Aims. Displaced, comminuted acetabular fractures in the elderly are increasingly common, but there is no consensus on whether they should be treated non-surgically, surgically with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), or with acute total hip arthroplasty (THA). A combination of ORIF and acute THA, an approach called ’combined hip procedure’ (CHP), has been advocated and our aim was to compare the outcome after CHP or ORIF alone. Patients and Methods. A total of 27 patients with similar acetabular fractures (severe acetabular impaction with or without concomitant femoral head injury) with a mean age of 72.2 years (50 to 89) were prospectively followed for a minimum of two years. In all, 14 were treated with ORIF alone and 13 were treated with a CHP. Hip joint and patient survival were estimated. Operating times, blood loss, radiological outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. Results. No patient in the CHP group required further hip surgery, giving THA a survival rate of 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 100 to 100) after three years, compared with 28.6% hip joint survival in the ORIF group (95% CI 12.5 to 65.4; p = 0.001). No dislocations or deep infections occurred in the CHP group. No patient died within the first year after index surgery, but patient survival was lower in the CHP group after three years. There were no relevant differences in patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion. The CHP confers a considerably reduced need of further surgery when compared with ORIF alone in elderly patients with complex acetabular fractures. These findings encourage both further use of, and larger prospective studies on, the CHP. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:478–483

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine both the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for, postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with either a collared cementless (CC) femoral component or a cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) femoral component. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of 11,018 THAs over a ten-year period. All POPFFs were identified using regional radiograph archiving and electronic care systems. Results. A total of 11,018 THAs were implanted: 4,952 CC femoral components and 6,066 cemented PTS femoral components. Between groups, age, sex, and BMI did not differ. Overall, 91 patients (0.8%) sustained a POPFF. For all patients with a POPFF, 16.5% (15/91) were managed conservatively, 67.0% (61/91) underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and 16.5% (15/91) underwent revision. The CC group had a lower POPFF rate compared to the PTS group (0.7% (36/4,952) vs 0.9% (55/6,066); p = 0.345). Fewer POPFFs in the CC group required surgery (0.4% (22/4,952) vs 0.9% (54/6,066); p = 0.005). Fewer POPFFs required surgery in males with a CC than males with a PTS (0.3% (7/2,121) vs 1.3% (36/2,674); p < 0.001). Conclusion. Male patients with a PTS femoral component were five times more likely to have a reoperation for POPFF. Female patients had the same incidence of reoperation with either component type. Of those having a reoperation, 80.3% (61/76) had an ORIF, which could greatly mask the size of this problem in many registries. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):144–150

Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability and clinical outcome of external fixator combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treating Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures. Methods. Two types of fixation systems were selected for finite element analysis and a dual cohort study. Two fixation systems were simulated to fix the fracture in a finite element model. The relative displacement and stress distribution were analysed and compared. A total of 71 consecutive patients with closed Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the treatment to which they chose: the EFLIF group and the ORIF group. The radiological and clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared. Results. The relative displacement of the EFLIF was less than that of the plate (0.1363 mm to 0.1808 mm). The highest von Mises stress value on the plate was 33% higher than that on the EFLIF. A normal restoration of the Böhler angle was achieved in both groups. No significant difference was found in the clinical outcome on the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle Hindfoot Scale, or on the Visual Analogue Scale between the two groups (p > 0.05). Wound complications were more common in those who were treated with ORIF (p = 0.028). Conclusions. Both EFLIF and ORIF systems were tested to 160 N without failure, showing the new construct to be mechanically safe to use. Both EFLIF and ORIF could be effective in treating Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures. The EFLIF may be superior to ORIF in achieving biomechanical stability and less blood loss, shorter surgical time and hospital stay, and fewer wound complications. Cite this article: M. Pan, L. Chai, F. Xue, L. Ding, G. Tang, B. Lv. Comparisons of external fixator combined with limited internal fixation and open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures: Finite element analysis and clinical outcome. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:433–438. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.2000640

Aims. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available. Methods. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis. Results. A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively. Conclusion. This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842–849

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare reoperation and revision rates of double plating (DP), single plating using a lateral locking plate (SP), or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs).

