This study evaluated variation in the surgical treatment of stable (A1) and unstable (A2) trochanteric hip fractures among an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, and determined the influence of patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics on choice of implant (intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus sliding hip screw (SHS)). A total of 128 orthopaedic surgeons in the Science of Variation Group evaluated radiographs of 30 patients with Type A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures and indicated their preferred treatment: IMN or SHS. The management of Type A3 (reverse obliquity) trochanteric fractures was not evaluated. Agreement between surgeons was calculated using multirater kappa. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess whether patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics were independently associated with choice of implant.Aims
Methods
A successful outcome following treatment of nonunion requires the correct identification of all of the underlying cause(s) and addressing them appropriately. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution and frequency of causative factors in a consecutive cohort of nonunion patients in order to optimise the management strategy for individual patients presenting with nonunion. Causes of the nonunion were divided into four categories: mechanical; infection; dead bone with a gap; and host. Prospective and retrospective data of 100 consecutive patients who had undergone surgery for long bone fracture nonunion were analysed.Objectives
Methods
Exsanguination is the second most common cause
of death in patients who suffer severe trauma. The management of
haemodynamically unstable high-energy pelvic injuries remains controversial,
as there are no universally accepted guidelines to direct surgeons
on the ideal use of pelvic packing or early angio-embolisation.
Additionally, the optimal resuscitation strategy, which prevents
or halts the progression of the trauma-induced coagulopathy, remains
unknown. Although early and aggressive use of blood products in
these patients appears to improve survival, over-enthusiastic resuscitative
measures may not be the safest strategy. This paper provides an overview of the classification of pelvic
injuries and the current evidence on best-practice management of
high-energy pelvic fractures, including resuscitation, transfusion
of blood components, monitoring of coagulopathy, and procedural
interventions including pre-peritoneal pelvic packing, external
fixation and angiographic embolisation. Cite this article:
We report the incidence and location of deep-vein thrombosis in 312 patients who had sustained high-energy, skeletal trauma. They were investigated using magnetic resonance venography and Duplex ultrasound. Despite thromboprophylaxis, 36 (11.5%) developed venous thromboembolic disease with an incidence of 10% in those with non-pelvic trauma and 12.2% in the group with pelvic trauma. Of patients who developed deep-vein thrombosis, 13 of 27 in the pelvic group (48%) and only one of nine in the non-pelvic group (11%) had a definite pelvic deep-vein thrombosis. When compared with magnetic resonance venography, ultrasound had a false-negative rate of 77% in diagnosing pelvic deep-vein thrombosis. Its value in the pelvis was limited, although it was more accurate than magnetic resonance venography in diagnosing clots in the lower limbs. Additional screening may be needed to detect pelvic deep-vein thrombosis in patients with pelvic or acetabular fractures.
