Purpose: Fractures of the calcaneus remain a significant clinical challenge. Little study has been done to investigate the potential benefit of bone graft in the treatment of these fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcome of calcaneus fractures treated with and without ICBG.

Method: In an ongoing study at a Level I Trauma Center 45 patients with calcaneus fractures requiring operative management were enrolled in a prospective, randomized study. 24 patients were randomized to ORIF without graft (control) and 24 patients were randomized to ORIF with ICBG (study group). Demographic, intra-operative and long term clinical outcome data was collected. Outcome measures included pain scores, Creighton-Nebraska Foot Scores, time to weight bearing, return to work and wound complications.

Results: The groups showed no differences in gender, age, mechanism of injury, fracture classification or time to surgery (avg. 12 days). Tscherne scores at presentation differed, with higher average scores in the control group. There were 2 open fractures in each group. The groups showed no statistically significant differences in any of the clinical outcome measures. There was no difference in pain scores (control mean 2.6 vs. study mean 4.1, p = 0.1), Creighton-Nebraska Scores (control 71 vs. study 55, p = 0.1), time to weight bearing (control 2.6 months vs. study 2.7 months, p = 0.9). At 6 months 38% of controls had returned to work (with 87% of those returning to the some occupation) while 39% of the study group returned to work (71% to same occupation). An overall wound complication rate of 27% was seen with 30% of controls and 24% of study patients exhibiting wound issues.

Conclusion: In this prospective randomized study, patients treated with ORIF for calcaneus fractures showed no difference in clinical outcomes with or without the addition of ICBG. No clear benefit is demonstrated to warrant the additional operative time, pain and possible complications that have been previously documented to be associated with ICBG.

BACKGROUND

In our institution we use the Winklestabile volar locking plate for operative fixation of distal radius fractures. This study aims to assess subjective and objective outcomes using this method of treatment.

Aims. The objectives of this study were to investigate the patient characteristics and mortality of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) subgroups divided into two groups according to femoral component stability and to compare postoperative clinical outcomes according to treatment in Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures. Methods. A total of 126 Vancouver type B fractures were analyzed from 2010 to 2019 in 11 associated centres' database (named TRON). We divided the patients into two Vancouver type B subtypes according to implant stability. Patient demographics and functional scores were assessed in the Vancouver type B subtypes. We estimated the mortality according to various patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty (revision) groups in patients with unstable subtype. Results. The one-year mortality rate of the stable and unstable subtype of Vancouver type B was 9.4% and 16.4%. Patient demographic factors, including residential status and pre-injury mobility were associated with mortality. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and Revision in either Vancouver B subtype. Patients treated with revision had significantly higher Parker Mobility Score (PMS) values (5.48 vs 3.43; p = 0.00461) and a significantly lower visual analogue scale (VAS) values (1.06 vs 1.94; p = 0.0399) for pain than ORIF in the unstable subtype. Conclusion. Among patients with Vancouver type B fractures, frail patients, such as those with worse scores for residential status and pre-injury mobility, had a high mortality rate. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and those treated with revision. However, in the unstable subtype, the PMS and VAS values at the final follow-up examination were significantly better in patients who received revision. Based on postoperative activities of daily life, we therefore recommend evision in instances when either treatment option is feasible. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):38–46