Objectives. To investigate the differences of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of complex AO Type C distal radius fractures between two different models of a single implant type. Methods. A total of 136 patients who received either a 2.4 mm (n = 61) or 3.5 mm (n = 75) distal radius locking compression plate (LCP DR) using a volar approach were followed over two years. The main outcome measurements included motion, grip strength, pain, and the scores of Gartland and Werley, the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH). Differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using regression analysis and the likelihood ratio test with significance based on the Bonferroni corrected p-value of < 0.003. Results. The groups were similar with respect to baseline and injury characteristics as well as general surgical details. The risk of experiencing a complication after ORIF with a LCP DR 2.4 mm was 18% (n = 11) compared with 11% (n = 8) after receiving a LCP DR 3.5 mm (p = 0.45). Wrist function was also similar between the cohorts based on the mean ranges of movement (all p > 0.052) and grip strength measurements relative to the contralateral healthy side (p = 0.583). In addition, DASH and SF-36 component scores as well as pain were not significantly different between the treatment groups throughout the two-year period (all p ≥ 0.005). No patient from either treatment group had a step-off > 2 mm. Conclusions. Differences in plate design do not influence the overall final outcome of fracture fixation using LCP.

The use of tourniquets in lower limb trauma surgery to control bleeding and improve the surgical field is a long established practice. In this article, we review the evidence relating to harms and benefits of tourniquet use in lower limb fracture fixation surgery and report the results of a survey on current tourniquet practice among trauma surgeons in the UK.

In light of the growing number of elderly osteopenic patients with distal humeral fractures, we discuss the history of their management and current trends. Under most circumstances operative fixation and early mobilisation is the treatment of choice, as it gives the best results. The relative indications for and results of total elbow replacement versus internal fixation are discussed.

Most fractures of the radial head are stable undisplaced or minimally displaced partial fractures without an associated fracture of the elbow or forearm or ligament injury, where stiffness following non-operative management is the primary concern. Displaced unstable fractures of the radial head are usually associated with other fractures or ligament injuries, and restoration of radiocapitellar contact by reconstruction or prosthetic replacement of the fractured head is necessary to prevent subluxation or dislocation of the elbow and forearm. In fractures with three or fewer fragments (two articular fragments and the neck) and little or no metaphyseal comminution, open reduction and internal fixation may give good results. However, fragmented unstable fractures of the radial head are prone to early failure of fixation and nonunion when fixed. Excision of the radial head is associated with good long-term results, but in patients with instability of the elbow or forearm, prosthetic replacement is preferred.

This review considers the characteristics of stable and unstable fractures of the radial head, as well as discussing the debatable aspects of management, in light of the current best evidence.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:151–9.

The ideal form of fixation for displaced, extra-articular fractures of the distal tibia remains controversial. In the UK, open reduction and internal fixation with locking-plates and intramedullary nailing are the two most common forms of treatment. Both techniques provide reliable fixation but both are associated with specific complications. There is little information regarding the functional recovery following either procedure.

We performed a randomised pilot trial to determine the functional outcome of 24 adult patients treated with either a locking-plate (n = 12) or an intramedullary nailing (n = 12). At six months, there was an adjusted difference of 13 points in the Disability Rating Index in favour of the intramedullary nail. However, this was not statistically significant in this pilot trial (p = 0.498). A total of seven patients required further surgery in the locking-plate group and one in the intramedullary nail group.

This study suggests that there may be clinically relevant, functional differences in patients treated with nail versus locking-plate fixation for fractures of the distal tibia and differences in related complications. Further trials are required to confirm the findings of this pilot investigation.

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of complex radial head fractures at mid-term follow-up, and determine whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or radial head arthroplasty (RHA) should be recommended for surgical treatment. Methods. Patients who underwent surgery for complex radial head fractures (Mason type III, ≥ three fragments) were divided into two groups (ORIF and RHA) and propensity score matching was used to individually match patients based on patient characteristics. Ultimately, 84 patients were included in this study. After a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (2.0 to 9.5), patients were invited for clinical and radiological assessment. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire score were evaluated. Results. Patients treated with ORIF showed significantly better postoperative range of motion for flexion and extension (121.1° (SD 16.4°) vs 108.1° (SD 25.8°); p = 0.018). Postoperative functional scores also showed significantly better results in the ORIF group (MEPS 90.1 (SD 13.6) vs 78 (SD 20.5); p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the complication rate (RHA 23.8% (n = 10) vs ORIF 26.2% (n = 11)). Implant-related complications occurred in six cases (14.3%) in the RHA group and in five cases (11.9%) in the ORIF group. Conclusion. Irrespective of the patient’s age, sex, type of injury, or number of fracture fragments, ORIF of the radial head should be attempted initially, if a stable reconstruction can be achieved, as it seems to provide a superior postoperative outcome for the patient compared to primary RHA. If reconstruction is not feasible, RHA is still a viable alternative. In the surgical treatment of complex radial head fractures, reconstruction shows superior postoperative outcomes compared to RHA. Good postoperative results can be achieved even after failed reconstruction and conversion to secondary RHA. Therefore, we encourage surgeons to favour reconstruction of complex radial head fractures, regardless of injury type or number of fragments, as long as a stable fixation can be achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1158–1164

