Aim. The treatment of fracture-related infections (FRI) focuses on obtaining fracture healing and eradicating infection to prevent osteomyelitis. Treatment guidelines include removal, exchange, or retention of the implants used according to the stability of the fracture and the time from the infection. Infection of a fracture in the process of healing with a stable fixation may be treated with implant retention, debridement, and antibiotics. Nonetheless, the retention of an intramedullary nail is a potential risk factor for failure, and it is recommended to exchange or remove the nail. This surgical approach implies additional life-threatening risks in elderly fragile hip fracture patients. Our study aimed to analyze the results of implant retention for the treatment of infected nails in elderly hip fracture patients. Methods. Our retrospective analysis included patients 65 years of age or older with an acute fracture-related infection treated with implant retention from 2012 to 2020 in 6 Spanish hospitals with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients that required open reduction during the initial fracture surgery were excluded. Variables included in our analysis were patient demographics, type of fracture, date of FRI diagnosis, causative microorganism, and outcome. Treatment success was defined as fracture healing with infection eradication without the need for further hospitalization. Results. A total of 48 patients were identified. Eight patients with open reduction were excluded and 11 did not complete a 1-year follow-up. Out of the 29 remaining patients, the mean age was 81.5 years, with a 21:9, female to male ratio. FRI was diagnosed between 10 and 48 days after initial surgery (mean 26 days). Treatment success was achieved in 24 patients (82.7%). Failure was objectivated in polymicrobial infections or infections caused by microorganisms resistant to antibiofilm antibiotics. Seven patients required more than one debridement with a success rate of 57%. Twelve patients had an infection diagnosed after 21 days from the initial surgery and implant retention was successful in all of them. Conclusion. Our results suggest implant retention is a valid therapeutic approach for fracture-related infection in elderly hip fracture patients treated by closed reduction and intramedullary nailing

Aim. To classify Fracture-related Infection (FRI) allowing comparison of clinical studies and to guide decision-making around the main surgical treatment concepts. Method. An international group of FRI experts met in Lisbon, June 2022 and proposed a new FRI classification. A core group met during the EBJIS Meeting in Graz, 2022 and on-line, to determine the preconditions, purpose, primary factors for inclusion, format and the detailed description of the elements of an FRI Classification. Results. Historically, FRI was classified by time from injury alone (early, delayed or late). Time produces pathophysiological changes which affect the bone, the soft-tissues and the patient general health, over a continuum. No definitive cut-off is therefore possible. Also, in several studies, time was not identified as an independent predictor of outcome. The most important primary factors were characteristics of the fracture (F), relevant systemic co-morbidities of the patient (R) and impairment of the soft-tissue envelope (I). These factors determine FRI severity, choice of treatment method and are predictors of outcome. For the fracture (F), the state of healing, the potential for bone healing and the presence or absence of a bone defect are critical factors. Co-morbidities are listed and the degree of end-organ damage is important (R). The ability to close the wound directly or the need for soft tissue reconstruction determines the impairment of the soft tissue component (I). Hence the FRI Classification was designed. The final proposal of the FRI Classification is presented here. The new classification has five stages; from simple cases of infected healed fractures, in healthy individuals with good soft tissues (Stage 1), through unhealed fractures with variable potential for bone healing (Stages 2, 3 or 4) to Stage 5, with no limb-sparing or reconstructive options. For instance, the need for a free flap (I4), over a well-healed fracture (F1), in a patient with 2 co-morbidities (R2) gives a classification of F1R2I4 for that patient. Conclusions. This novel approach to FRI classification builds on previous work in osteomyelitis, PJI and chronic medical conditions. It focusses attention on the elements of the disease which need treatment. It now requires validation in large patient cohorts. On behalf of the FRI Classification Consensus Group