Aims. To identify a core outcome set of postoperative radiographic measurements to assess technical skill in ankle fracture open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), and to validate these against Van der Vleuten’s criteria for effective assessment. Methods. An e-Delphi exercise was undertaken at a major trauma centre (n = 39) to identify relevant parameters. Feasibility was tested by two authors. Reliability and validity was tested using postoperative radiographs of ankle fracture operations performed by trainees enrolled in an educational trial (IRCTN 20431944). To determine construct validity, trainees were divided into novice (performed < ten cases at baseline) and intermediate groups (performed ≥ ten cases at baseline). To assess concurrent validity, the procedure-based assessment (PBA) was considered the gold standard. The inter-rater and intrarater reliability was tested using a randomly selected subset of 25 cases. Results. Overall, 235 ankle ORIFs were performed by 24 postgraduate year three to five trainees during ten months at nine NHS hospitals in England, UK. Overall, 42 PBAs were completed. The e-Delphi panel identified five ‘final product analysis’ parameters and defined acceptability thresholds: medial clear space (MCS); medial malleolar displacement (MMD); lateral malleolar displacement (LMD); tibiofibular clear space (TFCS) (all in mm); and talocrural angle (TCA) in degrees. Face validity, content validity, and feasibility were excellent. PBA global rating scale scores in this population showed excellent construct validity as continuous (p < 0.001) and categorical (p = 0.001) variables. Concurrent validity of all metrics was poor against PBA score. Intrarater reliability was substantial for all parameters (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.8), and inter-rater reliability was substantial for LMD, MMD, TCA, and moderate (ICC 0.61 to 0.80) for MCS and TFCS. Assessment was time efficient compared to PBA. Conclusion. Assessment of technical skill in ankle fracture surgery using the first postoperative radiograph satisfies the tested Van der Vleuten’s utility criteria for effective assessment. 'Final product analysis' assessment may be useful to assess skill transfer in the simulation-based research setting. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):502–509

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement.

Aims

In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery.

Introduction. The condition of the soft tissues surrounding an ankle fracture influences timing and treatment of injuries. Conventional treatment used an open approach to facilitate anatomical reduction and rigid internal fixation. Intramedullary devices for fibular fractures provide a safe alternative in patients in which the condition of the soft tissue envelope or the patient's co-morbidities may benefit from a less invasive approach. We compared outcomes for patients treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with those undergoing treatment with fibular nails (FN). Methods. 13 consecutive patients treated with fibular nails (FN) were compared with 13 age-matched patients that underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). All patients were followed to union. Study outcomes were time from admission to surgery, length of stay, wound failure, implant failure, revision surgery, OMAS and SF-36. Results. There was no difference in age or sex distribution between groups. There was no difference in OMAS at 1 year (83 ± 9 in FN group; 80± 21 in ORIF group) and SF-36 (94 ± 11 and 90 ± 20). There were 2 implant failures in the ORIF group and none in the FN group. There was one wound failure in the ORIF group and none in the FN group. Patients treated with FN had a shorter time to surgery (1 day ± 24 hours vs 3 days ± 24 hours) and shorter length of stay (1 day ± 24 hours vs 4 days ± 96 hours). Conclusion. FN is a safe method to treat patients with displaced distal fibular fractures that may have a poor soft tissue envelope and risk factors for wound healing. FN reduces the time to surgery and overall length of stay compared with similar patients treated with conventional ORIF

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a significant impact on orthopaedic surgical operating. This multi-centre study aimed to ascertain what factors contributed to delays to theatre in patients with shoulder and elbow trauma. A retrospective cohort study of 621 upper limb (shoulder and elbow) trauma patients between 16/03/2020 and 16/09/2021 (18-months) was extracted from trauma lists in NHS Tayside, Highland and Grampian and Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS). Median patient age =51 years (range 2-98), 298 (48%) were male and 323 (52%) female. The commonest operation was olecranon open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) 106/621 cases (17.1%), followed by distal humerus ORIF − 63/621 (10.1%). Median time to surgery was 2 days (range 0-263). 281/621 (45.2%) of patients underwent surgical intervention within 0-1 days and 555/621 patients (89.9%) had an operation within 14 days of sustaining their injury. 66/621 (10.6%) patients waited >14 days for surgery. There were 325/621 (52.3%) patients with documented evidence of delay to surgery; of these 55.6% (181/325) were due to amendable causes. 66/325 (20.3%) of these patients suffered complications; the most common being post-operative stiffness in 48.6% of cases (n=32/66). To our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically explore effect of COVID-19 pandemic on upper limb trauma patients. We suggest delays to theatre may have contributed to higher rates of post-operative stiffness and require more physiotherapy during the rehabilitation phase. In future pandemic planning, we propose dedicated upper-limb trauma lists to prevent delays to theatre and optimise patients’ post-operative outcomes

