Search

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Proximal femur fractures are common traumatic injuries treated by orthopedic surgeons. Preparation and positioning for surgical intervention are critical in the proper management of proximal femur fractures. The purpose of this study was to review the current evidence on the various positioning options for patients and to highlight the principles and emerging techniques to help orthopedic surgeons treat this common injury. RECENT FINDINGS: Strategic patient positioning is key to the reduction and fixation of proximal femur fractures without complications. The use of intramedullary devices for the fixation of proximal femur fractures has led to an increased use of the modern fracture table. The fracture table should be used when surgeons are facile with its use to avoid significant complications. Recent best available evidence has suggested increased risk of malrotation associated with the use of the fracture table. The use of the radiolucent table offers the most flexibility, but limits surgeons as multiple assistants are needed to maintain reduction during fixation. SUMMARY: Positioning for proximal femur fractures is an important technique for general and trauma orthopedic surgeons. Surgeons need to be aware of the various techniques for positioning of proximal femur fractures due to the diversity of injury patterns and patient characteristics. Each positioning technique has it benefits and potential complications that every orthopaedic surgeon should be familiar with while treating these injuries. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12178-021-09710-x.

The bony and ligamentous structure of the foot is a complex kinematic interaction, designed to transmit force and motion in an energy-efficient and stable manner. Visible deformity of the foot or atypical patterns of swelling should raise significant concern for foot trauma. In some instances, disruption of either bony structure or supporting ligaments is identified years after injury due to chronic pain in the hindfoot or midfoot. This article will focus on injuries relating to the peritalar complex, the bony articulation between the tibia, talus, calcaneus, and navicular bones, supplemented with multiple ligamentous structures. Attention will be given to the five most common peritalar injuries to illustrate the nature of each and briefly describe methods for achieving the correct diagnosis in the context of acute trauma. This includes subtalar dislocations, chopart joint injuries, talar fractures, navicular fractures, and occult calcaneal fractures.

Background. Because they are associated with a high energy mechanism, open distal femoral physeal fractures are rare injuries. Appropriate management of these injuries is critical in the pediatric population due to the increased risk of damage to the physis and subsequent growth disturbance and deformity after injury. Pediatric fractures may also represent the sequelae of genetic syndromes (particularly connective tissue disorders), nutritional abnormalities, or conditions that predispose to abnormal bone mineral density. Clinical case. In this case report, we present the case of a 9-year-old girl with tetrasomy 18p who presented with a grossly displaced right open distal femoral physeal fracture in the setting of isolated, lower extremity trauma. The patient underwent an irrigation and debridement, followed by an open reduction and cross-pinning through the distal femoral epiphysis. After the operation, the patient was made non-weight-bearing in a cast for 4 weeks, and at 6 weeks, the pins were removed. The patient had full range of motion at the 6-month follow-up and then resumed her preinjury level of play at school. Discussion. Tetrasomy 18p results in inherent muscle weakness that may interfere in the normal soft tissue sleeve of muscles stabilizing long bones. This may result in greater displacement of fractures sustained during trauma, which may lead to a greater rate of vascular injury, physeal injury, and poor overall prognosis. It is imperative for clinicians to be familiar with tetrasomy 18p and its associated orthopedic manifestations. Conclusion. There is scarce literature on the management of physeal fractures in patients with tetrasomy 18p. In the case described here, we report a good outcome with the standard of care using preoperative and postoperative antibiotics, irrigation and debridement, open fracture fixation, and immobilization in a cast postoperatively. The duration of non-weight-bearing was also increased by 1 week and the pins were removed 1 week later than we would have for patients without any bone or connective tissue disorders.

Over the past two decades, oral health has emerged as a health care priority. Historically, patients greater than 65 years of age, the economically disadvantaged, members of racial or ethnic minority groups, or the disabled or home bound have experienced significant barriers to routine dental care. The connection between oral health care and periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) continues to be of importance to the orthopedic surgeon, as such infections are significantly morbid and costly. This review aims to introduce the importance of oral health as a small but crucial portion of an arthroplasty patient's overall perioperative management.

Background Limb length discrepancy (LLD) is a known complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA), leading to decreased patient function and satisfaction. It remains unknown how a patient’s perception of LLD evolves over time. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between measured and perceived LLD, and to assess whether perceived LLD resolved with time in most patients. Methods This study retrospectively reviewed radiographs of 140 consecutive patients undergoing primary THA by a single surgeon via a direct anterior approach, calculating postoperative change in limb length (ΔL). Patient perceptions of LLD were recorded at standard postoperative visit intervals. A P-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance. Results Of 130 patients (mean ΔL = +7.9 mm), 22 patients endorsed perceived postoperative LLD and the remainder were asymptomatic (mean ΔL +11.1 mm vs +7.3 mm, P = .03). Seventeen patients reported mild symptoms and 5 reported severe symptoms (mean ΔL +10.2 mm vs +13.8 mm, P = .4). After 1 year, 45% (10) patients reported complete resolution of perceived LLD (mean follow-up 364 days), 18% (4) reported notable improvement, and 36% (8) reported no improvement. Four excluded patients endorsed perceived LLD (2 mild, 2 severe), which resolved after contralateral THA. Conclusion This study noted a correlation between increasing postoperative ΔL and perceived LLD. A majority of patients (63%) experienced either improvement or full resolution of symptoms during the follow-up period. This data may have a role in reassuring the orthopedic surgeon and the patient regarding the natural course of postoperative LLD. Further investigation is needed to help identify risk factors for persistent LLD. Level of Evidence Level III (Prognostic).

Introduction Allergic reactions to metal implants are increasingly recognized, but its relevance to the orthopaedic surgeon remains unclear. We evaluate the prevalence of metal allergies in a subset of the population and review the significance through a survey of the current literature. Methods Preoperative and postoperative patients referred for metal allergy testing were divided into two groups; those with a history of dermatitis and those without. Patients with a history of dermatitis were offered skin patch testing that included the North American Contact Dermatitis core allergen panels in addition to our metal screening series. Patients without dermatitis were tested to the more limited patch testing metal screening series. Some patients with dermatitis opted for the more limited screening, whereas some patients without dermatitis underwent more extensive testing at their request or at the request of the referring clinician. Patch tests were evaluated at 2 and 4 days after placement. Results Hundred patients were referred for metal allergy testing, 46 of whom were for reasons related to planned orthopaedic surgery. Of those tested, 60 patients had a history of dermatitis and 40 did not. Some patients were nonreactive to all tested allergens, whereas others demonstrated one or more positive skin patch test reactions. The number of positive reactions to each metal in patients with a history of dermatitis was the following: nickel 19, amalgam 10, palladium 10, copper 8, cobalt 5, mercury 5, tin 2, gold 1, titanium 1, and vanadium 1. The number of positive reactions to metals in patients without a history of dermatitis was the following: nickel 4, amalgam 5, palladium 4, mercury 4, cobalt 4, tin 2, copper 2, gold 1, vanadium 1, and molybdenum 1. Discussion Metal allergy was common in the individuals referred for testing, with reactions to nickel and amalgam being the most commonly encountered. Some individuals experience more notable allergic reactions to implanted devices than others. Localized and generalized skin reactions have been reported, along with implant failure and loosening. Surgeons should be aware of the incidence of metal allergies and the potential consequences.