Treatment of segmental bone defects remains a major clinical problem, and innovative strategies are often necessary to successfully reconstruct large volumes of bone. When fractures occur, the resulting hematoma serves as a reservoir for growth factors and a space for cell infiltration, both crucial to the initiation of bone healing. Our previous studies have demonstrated very clear ultrastructural differences between fracture hematomas formed in normally healing fractures and those formed in segmental bone defects. However, there is little information available regarding potential differences in the underlying gene expression between hematomas formed in normal fractures, which usually heal by themselves, and segmental bone defects, which do not. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify differences in gene expression within hematomas collected from 0.5 mm (normal fracture) and 5 mm (segmental bone defect) fracture sites during the earliest stages of bone healing. Osteotomies of 0.5 and 5 mm in the femur of Fisher 344 rats were stabilized with external fixators (RISystem AG). After 3 days the rats were sacrificed, and the fracture hematomas were collected for RNA-sequencing. Ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) was used to identify upstream regulators and biological functions that were significantly enriched with differentially expressed genes from the RNA-sequencing analysis. Animal procedures were conducted following the IACUC protocol of the UT Health Science Center San Antonio. Key upstream regulators of bone formation were less active (e.g. TGFB1, FGF2, SMAD3) or even inhibited (e.g. WNT3A, RUNX2, BMP2) in non-healing defects when compared to normally healing fractures. Many upstream regulators that were uniquely enriched in healing defects were molecules recently discovered to have osteogenic effects during fracture healing (e.g. GLI1, EZH2). Upstream regulators uniquely enriched in non-healing defects were mainly involved in an abnormal modulation of hematopoiesis, revealing evidence of impaired maturation of functional macrophages and cytokines (e.g. IL3, CEBPE), both essential for successful bone healing. In addition, the enrichment pattern suggested a dysregulation of megakaryopoiesis (e.g. MRTFA, MRTFB, GATA2), which directly affects platelet production, and therefore fracture hematoma formation. Remarkably, the organization of the ECM was the most significantly enriched biological function in the normally healing fractures, and implies that the defect size directly affected the structural properties within the fracture hematoma. Conversely, genes encoding important ECM components (e.g. BGN, various collagens, IBSP, TNC), cell adhesion molecules, MMPs (MMP2), and TIMPs were all significantly downregulated in non-healing defects. Our most recent findings reveal new important key molecules that regulate defect size-dependent fracture healing. Combined with our previous results, which identified structural differences in fracture hematomas from both types of defects, current findings indicate that differential expression of genes is dictated by the structural properties of the hematomas formed during early fracture healing. Consequently, creating a bioscaffold that mimics the structure of normal fracture hematomas could be the first step towards developing new orthoregenerative treatment strategies that potentiate healing of large bone defects and non-healing fractures

Introduction. We aimed to determine whether there are differences in patient-reported quality of life (QoL) outcome between local flap versus free flap. Materials and Methods. All patients admitted with lower limb open fractures were retrospectively reviewed. Patient notes were assessed for demographics, time to fracture union, wound healing and patient-reported QoL with EQ-5D-5L, alongside a novel flap assessment tool. Results. A total of 40 patients had flap reconstruction of their lower limb injury; 23 local flap (Group I) and 17 free flaps (Group II). The average length of follow-up was 33.8 months. Group I - 10 revisions of flaps (43.5%) and 14 surgical complications (60.9%). Fracture union was 171 days and wound healing 130 days. EQ-5D index and EQVAS scores were 0.709 and 79.3, respectively. Group II – 8 revision of flaps (47.1%) and 12 surgical complications (70.6%). Fracture union was 273 days and wound healing 213 days. EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS scores were 0.525 and 57.2, respectively. Aesthetic appeal - 48% Group I vs. 66% Group II. Significant differences were found between the two flap groups with higher scores for daily living in Group I (p–0.007) compared to higher overall flap ratings in Group II (p–0.049). Both groups were comparable in terms of complications, while flap congestion and dehiscence were more common with free flaps. statistical interrogation did not elicit significance (p > 0.05). Conclusions. Local flap and free flap techniques offer distinct advantages. Local flaps have a better surgical outcome and patient-reported QoL in the first few years post soft tissue reconstruction. Differences between local and free reconstructive techniques in terms of patient health and function are ameliorated in the longer term

The Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) is an outcome instrument designed to describe radiographic healing of femoral neck fractures. The ability to identify fractures that have not healed is important for defining non-union in clinical trials and predicting patients that likely require additional surgery to promote fracture healing. We sought to determine a RUSH threshold score that defines nonunion at 6-months post-injury. Our secondary objective was to determine if this threshold was associated with increased risk for non-union surgery. A sample of 248 patients with adequate six-month hip radiographs and complete two-year clinical follow-up were analysed from a multi-national hip fracture trial (FAITH). All patients had a femoral neck fracture and were treated with either multiple cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw. Two reviewers independently determined the RUSH score based on the six-month post-injury radiographs, and agreement was assessed using the Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Fracture healing was determined by two independent methods: 1) prospectively by the treating surgeon using clinical and radiographic assessments, and 2) retrospectively by a Central Adjudication Committee using radiographs alone. Receiver Operator Curve analysis was used to define a RUSH threshold score that was specific for fracture nonunion. RUSH score inter-rater agreement was high (ICC: 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.85). The mean six-month RUSH score for all included patients was 24.4 (SD 3.4). A threshold score of <18 was associated with a greater than 98% specificity for nonunion. Furthermore, patients with a six-month RUSH score below 18 were more the seven-times more likely to require revision surgery for nonunion (Relative Risk: 7.25, 95% CI 2.62 to 20.00). The six-month RUSH score can effectively be used to communicate when a femoral neck fracture has not healed. The validity of our conclusions was further supported by the increased risk of nonunion surgery for patients below the RUSH threshold. We believe our findings can standardise a definition of nonunion for clinical trials and recommend the use of the RUSH and its <18-point threshold when describing femoral neck nonunion