The increased torque required to dislocate dual mobility (DM) components may increase peri-prosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) risk. Current literature often relies on revision as an endpoint and may underestimate PPF. This study aims to review PPF rate, risks and treatment following primary DM implantation. Prospective cohort study of 549 patients following primary DM total hip arthroplasty (THA) between 2013 and 2021. Collected data included demographics, indication for surgery, cortical index and PPF. 549 patients were identified with primary DM THA. Mean age was 73 years (26–96). 446 (81.2%) patients had their index surgery following hip fracture. 18 patients (3.27%) sustained a PPF. Cumulative PPF rate was 1.5% at 1-year, 2.2% at 5-years and 3.27% overall. PPF was higher in patients undergoing surgery following hip fracture (4%) vs. other indications (1%). OR 4.04 (95% CI:0.53, 30.72), p=0.219. Mean cortical index was lower in patients with PPF 0.4 (95% CI:0.36, 0.45) compared to those without 0.46 (95% CI:0.45, 0.46) p=0.029. Treatment for PPF included 10 (55.6%) open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), 7 (38.9%) revision THA and 1 conservatively managed. PPF rate following DM use is higher in our cohort than published rates. Our rates are comparable to some papers when subgroup analysis of older patients and cemented taper slip stems are considered. PPF risk with DM may be increased in patients undergoing surgery after hip fracture or with a lower cortical index preoperatively. Over half of PPF were managed with ORIF and may mask PPF risk studies that report using revision as an endpoint

Background. Studies have compared open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with fibular nail fixation (FNF) and shown reduced wound complications with minimal difference to PROMS in the short term. Our aim is to compare long-term outcomes for unstable ankle fractures at 10 year follow up. Methods. Patients from a previously conducted RCT were contacted at a minimum of 10 years post intervention at a single study centre. Case notes were reviewed, and patient reported outcome measures acquired at 10 years. Results. Ninety-nine patients were included (48 FNF and 51 ORIF). After 10 years 75% (33/44) of patients in the FNF group required no further follow up versus 81% (39/48) in the ORIF group. Radiographically at 2 years post-injury, there was no statistically significant difference between groups for development of osteoarthritis (p=0.851). There was one tibio-talar fusion in each group secondary to osteoarthritis, but no statistically significant difference in overall re-operation rate (p=0.518). Fifty-one percent (n=50) of patients have so far returned patient reported outcome measures at a minimum of 10 years (Fibular nail n=23, plate fixation n=27). No significant difference was found between groups for the mean scores of Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (FNF 84.78 vs ORIF 84.07; p=0.883), the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) (FNF 89.54 vs ORIF 96.47; p=0.112), Euroqol-5D Index (FNF 0.88 vs ORIF 0.87; p=0.701) and Euroqol-5D Visual Analogue Score (FNF 77.30 vs ORIF 77.52; p=0.859). Conclusion. The current study illustrates that both methods of treatment result in a satisfactory long-term outcome with no difference in late complications or PROM scores at up to 10 years in patients under 65 years old, although the study is currently under powered

Fragility ankle fractures are traditionally managed conservatively or with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) fusion is an alternative option for the geriatric patient. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a detailed analysis of the functional and clinical outcomes of hindfoot nailing for fragility ankle fractures presented so far in the literature. A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, identifying fourteen studies for inclusion. Studies including patients over 60 with a fragility ankle fracture, treated with TTC nail were included. Patients with a previous fracture of the ipsilateral limb, fibular nails, and pathological fractures were excluded. Subgroup analyses were performed according to (1) open vs closed fractures, (2) immediate post-operative FWB vs post-operative NWB, (3) majority of cohort are diabetics vs minority of cohort are diabetics. Meta-regression analyses were done to explore sources of heterogeneity, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. The pooled proportion of superficial infection, deep infection, implant failure, malunion, and all-cause mortality was 0.10 (95%CI:0.06-0.16; I2=44%), 0.08 (95%CI:0.06-0.11, I2=0%), 0.11 (95%CI:0.07-0.15, I2=0%), 0.11 (95%CI:0.06-0.18; I2=51%), and 0.27 (95%CI:0.20-0.34; I2=11%), respectively. The pooled mean post-operative OMAS score was 54.07 (95%CI:48.98-59.16; I2=85%). The best-fitting meta-regression model included age and percentage of male patients as covariates (p=0.0263), and were inversely correlated with higher OMAS scores. Subgroup analyses showed that studies with a majority of diabetics had a higher proportion of implant failure (p=0.0340) and surgical infection (p=0.0096), and a lower chance of returning to pre-injury mobility than studies with a minority of diabetics (p=0.0385). Egger's test (p=0.56) showed no significant publication bias. TTC nailing is an adequate alternative option for fragility ankle fractures. However, current evidence includes mainly case series with inconsistent outcome measures reported and post-operative rehabilitation protocols. Prospective RCTs with long follow-up times and large cohort sizes are needed to clearly guide the use of TTC nailing for ankle fractures

