Fragility ankles fractures in the geriatric population are challenging to manage, due to fracture instability, soft tissue compromise, patient co-morbidities. Traditional management options include open reduction internal fixation, or conservative treatment, both of which are fraught with high complication rates. We aimed to present functional outcomes of elderly patients with fragility ankle fractures treated with tibiotalocalcaneal nails. 171 patients received a tibiotalocalcaneal nail over a six-year period, but only twenty met the inclusion criteria of being over sixty and having poor bone stock, verified by radiological evidence of osteopenia or history of fragility fractures. Primary outcome was mortality risk from co-morbidities, according to the Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI), and patients’ post-operative mobility status compared to pre-operative mobility. Secondary outcomes include intra-operative and post-operative complications, six-month mortality rate, time to mobilisation and union. The mean age was 77.82 years old, five of whom are type 2 diabetics. The average CCI was 5.05. Thirteen patients returned to their pre-operative mobility state. Patients with low CCI are more likely to return to pre-operative mobility status (p=0.16; OR=4.00). Average time to bone union and mobilisation were 92.5 days and 7.63 days, respectively. Mean post-operative AOFAS ankle-hindfoot and Olerud-Molander scores were 53.0 (range 17-88) and 50.9 (range 20-85), respectively. There were four cases of broken distal locking screws, and four cases of superficial infection. Patients with high CCI were more likely to acquire superficial infections (p=0.264, OR=3.857). There were no deep infections, periprosthetic fractures, nail breakages, non-unions. TTC nailing is an effective treatment methodology for low-demand geriatric patients with fragility ankle fractures. This technique leads to low complication rates and early mobilisation. It is not a life-changing procedure, with many able to return to their pre-operative mobility status, which is important for preventing the loss of socioeconomic independence

Metacarpal fractures represent up to 33% of all hand fractures; of which the majority can be treated non-operatively. Previous research has shown excellent putcomes with non-operative treatment yet surgical stabilisation is recommended to avoid malrotation and symptomatic shortening. It is unknown whether operative is superior to non-operative treatment in oblique or spiral metacarpal shaft fractures. The aim of the study was to compare non-operative treatment of mobilisation with open surgical stabilisation. 42 adults (≥ 18 years) with a single displaced oblique or spiral metacarpal shaft fractures were randomly assigned in a 1:1 pattern to either non-operative treatment with free mobilisation or operative treatment with open reduction and fixation with lag screws in a prospective study. The primary outcome measure was grip-strength in the injured hand in comparison to the uninjured hand at 1-year follow-up. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score, ranges of motion, metacarpal shortening, complications, time off work, patient satisfaction and costs were secondary outcomes. All 42 patients attended final follow-up after 1 year. The mean grip strength in the non-operative group was 104% (range 73–250%) of the contralateral hand and 96% (range 58–121%) in the operatively treated patients. Mean metacarpal shortening was 5.0 (range 0–9) mm in the non-operative group and 0.6 (range 0–7) mm in the operative group. There were five minor complications and three revision operations, all in the operative group. The costs for non-operative treatment were estimated at 1,347 USD compared to 3,834USD for operative treatment; sick leave was significantly longer in the operative group (35 days, range 0–147) than in the non-operative group (12 days, range 0–62) (p=0.008). When treated with immediate free mobilization single, patients with displaced spiral or oblique metacarpal shaft fractures have outcomes that are comparable to those after operative treatment, despite some metacarpal shortening. Complication rates, costs and sick leave are higher with operative treatment. Early mobilisation of spiral or long oblique single metacarpal fractures is the preferred treatment. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03067454

Acetabular fractures in the elderly are associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality. Conservative management is reserved for those unfit for extensive reconstruction, or those who achieve ‘secondary congruence' of a complex fracture. We present demographic data and the results of conservative management in patients over 65 years of age. The Fracture Outcome Research Database (FORD) at our unit was interrogated for all patients over 65 years, who had sustained an acetabular fracture between June 2008 and June 2016. 410 patients were identified. Following exclusions, thirty-two patients were included for analysis. They had a mean age of 80 (66–91), and a mean ASA equivalent score of 3.1 (2–4). Mean follow up was five (1–9) years. Twenty-five patients lived in their own home and seven in a nursing home. Thirty had low energy injures, two high energy. Twenty-four (75%) had anterior column posterior hemitransverse fractures, seven (22%) had associated both column and one (3%) had a T-type fracture. The mean length of inpatient stay was 43 days (4–140). Maximum post-operative mobility was limited to a hoist in eight (25%), a frame with or without assistance in 15 (47%), a stick in five (16%) and independence in four (13%). Thirty-day mortality was 6%- and one-year mortality 22%. The data demonstrates that conservative treatment in this cohort leads to long inpatient stays, poor mobility and significant levels of mortality. Complex reconstruction remains demanding on both surgeon and patient. Innovative ways of managing these patients are needed to improve outcomes

Background. Patients presenting to fracture clinic who have had initial management of a fracture performed by Accident and Emergency (A+E) often require further intervention to correct unacceptable position. This usually takes the form of booking a patient for a general anaesthetic to have manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) or open surgery. Methods. Prospective data collection over a 6-month period. Included subjects were those that had initial management of a fracture performed by A+E, who went on to require re-manipulation in fracture-clinic. Manipulations were performed by trained plaster technicians using entonox analgesia followed by application of moulded cast. Radiographs were reviewed immediately post-manipulation by treating surgeon and patient managed accordingly. A retrospective review of radiograph images was performed by two doctors independently to grade the outcomes following manipulation. Results. 38 patients with 39 fractures included in study. Sites of fracture included 32 distal radius, 2 ankle, 1 spiral distal tibia and fibula, 3 metacarpal and 1 proximal phalanx of finger. 22 patients had anatomical/near-to anatomical reduction at post fracture-clinic manipulation of fracture and was the as well as definitive management (satisfactory outcome). 13 patients had a outcome 2 (minimally displaced but and satisfactory reduction of the fracture) at post fracture-clinic reduction. 12 of these were deemed acceptable went onto outcome 1 for definitive management with 1 going to outcome 2 (requiringed further manipulation). 4 patients had unsatisfactory reduction of fracture outcome 3 at post fracture-clinic reduction and all of these patients went onto outcome 3 (required surgery). Conclusions. This study supports the practice of possible primary reduction and if required, re-manipulation and cast moulding using only entonox analgesia, of selected patient cases fractures by trained plaster technicians. Without this intervention, almost all of these cases will have required an MUA or additionally Kirscher wire or open fixation. There is potential to utilise a plaster technician in A+E, reducing the need for further fracture clinic appointments, being more acceptable to patients and having a resultant cost-saving implication. Level of Evidence. Level 3