Parry, Joshua A.

Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of static versus dynamic external fixation for elbow fracture-dislocations with persistent instability after surgical management. Design: Comparative, retrospective review. Setting: Two tertiary referral upper-extremity centers. Patients: Twenty-four elbows requiring external fixation for persistent elbow instability within 90 days of surgical management of an elbow fracture-dislocation. Intervention: Static and dynamic external fixation was used in 16 and 8 patients, respectively, for a median of 39 days (interquartile range, 33–48 days). Main Outcome Measurements: Elbow range of motion, complications, and revision surgeries. Results: Immediately after static and dynamic external fixation removal, there was no difference in elbow extension [33 degrees ± 16 degrees vs. 41 degrees ± 13 degrees, mean difference (MD) 7 degrees, 95% confidence interval (CI) −6 degrees–22 degrees] or flexion (114 degrees ± 35 degrees vs. 118 degrees ± 11 degrees, MD 4 degrees, 95% CI -23 degrees–132 degrees), respectively. At last follow-up, static and dynamic external fixation groups had no difference in elbow extension (27 degrees ± 13 degrees vs. 24 degrees ± 10 degrees, MD -3 degrees, 95% CI –15 degrees–7 degrees) or flexion (129 degrees ± 12 degrees vs. 128 degrees ± 14 degrees, MD -1 degree, 95% CI -13 degrees–10 degrees), respectively. Static and dynamic external fixation groups had no difference in complications [7 (44%) vs. 5 (63%), difference 19%, 95% CI -23%–54%] or revision surgeries [6 (38%) vs. 4 (50%), difference 13%, 95% CI -27%–49%]. Conclusions: No difference in range of motion, complications, and revision surgeries was detected after static versus dynamic external fixation of persistently unstable elbow fracture-dislocations. Due to ease of application, static external fixation is our preferred treatment for these injuries. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Purpose The aim of this study is to review the management of all paediatric humerus diaphyseal fractures treated at a single institution over a 20-year period. Methods Retrospective review from between 1996 and 2016 identified 96 humerus shaft fractures in paediatric patients (0 to 17 years). After excluding those deceased from inciting trauma, pathological and perinatal fractures, 80 patients remained for analysis. Data collected included age, fracture type, displacement, nerve palsy, treatment, complications and time to union. Radiographs were reviewed at the time of injury and at latest follow-up. Results Of 80 paediatric humeral diaphyseal fractures, 65 (81%) were treated with immobilization. In all, 15 (19%) fractures were treated with surgical stabilization. Most common indications were fracture displacement, open fractures and to improve mobilization in patients with multiple injuries. Fractures were stabilized with a plate (eight), flexible nails (five), external fixation (one) and percutaneous pinning (one). The operative group, compared with the nonoperative group, was older, had more high-energy mechanisms, more open fractures and increased fracture displacement. All patients in the nonoperative and operative groups went on to union with minimal complications. A nerve palsy was present in five patients (6%)with three of the five involving the radial nerve (4%). All nerve palsies were observed and had full neurological recovery. Conclusion Over a 20-year period nonoperative management of paediatric humerus shaft fractures was successful in the majority of patients. Operative stabilization, when rarely indicated, had a low complication rate and improved radiographic alignment. All nerve injuries fully recovered without surgical intervention. Level of evidence IV

Objectives: To validate a neck-shaft angle (NSA) correction formula using the known angle between the medullary nail and lag screw of an indwelling cephalomedullary nail (CMN). Methods: Pertrochanteric femur fractures were created in 7 synthetic femurs and reconstructed with a CMN. Anteroposterior x-rays were taken with the proximal femur in 0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees of internal/external rotation and 10 and 20 degrees of flexion with neutral rotation. The femoral NSA and the nail angle were measured on anteroposterior x-rays. The corrected NSA was obtained by multiplying the known nail angle by the quotient of the measured NSA over the measured nail angle. Results: With increasing degrees of internal or external rotation, the difference between the actual and the measured NSA increased. After correction using the known angle of the nail, the measured NSA was reduced to within 3 degrees of the actual NSA over all degrees of rotation. At neutral rotation, 15 degrees of external rotation, and 10 and 20 degrees of hip flexion, there was minimal difference between the actual NSA and the measured NSA, negating the effect of the correction formula. Conclusions: The measured NSA after CMN of intertrochanteric fractures is altered by hip rotation. This study validates the correction formula, which determines this difference by using the known angle between the lag screw and the nail.