Failed open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of the proximal femur can render patients severely disabled. This study analyzed the short-term functional results and complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA) for complications of ORIF of the proximal femur. Using the Hamilton Arthroplasty Database, thirty-six patients treated with a THA for complications of ORIF of the proximal femur were compared to a matched cohort. Analysis showed that THA for complications of ORIF of the proximal femur is a successful procedure despite increased intraoperative difficulty that results in comparatively lower short-term Harris Hip Scores. No statistically significant differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications were noted. Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of the proximal femur is a common, successful orthopedic procedure. However, failed ORIF of the proximal femur can render patients severely disabled. The purpose of this study is to analyze and compare the short-term functional results and complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA) for complications of ORIF of the proximal femur. After ethics approval, the Hamilton Arthroplasty Registry, a prospective database, was used to identify thirty-seven patients treated with THA for complications of ORIF of the proximal femur. From September 1998 to the present a group consisting of sixteen males and twenty females, with a mean age of sixty-seven, were matched to a cohort of patients treated with a primary THA. Using Wilcoxon Test and Chi-Square Tests, the two groups were compared (p< 0.05). Initially, ORIF was used to treat thirty-six patients for proximal femur fracture. The mean follow-up was 13.5 months. The experimental group had a significantly lower (p=0.035) Harris Hip Score at the one year follow-up, however both groups showed a significant improvement from preoperative scores (p=0.0001). A significant difference was noted between the two groups in estimated blood loss (p=0.01) and operative time (p=0.01). There was no significant difference in complication rate. THA for complications of ORIF of the proximal femur is a successful procedure improving patient’s pain and functional status. This is a more complicated procedure than primary THA, at times requiring the use of a revision stem, which results in significantly lower Harris Hip Scores. Nonetheless, there appears to be no comparative increase in short-term complications

Background. Distal radius fractures are among the most common fractures encountered in the clinical setting, with a reported incidence of 17%. Of these common fractures, it has been said 60% are intra-articular in nature. Intra-articular or unstable and comminuted fractures represent severe, high energy injuries. There is a considerable amount of controversy as to which fixation method is superior. Even the OA concludes; “comparing external fixation (EF) with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures described no consistent benefit of one treatment over another”. There are only a few randomised control trials that go beyond one year to cover the long-term follow up (over two years). There has yet to be a meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus external fixation. We aim to show from this meta-analysis if there is any significant difference in the outcomes of either fixation method in the long-term. Method. We pooled the data of all available randomised control trials that compare the long-term outcomes of ORIF against external fixation of distal radius fractures. We completed a systematic review of PubMed, embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, from inception to December 2014. We then preformed our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. Results. We did not determine any significant difference in long-term outcomes when comparing ORIF with external fixation. However 6 of the 11 outcomes supported ORIF. Conclusion. There is no significant difference in the long-term outcomes between ORIF and external fixation. No meta analysis to date, short or long term, has been able to determine which is the superior, yet the future treatment of these fractures looks to be ORIF in the form of volar plating. We recommend before this becomes universal, further research must be carried out. Level of Evidence. Level 1. Disclosures. this was the first author's, Dr CJC Gouk, Masters dissertation at the University of Edinburgh. No financial support was received

