Aims

The management of open lower limb fractures in the United Kingdom has evolved over the last ten years with the introduction of major trauma networks (MTNs), the publication of standards of care and the wide acceptance of a combined orthopaedic and plastic surgical approach to management. The aims of this study were to report recent changes in outcome of open tibial fractures following the implementation of these changes.

This is a retrospective study of survivors of recent conflicts with an open fracture of the femur. We analysed the records of 48 patients (48 fractures) and assessed the outcome. The median follow up for 47 patients (98%) was 37 months (interquartile range 19 to 53); 31 (66%) achieved union; 16 (34%) had a revision procedure, two of which were transfemoral amputation (4%).

The New Injury Severity Score, the method of fixation, infection and the requirement for soft-tissue cover were not associated with a poor outcome. The degree of bone loss was strongly associated with a poor outcome (p = 0.00204). A total of four patients developed an infection; two with S. aureus, one with E. coli and one with A. baumannii.

This study shows that, compared with historical experience, outcomes after open fractures of the femur sustained on the battlefield are good, with no mortality and low rates of infection and late amputation. The degree of bone loss is closely associated with a poor outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:842–6.

Background

Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of ‘proven’ cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes.

Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur may be required to treat primary bone tumours or destructive metastases either with impending or established pathological fracture. Modular prostheses are available off the shelf and can be adapted to most reconstructive situations for this purpose. We have assessed the clinical and functional outcome of using the METS (Stanmore Implants Worldwide) modular tumour prosthesis to reconstruct the proximal femur in 100 consecutive patients between 2001 and 2006. We compared the results with the published series for patients managed with modular and custom-made endoprosthetic replacements for the same conditions.

There were 52 males and 48 females with a mean age of 56.3 years (16 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 24.6 months (0 to 60). In 65 patients the procedure was undertaken for metastases, in 25 for a primary bone tumour, and in ten for other malignant conditions. A total of 46 patients presented with a pathological fracture, and 19 presented with failed fixation of a previous pathological fracture. The overall patient survival was 63.6% at one year and 23.1% at five years, and was significantly better for patients with a primary bone tumour than for those with metastatic tumour (82.3% vs 53.3%, respectively at one year (p = 0.003)). There were six early dislocations of which five could be treated by closed reduction. No patient needed revision surgery for dislocation. Revision surgery was required by six (6%) patients, five for pain caused by acetabular wear and one for tumour progression. Amputation was needed in four patients for local recurrence or infection.

The estimated five-year implant survival with revision as the endpoint was 90.7%. The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 61% (51% to 95%). The implant survival and complications resulting from the use of the modular system were comparable to the published series of both custom-made and other modular proximal femoral implants.

We conclude that at intermediate follow-up the modular tumour prosthesis for proximal femur replacement provides versatility, a low incidence of implant-related complications and acceptable function for patients with metastatic tumours, pathological fractures and failed fixation of the proximal femur. It also functions as well as a custom-made endoprosthetic replacement.