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Results. A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). Conclusion. Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124–134

Aims. The objectives of this study were to investigate the patient characteristics and mortality of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) subgroups divided into two groups according to femoral component stability and to compare postoperative clinical outcomes according to treatment in Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures. Methods. A total of 126 Vancouver type B fractures were analyzed from 2010 to 2019 in 11 associated centres' database (named TRON). We divided the patients into two Vancouver type B subtypes according to implant stability. Patient demographics and functional scores were assessed in the Vancouver type B subtypes. We estimated the mortality according to various patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty (revision) groups in patients with unstable subtype. Results. The one-year mortality rate of the stable and unstable subtype of Vancouver type B was 9.4% and 16.4%. Patient demographic factors, including residential status and pre-injury mobility were associated with mortality. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and Revision in either Vancouver B subtype. Patients treated with revision had significantly higher Parker Mobility Score (PMS) values (5.48 vs 3.43; p = 0.00461) and a significantly lower visual analogue scale (VAS) values (1.06 vs 1.94; p = 0.0399) for pain than ORIF in the unstable subtype. Conclusion. Among patients with Vancouver type B fractures, frail patients, such as those with worse scores for residential status and pre-injury mobility, had a high mortality rate. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and those treated with revision. However, in the unstable subtype, the PMS and VAS values at the final follow-up examination were significantly better in patients who received revision. Based on postoperative activities of daily life, we therefore recommend evision in instances when either treatment option is feasible. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):38–46

Aims. We report the long-term outcomes of the UK Heel Fracture Trial (HeFT), a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Methods. HeFT recruited 151 patients aged over 16 years with closed displaced, intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus. Patients with significant deformity causing fibular impingement, peripheral vascular disease, or other significant limb injuries were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or nonoperative treatment. We report Kerr-Atkins scores, self-reported difficulty walking and fitting shoes, and additional surgical procedures at 36, 48, and 60 months. Results. Overall, 60-month outcome data were available for 118 patients (78%; 52 ORIF, 66 nonoperative). After 60 months, mean Kerr-Atkins scores were 79.2 (SD 21.5) for ORIF and 76.4 (SD 22.5) for nonoperative. Mixed effects regression analysis gave an estimated effect size of -0.14 points (95% confidence interval -8.87 to 8.59; p = 0.975) in favour of ORIF. There were no between group differences in difficulty walking (p = 0.175), or on the type of shoes worn (p = 0.432) at 60 months. Additional surgical procedures were conducted on ten participants allocated ORIF, compared to four in the nonoperative group (p = 0.043). Conclusion. ORIF of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures, not causing fibular impingement, showed no difference in outcomes at 60 months compared to nonoperative treatment, but with an increased risk of additional surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1040–1046

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter). Methods. This retrospective cohort study assessed 152 operatively managed consecutive unilateral Vancouver B fractures involving Exeter stems; 130 were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and 22 with revision arthroplasty. Mean follow-up was 6.5 years (SD 2.6; 3.2 to 12.1). The primary outcome measure was revision of at least one component. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed. Regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for revision following ORIF. Secondary outcomes included any reoperation, complications, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Results. Fractures (B1 n = 74 (49%); B2 n = 50 (33%); and B3 n = 28 (18%)) occurred at median of 4.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.2 to 9.2) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 138) or hemiarthroplasty (n = 14). Rates of revision and reoperation were significantly higher following revision arthroplasty compared to ORIF for B2 (p = 0.001) and B3 fractures (p = 0.050). Five-year survival was significantly better following ORIF: 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.4% to 97.4%) versus 63% (95% CI 41.7% to 83.3%), p < 0.001. ORIF was associated with reduced blood transfusion requirement and reoperations, but there were no differences in medical complications, hospital stay, or mortality between surgical groups. No independent predictors of revision following ORIF were identified: where the bone-cement interface was intact, fixation of B2 or B3 fractures was not associated with an increased risk of revision. Conclusion. When the bone-cement interface was intact and the fracture was anatomically reducible, all Vancouver B fractures around Exeter stems could be managed with fixation as opposed to revision arthroplasty. Fixation was associated with reduced need for blood transfusion and lower risk of revision surgery compared with revision arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):309–320