Introduction. Ankle fractures in the elderly have been increasing with an ageing but active population and bring with them specific challenges. Medical co-morbidities, a poor soft tissue envelope and a requirement for early mobilisation to prevent morbidity and mortality, all create potential pitfalls to successful treatment. As a result, different techniques have been employed to try and improve outcomes. Total contact casting, both standard and enhanced open reduction internal fixation, external fixation and most recently tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) nailing have all been proposed as suitable treatment modalities. Over the past five years popular literature has begun to herald TTC nailing as an appropriate and contemporary solution to the complex problem of high-risk ankle fragility fractures. We sought to assess whether, within our patient cohort, the outcomes seen supported the statement that TTC has equal outcomes to more traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) when used to treat the high-risk ankle fragility fracture. Materials & Methods. Results of ORIF versus TTC nailing without joint preparation for treatment of fragility ankle fractures were evaluated via retrospective cohort study of 64 patients with high-risk fragility ankle fractures without our trauma centre. We aimed to assess whether results within our unit were equal to those seen within other published studies. Patients were matched 1:1 based on gender, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and ASA score. Patient demographics, AO/OTA fracture classification, intra-operative and post-operative complications, discharge destination, union rates, FADI scores and patient mobility were recorded. Results. There were 32 patients within each arm. Mean age was 78.4 (TTC) and 78.3 (ORIF). The CCI was 5.9 in each group respectively with mean ASA 2.9 (TTC) and 2.8 (ORIF). There were two open fractures within each group. Median follow up duration was 26 months. Time to theatre from injury was 8.0 days (TTC) versus 3.3 days (ORIF). There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day, one year or overall mortality at final follow up. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis did however demonstrate that of those patients who died post-operatively the mean time to mortality was significantly shorter in those treated with TTC nailing versus ORIF (20.3 months versus 38.2 months, p=0.013). There was no statistical difference in the overall complication rate between the two groups (46.9% versus 25%, p=0.12). The re-operation rate was twice as high in patients treated with TTC nailing however this was not statistically significant. There was no statistical difference in the FADI scores at final follow up, 72.1±12.9 (TTC) versus 67.9±13.9 (ORIF) nor post-operative mobility status. Conclusions. Within our study TTC nailing with an unprepared joint demonstrated broadly equivalent results to ORIF in the management of high-risk ankle fragility fractures; this replicates findings of previous studies. We did however observe that mean survival was significantly shorter in the TTC group than those treated with ORIF. We believe this may have been contributed to by a delay to theatre due to TTC stabilisation being treated as a sub-specialist operation in our unit at the time. We propose that both TTC and ORIF are satisfactory techniques to stabilise the frail ankle fracture however, similarly to the other fragility fractures, the priority should be on an emergent operation in a timely fashion in order to minimise the associated morbidity and mortality. Further randomised control studies are needed within the area to establish definitive results and a working consensus

Abstract. Objectives. Current literature on pilon fracture includes a range of different management strategies, however there is no universal treatment algorithm. We aim to determine clinical outcomes in patients with open and closed pilon fractures, managed using a treatment algorithm applied consistently over the span of this study. Methods. 135 patients over a 6-year period were included. Primary outcome was AOFAS score at 3, 6, 12-months post-injury. Secondary outcomes include time to partial weight-bear (PWB), full weight-bear (FWB), bone union time, follow-up time. AO/OTA classification was used (43A: n=23, 43B: n=30, 43C: n=82). Treatment algorithm consisted of fine wire fixator (FWF) for severely comminuted closed fractures (AO/OTA type 43C3), or open fractures with severe soft tissue injury (GA type 3). Otherwise, open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) was performed. When required, minimally invasive osteosynthesis was performed in combination with FWF to improve joint congruency. Results. Mean AOFAS score 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment for open and closed fracture patients were 44.12 and 53.99 (p=0.007), 62.38 and 67.68 (p=0.203), 78.44 and 84.06 (p=0.256), respectively. 119 of 141 fractures healed without further intervention (84.4%). Average time to union was 51.46 and 36.48 weeks for open and closed fractures, respectively (p=0.019). On average, open, and closed fracture patients took 12.29 and 10.76 weeks to PWB (p=0.361); 24.04 and 20.31 weeks to FWB (p=0.235), respectively. Common complications for open fractures were non-union (24%), post-traumatic arthritis (16%); for closed fractures they were post-traumatic arthritis (25%), superficial infection (22%). Open fracture was a risk factor for non-union (p=0.042;OR=2.558,95% CI 1.016–6.441), bone defect (p=0.001;OR=5.973,95% CI 1.986–17.967), and superficial infection (p<0.001;OR=4.167,95% CI 1.978–8.781). Conclusions. FWF with minimally invasive osteosynthesis, where required for severely comminuted closed fractures, and FWF for open fractures with severe soft tissue injury, are safe methods achieving low complication rates and good functional recovery

