Fractures of the tibial shaft are common injuries, but there are no long-term outcome data in the era of increased surgical management. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the clinical and functional outcome of this injury at 12 to 22 years. Secondary aims were to determine the short- and long-term mortality, and if there were any predictors of clinical or functional outcome or mortality. From a prospective trauma database of 1502 tibial shaft fractures in 1474 consecutive adult patients, we identified a cohort of 1431 tibial diaphyseal fractures in 1403 patients, who fitted our inclusion criteria. There were 1024 men, and mean age at injury was 40.6 years. Fractures were classified according to the AO system, and open fractures graded after Gustilo and Anderson. Requirement of fasciotomy, time to fracture union, complications, incidence of knee and ankle pain at long-term follow-up, changes in employment and the patients’ social deprivation status were recorded. Function was assessed at 12 to 22 years post-injury using the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment and short form-12 questionnaires. Long-term functional outcome data was available for 568 of the surviving patients, 389 were deceased and 346 were lost to follow-up. Most fractures (90.7%, n = 1363) united without further intervention. Fasciotomies were performed in 11.5% of patients; this did not correlate with poorer functional outcome in the long term. Social deprivation was associated with a higher incidence of injury but had no impact on long-term function. The one-year mortality in those over 75 years of age was 29 (42%). At long-term follow-up, pain and function scores were good. However, 147 (26%) reported ongoing knee pain, 62 (10%) reported ankle pain and 97 (17%) reported both. Such joint pain correlated with poorer functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1370–7

Aims

The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with limitations in function, measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), six to nine months after a proximal humeral fracture, from a range of demographic, injury, psychological, and social variables measured within a week and two to four weeks after injury.

In the time since Letournel popularised the surgical treatment of acetabular fractures, more than 25 years ago, there have been many changes within the field, related to patients, surgical technique, implants and post-operative care. However, the long-term outcomes appear largely unchanged. Does this represent stasis or have the advances been mitigated by other negative factors? In this article we have attempted to document the recent changes within the surgery of patients with a fracture involving the acetabulum, outline contemporary management, and identify the major problem areas where further research is most needed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1125–31

We retrospectively analysed the clinical results of 30 patients with injuries of the sternoclavicular joint at a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. A closed reduction was attempted in 14 cases. It was successful in only five of ten dislocations, and failed in all four epiphyseal disruptions. A total of 25 patients underwent surgical reduction, in 18 cases in conjunction with a stabilisation procedure.

At a mean follow-up of 60 months, four patients were lost to follow-up. The functional results in the remainder were satisfactory, and 18 patients were able to resume their usual sports activity at the same level. There was no statistically significant difference between epiphyseal disruption and sternoclavicular dislocation (p > 0.05), but the functional scores (Simple Shoulder Test, Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand, and Constant scores) were better when an associated stabilisation procedure had been performed rather than reduction alone (p = 0.05, p = 0.04 and p = 0.07, respectively).

We recommend meticulous pre-operative clinical assessment with CT scans. In sternoclavicular dislocation managed within the first 48 hours and with no sign of mediastinal complication, a closed reduction can be attempted, although this was unsuccessful in half of our cases. A control CT scan is mandatory. In all other cases, and particularly if epiphyseal disruption is suspected, we recommend open reduction with a stabilisation procedure by costaclavicular cerclage or tenodesis. The use of a Kirschner wire should be avoided.