Objectives: To determine whether fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures with cephalomedullary nails (CMNs) with a neck-shaft angle (NSA) less than the native NSA affects reduction and lag screw cutout. Design: Retrospective comparative study. Setting: Level I trauma center. Patients/Participants: Patients treated with a CMN for unstable pertrochanteric femur fractures (OTA/AO 31-A2.2 and 31-A2.3) between 2005 and 2014. Intervention: CMN fixation. Main Outcome Measurement: NSA reduction and lag screw cutout. Results: Patients fixed with a nail angle less than their native NSA were less likely to have good reductions [17% vs. 60%, 95% confidence interval (CI), −63% to −18%; P = 0.0005], secondary to more varus reductions (41% vs. 10%, 95% CI, 9%–46%; P = 0.01) and more fractures with ≥4 mm of displacement (63% vs. 35%, 95% CI, 3%–49%; P = 0.03). The cutout was not associated with the use of a nail angle less than the native NSA (60% vs. 76%, 95% CI, −56% to 18%; P = 0.5), varus reductions (60% vs. 32%, 95% CI, −13% to 62%; P = 0.3), or poor reductions (20% vs. 17%, 95% CI, −24% to 44%; P = 1.0). Conclusions: The fixation of unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures with a nail angle less than the native NSA was associated with more varus reductions and fracture displacement but did not affect the lag screw cutout. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: There is a paucity of data on the results of reverse (anteverting) periacetabular osteotomy (RPAO) for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) secondary to acetabular retroversion. Purpose: To evaluate the midterm outcomes of RPAO for FAI secondary to acetabular retroversion in those with and without hip dysplasia. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review identified RPAOs performed on patients with acetabular retroversion in isolation or in the setting of dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] ≤19°). Acetabular retroversion with FAI was diagnosed clinically and radiographically, with a positive crossover and posterior wall signs on pelvic radiographs. Twenty-three patients (30 hips) met the inclusion criteria; 20 hips with isolated retroversion and 10 hips with retroversion and hip dysplasia. The average age at the time of the procedure was 26 years (range, 13-45 years). The average length of follow-up was 5 years (range, 2-19 years). Harris Hip Score (HHS) and radiographs were evaluated preoperatively and at last follow-up. Results: The mean preoperative LCEA was 31° (range, 22°-49°) in the isolated retroversion group and 9° (range, –4° to 17°) in the dysplastic group. Postoperatively, the LCEA in the dysplastic group increased to 35° (range, 15°-46°) ( P = .0001). The crossover sign corrected in 55% (11/20) of the isolated retroversion group and 80% (8/10) of the dysplastic group. The acetabular index (mean ± SD) improved from 1.3 ± 0.3 to 1.7 ± 0.6 ( P = .0001), indicating improved anteversion. At the latest follow-up, the average HHS in the isolated retroversion group increased from 58 preoperatively (range, 23-77) to 93 (range, 68-100) ( P = .0001); the HHS in the dysplastic group improved from 49 (range, 20-74) to 92 (range, 77-100) ( P < .0001). Complication rates were similar in both groups. Excluding hardware removal, additional surgeries were performed in 13% (4/30). Conclusion: RPAO performed for FAI in the young patient with isolated acetabular retroversion or retroversion in the setting of dysplasia successfully improved clinical and radiographic results at mid- to long-term follow-up.