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting include autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because it is present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute use was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly four types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately, we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting includes autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because it is present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute use was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly 4 types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Aim. The aim of this study was to define the role of implant material and surface topography on infection susceptibility in a preclinical in vivo model incorporating appropriate fracture biomechanics and bone healing. Method. The implants included in this experimental study were composed of: standard Electro polished Stainless Steel (EPSS), standard titanium (Ti-S), roughened stainless steel (RSS) and surface polished titanium (Ti-P). In an in vivo study, a rabbit humeral fracture model was used. Each rabbit received one of three Staphylococcus aureus inocula, aimed at determining the infection rate at a low, medium and high dose of bacteria. Outcome measures were quantification of bacteria on the implant and in the surrounding tissues, and determination of the infectious dose 50 (ID50). Results. Of the 72 rabbits eventually included in the in vivo study, 50 developed an infection. The ID50 was found to be: EPSS 3.89 × 103 colony forming units (CFU); RSS 8.23 × 103 CFU; Ti-S 5.66 × 103 CFU; Ti-P 3.41 × 103 CFU. Significantly lower bacterial counts were found on the Ti-S implants samples compared with RSS implants (p < 0.001) at the high inoculum. Similarly, lower bacterial counts were found in the bone samples of animals in the Ti-S group in comparison with both RSS and EPSS groups, again at the high inoculation dose (p < 0.005). Conclusions. In a preclinical in vivo model incorporating fracture biomechanics through an osteotomy, we could not identify any significant differences in susceptibility to infection when comparing titanium and steel implants with conventional (as currently used in the clinics) or modified topographies. The finding that Ti-S has a lower bacterial burden compared to both EPSS and RSS, but only when using a high bacterial inoculum, is interesting and indicates that the material (or its surface) may not influence the infection risk, but rather the infection severity. Furthermore, polished titanium implants with potential to reduce complications associated with tissue adherence, are not expected to affect the infection rate, or influence implant stability as shown in this fracture model

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting include autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because it is present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute use was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly 4 types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately, we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting include autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because they are present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute used was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly four types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Knee arthrodesis is a potencial salvage procedure for limb preservation in patients with multiple failures of Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) with massive bone loss and extensor mechanism deficiency. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the outcome of bridging knee arthrodesis using a modular and non cemented intramedullary nail in patients with septic failure Total Knee Arthroplasty. Between 2005 and 2013 (9 years), 15 patients (13 female and 2 male) with mean age 71.1 years (range 41 to 85) were treated at our Institution with septic two- stage knee arthrodesis using a modular and non- cemented intramedullary nail after multiple failures of septic Total Knee Arthroplasty. Mean follow- up was 70.1 months (24 to 108 months) with a minimum follow- up of 24 months. We evaluated the erradication of infection clinically and with normalization of laboratory parameters (ESR and CRP), limb length discrepancies and complications (periimplant fractures, amputation rates, wound healing disturbances) and the subjective evaluation of the patients after knee arthrodesis. We reported 11 cases of resolution of the infection (73.3 %), with good tolerance of the implant and a mean limb length discrepancies of 15 mm. Of these, 8 patients had been monitored over 5 years without recurrence of the infection. The mean number of previous operations was 4.9 (range 2 to 9). Two patients (13.3 %) required multiples surgical debridements for uncontrolled sepsis and finally underwent knee amputation. Coagulase- negative Staphylococci (SCN) were the most commom pathogen (53.3 %) followed by polimicrobian infections (26.7 %). One patient continues suppressive antibiotic treatment and 1 patient was treated with a one- stage custom- made arthrodesis nail exchange. Bridging knee arthrodesis using a modular and non- cemented intramedullary nail is a salvage procedure with acceptable results in terms of erradication of infection after septic faliure Total Knee Arthroplasty with restoration of limb length discrepancy. Despite these satisfactory results it is not without serious complications such as knee amputation