Aims. To compare complication-related reoperation rates following primary arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) versus secondary arthroplasty for failed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Patients and Methods. We identified patients aged 50 years and over, who sustained a PHF between 2004 and 2015, from linkable datasets. We used intervention codes to identify patients treated with initial ORIF or arthroplasty, and those treated with ORIF who returned for revision arthroplasty within two years. We used multilevel logistic regression to compare reoperations between groups. Results. We identified 1624 patients who underwent initial arthroplasty for PHF, and 98 patients who underwent secondary arthroplasty following failed ORIF. In total, 72 patients (4.4%) in the primary arthroplasty group had a reoperation within two years following arthroplasty, compared with 19 patients (19.4%) in the revision arthroplasty group. This difference was significantly different (p < 0.001) after covariable adjustment. Conclusion. The number of reoperations following arthroplasty for failed ORIF of PHF is significantly higher compared with primary arthroplasty. This suggests that primary arthroplasty may be a better choice for patients whose prognostic factors suggest a high reoperation rate following ORIF. Prospective clinical studies are required to confirm these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1272–1279

The December 2024 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Predicting recurrence of instability after a primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation; Predictors of surgery and long-term outcomes in nonoperative management of full-thickness rotator cuff tears; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty viable despite acquired acromial compromise, but higher infection risk noted; LP-PRP reduces retear rates in rotator cuff repair but shows no functional outcome advantage; Long-term clinical outcomes of arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair using the single anchor tension band technique – minimum five-year follow-up; Arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder dislocation shows low recurrence rates regardless of prior dislocations; ORIF outperforms arthroplasty for complex radial head fractures: mid-term outcomes; Routine use of surgical helmet systems may not reduce infection risk in shoulder arthroplasty

The April 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic Bankart repair in athletes: in it for the long run?; Functional outcomes and the Wrightington classification of elbow fracture-dislocations; Hemiarthroplasty or ORIF intra-articular distal humerus fractures in older patients; Return to sport after total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty; Readmissions after shoulder arthroplasty; Arthroscopic Bankart repair in the longer term; Bankart repair with(out) remplissage or the Latarjet procedure? A systematic review and meta-analysis; Regaining motion among patients with shoulder pathology: are all exercises equal?

Lisfranc injuries were previously described as fracture-dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joints. With advancements in modern imaging, subtle Lisfranc injuries are now more frequently recognized, revealing that their true incidence is much higher than previously thought. Injury patterns can vary widely in severity and anatomy. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to achieve good outcomes. The original classification systems were anatomy-based, and limited as tools for guiding treatment. The current review, using the best available evidence, instead introduces a stability-based classification system, with weightbearing radiographs and CT serving as key diagnostic tools. Stable injuries generally have good outcomes with nonoperative management, most reliably treated with immobilization and non-weightbearing for six weeks. Displaced or comminuted injuries require surgical intervention, with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) being the most common approach, with a consensus towards bridge plating. While ORIF generally achieves satisfactory results, its effectiveness can vary, particularly in high-energy injuries. Primary arthrodesis remains niche for the treatment of acute injuries, but may offer benefits such as lower rates of post-traumatic arthritis and hardware removal. Novel fixation techniques, including suture button fixation, aim to provide flexible stabilization, which theoretically could improve midfoot biomechanics and reduce complications. Early findings suggest promising functional outcomes, but further studies are required to validate this method compared with established techniques. Future research should focus on refining stability-based classification systems, validation of weightbearing CT, improving rehabilitation protocols, and optimizing surgical techniques for various injury patterns to ultimately enhance patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1431–1442