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of complex radial head fractures at mid-term follow-up, and determine whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or radial head arthroplasty (RHA) should be recommended for surgical treatment. Methods. Patients who underwent surgery for complex radial head fractures (Mason type III, ≥ three fragments) were divided into two groups (ORIF and RHA) and propensity score matching was used to individually match patients based on patient characteristics. Ultimately, 84 patients were included in this study. After a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (2.0 to 9.5), patients were invited for clinical and radiological assessment. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire score were evaluated. Results. Patients treated with ORIF showed significantly better postoperative range of motion for flexion and extension (121.1° (SD 16.4°) vs 108.1° (SD 25.8°); p = 0.018). Postoperative functional scores also showed significantly better results in the ORIF group (MEPS 90.1 (SD 13.6) vs 78 (SD 20.5); p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the complication rate (RHA 23.8% (n = 10) vs ORIF 26.2% (n = 11)). Implant-related complications occurred in six cases (14.3%) in the RHA group and in five cases (11.9%) in the ORIF group. Conclusion. Irrespective of the patient’s age, sex, type of injury, or number of fracture fragments, ORIF of the radial head should be attempted initially, if a stable reconstruction can be achieved, as it seems to provide a superior postoperative outcome for the patient compared to primary RHA. If reconstruction is not feasible, RHA is still a viable alternative. In the surgical treatment of complex radial head fractures, reconstruction shows superior postoperative outcomes compared to RHA. Good postoperative results can be achieved even after failed reconstruction and conversion to secondary RHA. Therefore, we encourage surgeons to favour reconstruction of complex radial head fractures, regardless of injury type or number of fragments, as long as a stable fixation can be achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1158–1164

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Results. A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). Conclusion. Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124–134

Introduction and Objective. Despite the low incidence of pilon fractures among lower limb injuries, their high-impact nature presents difficulties in surgical management and recovery. Current literature includes a wide range of different management strategies, however there is no universal treatment algorithm. We aim to determine clinical outcomes in patients with open and closed pilon fractures, managed using a treatment algorithm that was applied consistently over the span of this study. Materials and Methods. This retrospective study was conducted at a single institution, including 141 pilon fractures in 135 patients, from August 2014 to January 2021. AO/OTA classification was used to classify fractures. Among closed fractures, 12 had type 43A, 18 had type 43B, 61 had type 43C. Among open fractures, 11 had type 43A, 12 had type 43B, 27 had type 43C. Open fractures were further classified with Gustilo-Anderson (GA); type 1: n=8, type 2: n=10, type 3A: n=12, type 3B: n=20. Our treatment algorithm consisted of fine wire fixator (FWF) for severely comminuted closed fractures (AO/OTA type 43C3), or open fractures with severe soft tissue injury (GA type 3). Otherwise, open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) was performed. When required, minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIO) was performed in combination with FWF to improve joint congruency. All open fractures, and closed fractures with severe soft tissue injury (skin contusion, fracture blister, severe oedema) were initially treated with temporary ankle-spanning external fixation. For all open fracture patients, surgical debridement, soft tissue cover with a free or pedicled flap were performed. For GA types 1 and 2, this was done with ORIF in the same operating session. Those with severe soft tissue injury (GA type 3) were treated with FWF four to six weeks after soft tissue management was completed. Primary outcome was AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot score at 3, 6 and 12-months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include time to partial weight-bear (PWB) and full weight-bear (FWB), bone union time. All complications were recorded. Results. Mean AOFAS score 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment for open and closed fracture patients were 44.12 and 53.99 (p=0.007), 62.38 and 67.68 (p=0.203), 78.44 and 84.06 (p=0.256), respectively. 119 of the 141 fractures healed without further intervention (84.4%). Average time to bone union was 51.46 and 36.48 weeks for open and closed fractures, respectively (p=0.019). Union took longer in closed fracture patients treated with FWF than ORIF (p=0.025). On average, open and closed fracture patients took 12.29 and 10.76 weeks to PWB (p=0.361); 24.04 and 20.31 weeks to FWB (p=0.235), respectively. Common complications for open fractures were non-union (24%), post-traumatic arthritis (16%); for closed fractures they were post-traumatic arthritis (25%), superficial infection (22%). Open fracture was a risk factor for non-union (p=0.042; OR=2.558, 95% CI 1.016–6.441), bone defect (p=0.001; OR=5.973, 95% CI 1.986–17.967), and superficial infection (p<0.001; OR=4.167, 95% CI 1.978–8.781). Conclusions. The use of a two-staged approach involving temporary external fixation followed by definitive fixation, provides a stable milieu for soft tissue recovery. FWF combined with MIO, where required for severely comminuted closed fractures, and FWF for open fractures with severe soft tissue injury, are safe methods achieving low complication rates and good functional recovery