Greater trochanter fractures after total hip replacement have been reported in up to 5% of cases. The outcomes are generally poor. Treatment options include non-operative care or surgical treatment with cerclage wires or a claw plate. We present a simple tension band technique for acute fractures with a single bony fracture fragment. We have not used the technique for chronic or comminuted fractures. Technique: 2.5mm k-wires are passed through the fragment and anterior and posterior to the femoral implant. Eighteen-gauge wire is passed through a drill hole in the femur distal to the fracture and around the k-wires in a figure eight. The patient is kept 50% weightbearing with no active abduction for 4 weeks. In four cases the fracture has gone on to healing. Patients have had a negative Trendelenburg sign without peritrochanteric pain. The tension band technique is familiar to surgeons and has been reliable

The vast majority of fractures around the knee will heal with well-done internal fixation. TKA has a role in several scenarios. Acute TKA can be effective for fractures of the distal femur (especially periprosthetic) in very elderly patients where internal fixation attempts are likely to fail. Acute TKA for tibia plateau fractures may have a role in fractures in the elderly with pre-existing DJD and relatively simple fracture patterns. There is very little published literature regarding the outcomes of TKA for acute tibial plateau fracture and caution is advised until more data is available. TKA is commonly indicated for failed fixation and post-traumatic arthritis. Challenges include managing retained hardware, soft tissue injury and contracture, unusual ligamentous imbalances, and multiple prior incisions and/or flaps. Occasionally, a partial hardware removal may be appropriate. If extensive or multiple incisions are needed for hardware removal it may be wise to stage the reconstruction after soft tissue recovery. The available data on TKA for post-traumatic reconstructions generally demonstrate predictable functional improvement but higher complications

Stabilisation of a chronic pelvic discontinuity with a posterior column plate with or without an associated acetabular cage sometimes results in persistent micromotion across the discontinuity with late fatigue failure and component loosening. We believe that these chronic discontinuities are really chronic fracture non-unions incapable of healing. Acetabular distraction offers an alternative technique for reconstruction in cases of severe bone loss with an associated pelvic discontinuity. We describe the technique of acetabular distraction with porous tantalum components and evaluate its survival, function and complication rate in patients undergoing revision surgery for chronic pelvic discontinuity. Between 2002 and 2006, we treated 28 patients with a chronic pelvic discontinuity acetabular reconstruction using acetabular distraction. A porous tantalum elliptical acetabular component was used alone or with an associated modular porous tantalum augment in all patients. Three patients died and five patients were lost to follow up before two years. The remaining twenty patients were followed semiannually for a minimum of two years (average, 5.5 years; range, 2–9 years) with clinical pain and walking scores as well as radiographic evaluation for loosening, migration or failure. In the remaining twenty patients available for follow up, one patient did require re-revision for aseptic loosening. Fifteen patients remained radiographically stable at last follow up. Four patients had early migration of their acetabular component but thereafter remained radiographically stable and clinically asymptomatic. The average improvement using the modified Merle d'Aubigne – Postel pain and ambulation score was 6.6 (range, 3.3–9.6). There were no post-operative dislocations; however, we did encounter one infection, one vascular injury and one bowel injury. In this series, the use of acetabular distraction with porous tantalum components provides a biologic alternative to cage constructs with more predictable clinical results (average follow up 5.5 years) for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects with associated pelvic discontinuity

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting includes autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because it is present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute use was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly 4 types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Supracondylar femur fractures are an uncommon but serious complication following TKA. The optimal treatment method often depends on the specific fracture pattern and various patient-related factors, and can be controversial in many cases. Nonoperative treatment can be considered in low-demand patients with minimally displaced fractures, whereas fractures associated with loose components typically require revision surgery. Displaced fractures with well-fixed implants can be treated successfully using one of several different strategies. Internal fixation after open or closed reduction can be achieved using either an intramedullary device or plate-and-screw constructs. Good results have been reported using intramedullary nails, although their use is limited to certain fracture patterns and implants designs. Modern periarticular locking plates featuring polyaxial locking screws can be inserted laterally in a submuscular fashion and offer the ability to achieve rigid fixation in the short distal fragment. These plates offer a robust treatment option for most fracture patterns. Alternatively, reliable healing and good functional results can also be achieved by revision of the femoral component using stemmed implants to bypass the fracture site. This strategy typically does not require distal femoral replacement or conversion to a hinge, and can provide consistently good results. Regardless of the treatment method chosen, careful attention should be given at the time of surgery avoid malalignment, malrotation, and distraction at the fracture site which can compromise the ultimate clinical outcome. Intra-operative femoral fractures are a rare complication that usually occurs during exposure, bone preparation, or trialing. If recognised intra-operatively and treated appropriately, reliable healing can occur

