definitely failed. 29 patients had their nail removed and the infection was re-addressed. Using the same evaluation system 12 (24%) were definitely cured, 12 (24%) had a probable cure and 5 (18%) remained infected. This gives an overall eradication of infection of 84%. In 4 patients apparent union of the knee broke down resulting in a jog of movement at the knee. Three of these patients were made comfortable with a gaiter to support the knee. One had his knee re-fixed with a long intramedullary nail. Three nails fractured in situ. In one of these patients the nail had locking screws proximally and distally which prevented dynamisation and union. In the other two non-union was apparent and the nail sustained a fatigue fracture. NO DISCLOSURES