The April 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Displaced femoral neck fractures in patients aged 55 to 70 years: internal fixation or total hip arthroplasty?; Tibial plateau fractures: continuous passive motion approves range of motion; Lisfranc fractures: to fuse or not to fuse, that is the question; Is hardware removal after clavicle fracture plate fixation beneficial?; Fixation to coverage in Grade IIIB open fractures – what’s the time window?; Nonoperative versus locking plate fixation in the proximal humerus; Retrograde knee nailing or lateral plate for distal femur fractures?

The April 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360. looks at: Outcomes following a two-stage revision total ankle arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection; Temporary bridge plate fixation and joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury; Outcomes of fusion in type II os naviculare; Total ankle arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis; Normal saline for plantar fasciitis: placebo or therapeutic?; Distraction arthroplasty for ankle osteoarthritis: does it work?; Let there be movement: ankle arthroplasty after previous fusion; Morbidity and mortality after diabetic Charcot foot arthropathy

Aims

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates.

Aims. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available. Methods. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis. Results. A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively. Conclusion. This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842–849

Aims

It is imperative to understand the risks of operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2 virus) pandemic for clinical decision-making and medical resource planning. The primary aim was to determine the mortality risk and associated variables when operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objective was to assess differences in the outcome of patients treated between sites treating COVID-19 and a separate surgical site.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome in patients undergoing implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation below the level of the knee.

Aims

Local antibiotics are used in the surgical management of foot infection in diabetic patients. This systematic review analyzes the available evidence of the use of local antibiotic delivery systems as an adjunct to surgery.

Aims. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of bridge plating, screw fixation, and a combination of both methods for the treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocations. Patients and Methods. A total of 108 patients were treated for a Lisfranc fracture dislocation over a period of nine years. Of these, 38 underwent transarticular screw fixation, 45 dorsal bridge plating, and 25 a combination technique. Injuries were assessed preoperatively according to the Myerson classification system. The outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) functional tool, and the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction. Results. Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the bridge plate group. These patients had a mean AOFAS score of 82.5 points, compared with 71.0 for the screw group and 63.3 for the combination group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score was 25.6 points in the bridge plate group, 38.1 in the screw group, and 45.5 in the combination group (p < 0.001). Functional outcome was dependent on the quality of reduction (p < 0.001). A trend was noted which indicated that plate fixation is associated with a better anatomical reduction (p = 0.06). Myerson types A and C2 significantly predicted a poorer functional outcome, suggesting that total incongruity in either a homolateral or divergent pattern leads to worse outcomes. The greater the number of columns fixed the worse the outcome (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Patients treated with dorsal bridge plating have better functional and radiological outcomes than those treated with transarticular screws or a combination technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:468–74

Aims

Fractures of the navicular can occur in isolation but, owing to the intimate anatomical and biomechanical relationships, are often associated with other injuries to the neighbouring bones and joints in the foot. As a result, they can lead to long-term morbidity and poor function. Our aim in this study was to identify patterns of injury in a new classification system of traumatic fractures of the navicular, with consideration being given to the commonly associated injuries to the midfoot.

Aims

Fracture clinics are often characterised by the referral of large numbers of unselected patients with minor injuries not requiring investigation or intervention, long waiting times and recurrent unnecessary reviews. Our experience had been of an unsustainable system and we implemented a ‘Trauma Triage Clinic’ (TTC) in order to rationalise and regulate access to our fracture service. The British Orthopaedic Association’s guidelines have required a prospective evaluation of this change of practice, and we report our experience and results.

Injuries to the foot in athletes are often subtle and can lead to a substantial loss of function if not diagnosed and treated appropriately. For these injuries in general, even after a diagnosis is made, treatment options are controversial and become even more so in high level athletes where limiting the time away from training and competition is a significant consideration.

In this review, we cover some of the common and important sporting injuries affecting the foot including updates on their management and outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1299–1311.

Neuropathic changes in the foot are common with a prevalence of approximately 1%. The diagnosis of neuropathic arthropathy is often delayed in diabetic patients with harmful consequences including amputation. The appropriate diagnosis and treatment can avoid an extensive programme of treatment with significant morbidity for the patient, high costs and delayed surgery. The pathogenesis of a Charcot foot involves repetitive micro-trauma in a foot with impaired sensation and neurovascular changes caused by pathological innervation of the blood vessels. In most cases, changes are due to a combination of both pathophysiological factors. The Charcot foot is triggered by a combination of mechanical, vascular and biological factors which can lead to late diagnosis and incorrect treatment and eventually to destruction of the foot.

This review aims to raise awareness of the diagnosis of the Charcot foot (diabetic neuropathic osteoarthropathy and the differential diagnosis, erysipelas, peripheral arterial occlusive disease) and describe the ways in which the diagnosis may be made. The clinical diagnostic pathways based on different classifications are presented.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1155–9.