Introduction. Tibial Pilon fractures are potentially limb threatening, yet standards of care are lacking from BOFAS and the BOA. The mantra of “span, scan, plan” describes staged management with external fixation to allow soft tissue resuscitation, followed by a planning CT-scan. Our aim was to evaluate how Tibial Pilon fractures are acutely managed. Methods. ENFORCE was a multi-centre retrospective observational study of the acute management of partial and complete articular Tibial Pilon fractures over a three-year period. Mechanism, imaging, fracture classification, time to fracture reduction and cast, and soft tissue damage control details were determined. Results. 656 patients (670 fractures) across 27 centres were reported. AO fracture classifications were: partial articular (n=294) and complete articular (n=376). Initial diagnostic imaging mobilities were: plain radiographs (n=602) and CT-scan (n=54), with all but 38 cases having a planning CT-scan. 526 fractures had a cast applied in the Emergency Department (91 before radiological diagnosis), with the times taken to obtain post cast imaging being: mean 2.7 hours, median 2.3 hours, range 28 mins – 14 hours). 35% (102/294) of partial articular and 57% (216/376) of complete articular (length unstable) fractures had an external fixator applied, all of which underwent a planning CT-scan. Definitive management consisted of: open reduction internal fixation (n=495), fine wire frame (n=86), spanning external fixator (n=25), intramedullary nail (n=25), other (n=18). Conclusion. The management of Tibial Pilon fractures is variable, with prolonged delays in obtaining post cast reduction radiographs, and just over half of length unstable complete articular fractures being managed with the gold standard “span, scan, plan” staged soft tissue resuscitation. A BOFAS endorsed BOAST (British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Trauma) for Tibial Pilon fractures is suggested for standardisation of the acute management of these potentially limb threatening injuries, together with setting them apart from more straightforward ankle fractures

I consider the term ‘minimally invasive surgery’ (MIS) to represent a wide range of techniques directed at achieving a surgical objective with less collateral tissue damage. The surgeon choosing to employ such techniques may aspire to achieve improved or more consistent outcome for their patients but is this so? What are the complications? In certain areas of surgery the concept of MIS is well established (e.g. knee and ankle arthroscopy). In forefoot surgery the concept has been met with interest but also skepticism. Much of this skepticism pivots around concerns that the loss of direct vision (maintained in arthroscopic techniques) may increase the risk of complications. In other words, there is a concern that due to the loss of direct visualization (replaced by intra-operative xray imaging), any benefit that might arise from the less invasive technique of the operation will be negated by either poorer quality of surgical correction or higher risk of injury to adjacent structures. All surgery is associated with a degree of risk and in considering the complications specifically associated with MIS of the forefoot we must try to separate out those complications related to the specific MIS technique involved and those that are not. In other words, we need to identify whether the complication has occurred as a result of incorrect surgical planning (e.g. wrong choice of osteotomy/flaws in surgical objective), poor execution of the surgical technique, or as a result of the MIS instrumentation/equipment. I will discuss the above in relation to my experience of complications encountered whilst employing minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of forefoot pathology over the last 2 years

Technique, inducations, complications and early outcomes with posterior ankle and subtalar arthroscopy. A. ANKLE ARTHROSCOPY: Tips and Pearls on Avoiding Complications. a. Introduction. i. understanding of the anatomy of the foot and ankle is critical to safe performance of arthroscopic procedures and prevention of complications. ii. understanding of the surface and intra-articular anatomy of the ankle/subtalaar region is essential. iii. topographical anatomy serves as a guide to the successful placement of arthroscopic portals in the ankle. iv. neurovascular and tendinous structures are most at risk. b. Indications for Posterior/Subtalar Arthroscopy. i. Posterior ankle/ST Impingement. ii. OLT Ankle (usually posteromedial). iii. Assist operative reduction of calc or post mal fractures. iv. Arthrodesis ankle/ST or both. c. Portals. i. Know the anatomy, use blunt dissection, minimize re-entry. ii. Preoperative plan for access, pathology, visualization. d. Prone Position. a. Posteromedial. b. Posterolateral. c. Accessory posterolateral. e. Set-up/instrumentation. i. Positioning -. ii. posterior, prone. iii. Distraction- non-invasive vs invasive (trans-calcaneal thin wire). iv. Equipment - general set-up/instruments. - scopes (4.0 for outside joint or fusions; 2.7 otherwise). - irrigation/pump (run at lowest flow possible). f. Tips on Avoiding Complications. i. Patient selection and education. ii. Careful preoperative planning, evaluation. iii. Know/respect your anatomy. iv. Meticulous portal placement/care. v. Limit operative time/distension/tissue damage. vi. Use mini C-arm to monitor. vii. Plan, plan and plan, if you are prepared, all will work out. viii. Rehabilitation protocol and follow up

Aims

Arthroplasty has become increasingly popular to treat end-stage ankle arthritis. Iatrogenic posterior neurovascular and tendinous injury have been described from saw cuts. However, it is hypothesized that posterior ankle structures could be damaged by inserting tibial guide pins too deeply and be a potential cause of residual hindfoot pain.

Aims

Identifying predictors of compartment syndrome in the foot after a fracture of the calcaneus may lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment. The aim of our study was to identify any such predictors.

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.