With the protection of crocodile species in Far North Queensland it was proposed that an increase in crocodile related injuries could be expected. The aim of this paper was to prospectively follow any crocodile injuries admitted for treatment at the Cairns Base Hospital and to establish a treatment regime for these injuries. A database was created in 2000 and patients admitted for treatment at the Cairns Base Hospital were followed prospectively. Prior to 2000 chart reviews were undertaken back to 1993. The injuries sustained, place of attack, wound infections and treatments were reviewed. Approval for this study was obtained from the ethics committee. The majority of patients treated over that period of time were attacked in the wet season and occurred in the water or at the waters edge. All of the injuries were related to the extremities, except for a single case of multiple abdominal lacerations. All wounds were contaminated with positive swab cultures at the time of their initial debridement. Four of these wounds developed a deep infection. In the majority of wounds adequate debridement, temporary stabilisation, and subsequent definitive surgery and skin coverage (coupled with appropriate antibiotic coverage) related in fracture healing. Avoidance of attack is the best form of defence. If exposed to crocodile wounds then surgical debridement, antibiotic coverage with keflin, gentamicin and metronidazole and delayed stabilsation will result in successful fracture and soft tissue healing

Aims

Bone demonstrates good healing capacity, with a variety of strategies being utilized to enhance this healing. One potential strategy that has been suggested is the use of stem cells to accelerate healing.

Open femoral fractures are uncommon, and there are very few reports in the literature which refer specifically to their management. The results of the treatment of 31 open femoral fractures with significant bone loss in 29 patients treated in a single Orthopaedic Trauma Unit were reviewed. All fractures underwent wound and bony debridement before skeletal stabilisation at restored femoral length, using primary locked intramedullary nailing or dynamic condylar screw fixation for diaphyseal or metaphyseal fractures respectively. Soft tissue closure was performed at 48 hours in the majority of cases, followed by elective bone grafting procedures for 13 of the fractures. All fractures achieved bony union at an average of 51 weeks (range 20-156 weeks). The time to fracture union and subsequent functional outcome were largely dependent upon the location, type and extent of the bone loss. Union was achieved more rapidly in fractures associated with wedge defects than those with segmental bone loss, and fractures with metaphyseal defects healed more rapidly than those of comparable size in the diaphysis. Metaphyseal wedge fractures did not require any further procedures to achieve union. Complications were more common in the fractures with greater bone loss, which included knee stiffness, delay to union, malunion and leg length discrepancy. One patient had a deep infection, treated by debridement. We have produced an algorithm for the treatment of these injuries, based upon our findings. We feel that satisfactory results can be achieved in most femoral fractures with bone loss, using appropriate initial debridement and modern methods of primary skeletal fixation at a restored femoral length, followed by soft tissue coverage procedures and elective bone grafting, as required

Background. Absence of rotator cuff allows unbalanced muscle forces of the shoulder to cause vertical migration of the humeral head. The translation of the humerus causes impaction of articular surface against the acromion. The purpose of the study is to assess outcome of Cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) Hemiarthroplasty prosthesis in this group of patients. Methods. Retrospective review was undertaken in 42 patients who underwent Global CTA Hemiarthroplasty between Jan 2001-Jan 2009. The mean length of follow up was 6 years. Results. The patients at review showed statistically significant improvement in Forward Flexion, Abduction and Numerical Pain Rating. There were four revision surgeries and the overall survival rate at ten years was 89 %. There was statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in forward flexion abduction and Numerical rating scale (p 0.02). Although improvement was noted in external and internal rotation this was not statistically significant. There was one perioperative humerus fracture which required plating at the same time of surgery. The fracture went on to heal uneventfully. There was also one post-operative haematoma which required arthroscopic washout. One patient underwent further arthroscopic debridement for poor ROM which improved from 20 Abd 20 FF to 90, 90 FF, Abd. There were four revision surgeries; 3 revisions to reverse geometry replacement; and one patient had removal of implant because of persistant dislocation of implant and patient did not want another major surgery. Patients who required revision had further erosion of acromion and poor ROM of < 20 Abd, FF, and Pain 8–10/10. Conclusion. This study shows that significant improvement in pain, and movements are achieved with this device. Acromial and glenoid erosion is a potential issue with this prosthesis and three revisions were required for this this problem. The results are better than standard hemiarthroplasty when used in this setting