Abstract

The surgical correction of hammer digits offers a variety of surgical treatments ranging from arthroplasty to arthrodesis, with many options for fixation. In the present study, we compared 2 buried implants for arthrodesis of lesser digit deformities: a Smart Toe® implant and a buried Kirschner wire. Both implants were placed in a prepared interphalangeal joint, did not violate other digital or metatarsal joints, and were not exposed percutaneously. A retrospective comparative study was performed of 117 digits with either a Smart Toe® implant or a buried Kirschner wire, performed from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010. Of the 117 digits, 31 were excluded because of a lack of 90-day radiographic follow-up. The average follow-up was 94 to 1130 days. The average patient age was 61.47 (range 43 to 84) years. Of the 86 included digits, 48 were left digits and 38 were right. Of the digits corrected, 54 were second digits, 24 were third digits and 8 were fourth digits. Fifty-eight Smart Toe® implants were found (15 with 19-mm straight; 2 with 19-mm angulated; 34 with 16-mm straight; and 7 with 16-mm angulated). Twenty-eight buried Kirschner wires were evaluated. No statistically significant difference was found between the Smart Toe® implants and the buried Kirschner wires, including the rate of malunion, nonunion, fracture of internal fixation, and the need for revision surgery. Of the 86 implants, 87.9% of the Smart Toe® implants and 85.7% of the buried Kirschner wires were in good position (0° to 10° of transverse angulation on radiographs). Osseous union was achieved in 68.9% of Smart Toe® implants and 82.1% of buried Kirschner wires. Fracture of internal fixation occurred in 12 of the Smart Toe® implants (20.7%) and 2 of the buried Kirschner wires (7.1%). Most of the fractured internal fixation and malunions or nonunions were asymptomatic, leading to revision surgery in only 8.6% of the Smart Toe® implants and 10.7% of the buried Kirschner wires. Both the Smart Toe® implant and the buried Kirschner wire offer a viable choice for internal fixation of an arthrodesis of the digit compared with other studies using other techniques

Fracture of the acetabulum can result in damage to the articular surface that ranges from minimal to catastrophic. Hip arthroplasty may be required for more severe injuries due to marked articular surface damage, post traumatic degenerative changes, persistent malunion or nonunion, or occasionally avascular necrosis and destruction of the femoral head. These problems may be seen following both closed and open fracture treatment, but prior open reduction and internal fixation often makes subsequent THA more difficult due to soft tissue scarring and retained hardware. In select acute acetabular fracture cases with severe initial comminution of the joint, open reduction and fixation can be technically impossible or so clearly destined to early failure that initial fracture treatment with combined limited fixation and simultaneous THA is the best option, especially in osteoporotic elderly fracture patients. Problems which may be encountered during any THA in a patient with a prior acetabular fracture include: difficult exposure due to soft tissue defects and scarring, presence of heterotopic ossification, and nerve palsy from the original fracture or subsequent osteosynthesis. Retained hardware can present significant challenges and frequently is left in place or removed in part or completely, when intraarticular in location or blocking preparation of the acetabular cavity and placement of the cup. Additional potential problems include residual deformity and malunion, persistent pelvic dissociation or nonunion of fracture fragments, cavitary or segmental bone loss from displaced or resorbed bone fragments, and occasionally occult deep infection. Preoperative assessment and planning should include careful consideration of the most appropriate surgical approach, which may be impacted by the need for hardware removal. Screening laboratory studies and aspiration of the hip may prove helpful in excluding associated deep infection. Intraoperative sciatic nerve monitoring may be of assistance in patients with partial residual nerve deficits or where extensive posterior exposure and mobilization of the sciatic nerve is needed for hardware removal or excision of heterotopic ossification. Metal cutting tools to allow partial removal of long plates and adjunctive equipment for removal of broken or stripped screws should be routinely available during these cases. Careful preoperative planning regarding implant and reconstructive options can also ensure availability of proper components and equipment. Often implants and techniques developed for revision surgery for management of major bone deficiencies are needed. Reported results suggest that surgery is frequently prolonged, can be associated with greater blood loss and may result in increased risk of post-arthroplasty heterotopic ossification when compared to routine primary procedures. Bone stock and fracture union may be better in patients with prior internal fixation than in those with nonoperative treatment of major displaced acetabular fractures. Available long-term results document more durable results with lower rates of aseptic loosening with uncemented acetabular fixation compared to cemented acetabular components. These patients are at higher risk of revision and failure than patients undergoing THA for simple osteoarthritis, though initial short-term results are comparable to conventional hip arthroplasty patients, as long as early wound healing problems and deep infection can be avoided, which is a greater risk for acute THA for initial fracture care. The application of newer implant designs, highly porous ingrowth materials, and methods for management of acetabular bone deficiency developed for revision THA have helped improve results in this challenging subset of primary THA patients

Fresh-frozen allograft bone is frequently used in orthopaedic surgery. We investigated the incidence of allograft-related infection and analysed the outcomes of recipients of bacterial culture-positive allografts from our single-institute bone bank during bone transplantation. The fresh-frozen allografts were harvested in a strict sterile environment during total joint arthroplasty surgery and immediately stored in a freezer at -78º to -68º C after packing. Between January 2007 and December 2012, 2024 patients received 2083 allografts with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The overall allograft-associated infection rate was 1.2% (24/2024). Swab cultures of 2083 allografts taken before implantation revealed 21 (1.0%) positive findings. The 21 recipients were given various antibiotics at the individual orthopaedic surgeon’s discretion. At the latest follow-up, none of these 21 recipients displayed clinical signs of infection following treatment. Based on these findings, we conclude that an incidental positive culture finding for allografts does not correlate with subsequent surgical site infection. Additional prolonged post-operative antibiotic therapy may not be necessary for recipients of fresh-frozen bone allograft with positive culture findings.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:427–31.