header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXIII | Pages 202 - 202
1 May 2012
Russ M Simm A Leong J Liew S Dowrick A
Full Access

The Orthopaedic Unit at The Alfred has been using an external fixator in a novel configuration for protecting lower limb wounds after free flap surgery (sometimes even in the absence of a concomitant bony injury). This soft-tissue frame allows the limb to be elevated without contact so that there is no pressure on the flap and its pedicle. Thus, optimising the arteriovenous circulation. We report our initial experience with these soft tissue frames.

The soft tissue frame is not necessarily applied for definitive fracture care, but constructed or modified to optimise elevation of the leg, remove direct pressure from the soft tissues, and stabilise the muscles adjacent to the flap. All ankle-spanning frames held the foot in a plantargrade position to optimise blood flow and recovery (prevent equinus), and minimise intra-compartmental pressure.

During 2007, the Plastic Surgery Unit performed 23 free flaps to the lower limbs of 22 patients. Five of these patients had a soft-tissue frame constructed. One patient had a frame applied purely to manage the soft tissue injury, and the other four, who required an external fixator for a bony injury, had their frame modified. Four of the five patients study patients were injured in motor vehicle accidents and one was injured in a simple fall. All five free flaps survived and none required any further surgery. No patients suffered complications (such as bleeding, pin-track infections, or osteomyelitis) related to the soft tissue frame.

We strongly recommend considering an external fixator in a modified configuration after lower limb free flap surgery. Constructing a soft tissue frame has no added risks if the fixator is already required. In the case where there is no bony injury, a soft tissue frame has the benefits of providing optimal flap conditions and maintaining anatomical joint alignment. However, this must be balanced against the small risk associated with the insertion of pins (such as infection) and the need for an extra procedure to remove the frame. As always, treatment must be tailored to the individual patient.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXIII | Pages 163 - 163
1 May 2012
Lewis E Dowrick A Liew S
Full Access

Despite the publication of numerous studies, controversy regarding the non- operative treatment of type II dens fractures remains. The halo-thoracic vest (HTV) and cervical collar are the most commonly used devices. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients managed with these devices in terms of non-union risk factors and associated complication rates.

This study was a retrospective review of adult patients with type II dens fractures treated non-operatively at a level one trauma centre between 2001 and 2007. The patients were identified using a hospital trauma database. Each patient included in the study had a minimum follow up of six months. Patient medical records and imaging studies were reviewed. Union was defined as stable fibrous union or bony union, measured at three months. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Sixty-seven patients were included. Thirty-five patients were treated using a HTV and 32 with a collar. Non-union was found to be associated with increased time in HTV or collar (p = 0.011) and with a mechanism of injury involving a low fall (p = 0.008). In addition, the proportion of patients with stable union at three months was 60% for the HVT group versus 35% for the cervical collar group (p = 0.10). There were trends to support an increased risk of non-union with a patient age of greater than or equal to 65 years at the time of presentation (p = 0.13) as well as with a fracture displacement of greater than or equal to 2 mm at time of presentation (p = 0.17). Clinically significant complications of the HTV were of greater prevalence than those experienced by collar patients. Sixty percent of HTV patients suffered one or more complications compared with 6% of collar patients.

We were unable to demonstrate any clear advantage or disadvantage of either device. Further investigation of mortality would be beneficial, particularly in the patient group injured with a mechanism involving a low fall (which tends to include more elderly patients).


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXIII | Pages 187 - 187
1 May 2012
Batty L Dowrick A Lyon S Liew S
Full Access

Despite increasing use of vena cava filters (VCFs) for pulmonary embolism (PE) prophylaxis after major trauma, there is continued debate regarding their safety and efficacy. We aimed to evaluate the impact of prophylactic VCFs on the incidence of PE after major trauma and to describe VCF related complications.

Prospectively collected data from The Alfred Hospital Trauma Registry were used to identify all major trauma patients admitted between 1 July 2001 and 1 July 2008. Data for each patient was collated from the registry. This included patient demographics, injury specific data, management details (including prophylactic VCF use) and clinical outcomes (including the occurrence of PE). Medical record and radiology chart review was used to verify all PEs. Potential PE risk factors were assessed as covariates in a univariate analysis, with PE as the dependent variable. A multivariate analysis was then performed using multiple logistic regression adjusting for baseline imbalances and known covariates.

During this period, 6,344 major trauma patients were treated, with 73.2% male, mean age of 44.2 +/− 21.0 SD, 90.2% with a blunt mechanism of injury and mean ISS of 24.3 +/− 12.0 SD. Of these patients, 511 (8.1%) received prophylactic VCFs, (inserted in absence of PE) at the discretion of the treating clinician. There were 45 PE (incidence of 0.71%), of which two were fatal. Three variables were independently associated with the occurrence of PE in the multivariate analysis: (i) presence of prophylactic VCF (OR 0.28; 95%CI 0.09 - 0.89); (ii) number of injuries to the AIS body region lower limb (OR 1.31; 95%CI 1.17 - 1.47) and (iii) central venous catheterisation (OR 1.87; 95%CI 1.88 - 6.17). Data was available on the VCF database for 429 of the 511 patients with VCFs (84.0%). The mean time to prophylactic VCF insertion was 3.6 +/− 0.2 SEM days after admission. The VCF major complication rate was 2.6% (n=11), including four non-fatal PE. The technical success rate for retrieval was 92.4% (279 retrievals from 302 attempts) and the overall retrieval rate was 65.0% (279 retrievals from 429 placements).

Prophylactic VCFs are associated with a reduced rate of PE when used in selected major trauma patients. In addition, prophylactic VCFs have a low major complication rate and high rate of technical success for retrieval.