Aims. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of two different postoperative management approaches following surgical fixation of ankle fractures: traditional cast immobilization versus the Early Motion and Directed Exercise (EMADE) programme. Methods. A total of 157 patients aged 18 years or older who underwent successful open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of Weber B (AO44B) ankle fractures were recruited to this randomized controlled trial. At two weeks post-surgical fixation, participants were randomized to either light-weight cast-immobilization or the EMADE programme, consisting of progressive home exercises and weekly advice and education. Both groups were restricted to non-weightbearing until six weeks post-surgery. The primary outcome was assessed using the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) questionnaire at 12 weeks post-surgery, with secondary measures at two, six, 24, and 52 weeks. Exploratory cost-effectiveness analyses were also performed. Results. Overall, 130 participants returned their 12-week OMAS questionnaires. The mean OMAS was significantly higher in the EMADE group compared with the immobilized group (62.0 (SD 20.9) vs 48.8 (SD 22.5)), with a clinically meaningful mean difference of 13.2 (95% CI 5.66 to 20.73; p < 0.001). These differences were maintained at week 24, with convergence by week 52. No intervention-related adverse events, including instability, were reported. Conclusion. The EMADE programme demonstrated an accelerated recovery compared to traditional six-week cast immobilization for those who have undergone ORIF surgery to stabilize Weber B (AO44B) ankle fractures. The study found the EMADE intervention to be safe. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):949–956

Aims. Isolated fractures of the ulnar diaphysis are uncommon, occurring at a rate of 0.02 to 0.04 per 1,000 cases. Despite their infrequency, these fractures commonly give rise to complications, such as nonunion, limited forearm pronation and supination, restricted elbow range of motion, radioulnar synostosis, and prolonged pain. Treatment options for this injury remain a topic of debate, with limited research available and no consensus on the optimal approach. Therefore, this trial aims to compare clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of two treatment methods: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus nonoperative treatment in patients with isolated ulnar diaphyseal fractures. Methods. This will be a multicentre, open-label, parallel randomized clinical trial (under National Clinical Trial number NCT01123447), accompanied by a parallel prospective cohort group for patients who meet the inclusion criteria, but decline randomization. Eligible patients will be randomized to one of the two treatment groups: 1) nonoperative treatment with closed reduction and below-elbow casting; or 2) surgical treatment with ORIF utilizing a limited contact dynamic compression plate and screw construct. The primary outcome measured will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score at 12 months post-injury. Additionally, functional outcomes will be assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and pain visual analogue scale, allowing for a comparison of outcomes between groups. Secondary outcome measures will encompass clinical outcomes such as range of motion and grip strength, radiological parameters including time to union, as well as economic outcomes assessed from enrolment to 12 months post-injury. Ethics and dissemination. This trial has been approved by the lead site Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (CHREB; REB14-2004) and local ethics boards at each participating site. Findings from the trial will be disseminated through presentations at regional, national, and international scientific conferences and public forums. The primary results and secondary findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):411–418