Search

Background The use of smartphones and multimedia messaging service (MMS) continues to increase in day to day orthopaedic clinical practice. However, there is limited evidence to support the safe utilisation of MMS. Objectives The aim of this study was to correlate the performance of MMS imaging to picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) imaging within the setting of diagnosis and management of ankle fractures. Methods The ankle fracture radiograph series of 82 consecutive patients were evaluated by five orthopaedic consultant specialists. A questionnaire regarding diagnosis and preferred management was completed separately for each patient using smartphone and PACS images. Statistical analysis was performed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Results Ankle fracture diagnosis showed strong to excellent correlation both inter- and intraobserver MMS vs PACS when using the Weber (0.815, 0.988), Anatomical (0.858, 0.988), and AO classification systems (0.855, 0.985). MMS was less reliable than PACS in determining many management options. Conclusion The reliability of ankle fracture classification using MMS image viewing was not significantly different to interpretation on PACS workstations. Smartphone use in ankle fracture classification is supported by this study. Smartphone use was less accurate than PACS in devising management plans and future use should be limited to making only initial plans that must be corroberated with PACS and intraoperative findings prior to definitive fixation.

IntroductionAnkle fractures are common in the elderly population. Surgical fixation is technically challenging and often results in complications due to high rates of osteoporosis and vascular disease. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) often requires prolonged periods of non-weight bearing increasing the risks of complications. Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) nailing has been suggested as an alternative to ORIF which allows immediate weight bearing, and is suggested to result in fewer complications. This study aims to compare the two surgical techniques in the elderly population with ankle fractures.Methods and analysisThe study will be a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing ORIF to TTC nailing in 110 patients with ankle fractures aged 50 or above with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of greater than or equal to four. Participants and assessors will not be blinded to intervention. The primary outcome measure will be overall complication rate. Secondary outcomes include length of hospital stay, mobility at discharge, discharge destination, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot score, the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score, mortality rate, rate of secondary surgical interventions and number of blood transfusions required postoperatively. Our null hypothesis is that there is no clinically significant difference in the primary outcome measure between the two treatment groups.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by Metro South Hospital and Health Services Human Research Ethics Committee (EC00167) (reference number HREC/17/QPAH/351).DiscussionCompletion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of TTC nailing versus ORIF in treatment of the elderly ankle fracture. If TTC nailing is found to result in superior outcomes, this trial has the capacity to change current clinical practice.Trial registration numberACTRN12617001588381;Pre-results andU1111-1203-1704.

Background: The standard treatment for a non-union of the hallux metatarsophalangeal joint fusion has been to revise the fusion. Revision fusion is technically more demanding, often involving bone grafting, more substantial fixation and prolonged period of immobilization postoperatively. We present data to suggest that removal of hardware and debridement alone is an alternative treatment option. Materials and Methods: A case note review identified patients with a symptomatic non-union after hallux metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) fusion. It is our practice to offer these patients revision fusion or removal of hardware and debridement. For the seven patients that chose hardware removal and were left with a pseudarthrosis, a matched control group was selected from patients who had had successful fusions. Three outcome scores were used. Hallux valgus and dorsiflexion angles were recorded. Results: One hundred thirty-nine hallux MTPJ arthrodeses were carried out. Fourteen non-unions were identified. The rate of nonunion in males and following previous hallux MTPJ surgery was 19% and 24%, respectively. In females undergoing a primary MTPJ fusion, the rate was 2.4%. Twelve non-union patients were reviewed at 27 months (mean). Eleven patients had elected to undergo removal of hardware and debridement. Four patients with pseudarthrosis were unhappy with the results and proceeded to either revision fusion or MTPJ replacement. Seven non-union patients, who had removal of hardware alone, had outcome scores marginally worse compared to those with successful fusions. Conclusion: Removal of hardware alone is a reasonable option to offer as a relatively minor procedure following a failed arthrodesis of the first MTPJ. This must be accepted on the proviso that in this study four out of 11 (36%) patients proceeded to a revision first MTPJ fusion or first MTPJ replacement. We also found that the rate of non-union in primary first MTPJ fusion was significantly higher in males and those patients who had undergone previous surgery. Level of Evidence: III, Retrospective Comparative Series