Search

Objectives: We documented the following components of waiting time for total hip replacement (THR): first surgical consultation, date of decision to operate and date of surgery. We then explored whether [...]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Surgery is the property of CMA Impact Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Adverse outcomes for patients with isolated hip fracture have been documented when preoperative delay is longer than 48 hours. An efficient system will have the capacity to repair all hip fractures within 48 hours. We hypothesized that in an efficient system, there would be a medical justification for a delay greater than 48 hours. The purpose of this study was to identify the causes and outcome of delay for hip surgery in an efficient system., Methods: All patients with isolated hip fracture admitted to a regional trauma center from April 1993 to March 2003 were reviewed. Demographics, presence of comorbidity, preoperative delay, complications, and mortality were collected. Univariate and multivariate analysis were carried out., Results: The cohort included 977 patients. Overall mortality was 12.2%. Surgery was performed within 24 hours in 53% of cases and within 48 hours in 87% of cases. The presence of comorbidity partly explained longer (>48 hours) surgical delays. Multivariate analysis revealed that age greater than 65, male sex, and the presence of pulmonary and cardiac comorbid conditions or an active cancer but not surgical delay were associated with mortality and complications. However, surgical delay was associated with longer postsurgical hospital stay, independently of the presence of comorbidity or increasing age., Conclusions: Preoperative delay does not entail adverse outcomes when the surgery is delayed to allow for treatment of comorbid medical conditions. Preoperative delay is associated with a longer hospital stay. The presence of comorbidity only partly explains preoperative delay and adverse outcomes. A prospective study coding for the severity of comorbid conditions and the justification of the preoperative delay will be required to fully elucidate the link between delay and outcome.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy potentially can have an adverse effect on bone healing in distraction osteogenesis whether given before or concomitant with distraction osteogenesis. It was the purpose of the current study to determine if administration of chemotherapy before distraction adversely affects bone generation in distraction osteogenesis. Twenty-four adult dairy goats were divided randomly into two groups: a control group having distraction osteogenesis only and a chemotherapy group, receiving one course of Adriamycin before distraction osteogenesis. The animals were sacrificed at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or 24 weeks and the lengthened tibias were evaluated by radiologic studies, biomechanical testing, and histologic analysis. All goats receiving chemotherapy showed systemic adverse effects. In a multifactorial analysis of the lengthened bones, there was no statistically significant difference between the control goats versus goats that received chemotherapy; indicating that there was no sustained inhibitory effect on bone formation by the chemotherapy. These findings suggest that a prior course of chemotherapy with Adriamycin may not be a contraindication to limb lengthening for limb salvage after resection of an osteosarcoma.

Background: The treatment of open fractures of the tibial shaft is often complicated by delayed union and nonunion. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2; dibotermin alfa) to accelerate healing of open tibial shaft fractures and to reduce the need for secondary intervention., Methods: In a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind study, 450 patients with an open tibial fracture were randomized to receive either the standard of care (intramedullary nail fixation and routine soft-tissue management [the control group]), the standard of care and an implant containing 0.75 mg/mL of rhBMP-2 (total dose of 6 mg), or the standard of care and an implant containing 1.50 mg/mL of rhBMP-2 (total dose of 12 mg). The rhBMP-2 implant (rhBMP-2 applied to an absorbable collagen sponge) was placed over the fracture at the time of definitive wound closure. Randomization was stratified by the severity of the open wound. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients requiring secondary intervention because of delayed union or nonunion within twelve months postoperatively., Results: Four hundred and twenty-one (94%) of the patients were available for the twelve-month follow-up. The 1.50-mg/mL rhBMP-2 group had a 44% reduction in the risk of failure (i.e., secondary intervention because of delayed union; relative risk = 0.56; 95% confidence interval = 0.40 to 0.78; pairwise p = 0.0005), significantly fewer invasive interventions (e.g., bone-grafting and nail exchange; p = 0.0264), and significantly faster fracture-healing (p = 0.0022) than did the control patients. Significantly more patients treated with 1.50 mg/mL of rhBMP-2 had healing of the fracture at the postoperative visits from ten weeks through twelve months (p = 0.0008). Compared with the control patients, those treated with 1.50 mg/mL of rhBMP-2 also had significantly fewer hardware failures (p = 0.0174), fewer infections (in association with Gustilo-Anderson type-III injuries; p = 0.0219), and faster wound-healing (83% compared with 65% had wound-healing at six weeks; p =0.0010)., Conclusions: The rhBMP-2 implant was safe and, when 1.50 mg/mL was used, significantly superior to the standard of care in reducing the frequency of secondary interventions and the overall invasiveness of the procedures, accelerating fracture and wound-healing, and reducing the infection rate in patients with an open fracture of the tibia.