Benoit Herbert

The Epidemiology and Injury Patterns of Acetabular Fractures: Are the USA and China Comparable?

BackgroundAcetabular fractures are rare injuries in heterogeneous patient groups, making it difficult to develop adequately powered prospective single-center clinical trials in the USA or Europe. Chinese trauma centers treat a high volume of these injuries, and if the patient population and injury patterns are comparable to those in the USA, this might support development of multicenter studies in Level I trauma centers in the two countries.Questions/purposesWe determined whether the following parameters were similar between operative acetabular fractures treated at Chinese and US trauma centers: (1) epidemiology of injured patients, (2) mechanism of injuries and fracture types, and (3) hospital stay parameters, including symptomatic postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rate.MethodsWe extracted data from trauma databases for patients admitted with acetabular fractures managed surgically from 2005 to 2012 for one Chinese center and from 2008 to 2012 for one US center. Sex, age, mechanism of injury, fracture classification, Injury Severity Score (ISS), time from injury to surgery, length of hospital stay, and symptomatic DVT rate were analyzed. We included 661 Chinese patients (539 men, 122 women) and 212 US patients (163 men, 49 women).ResultsMean age at time of injury was different between China and the USA, at 40 years with a unimodal distribution and 44 years with a bimodal distribution (p < 0.001), respectively. Incidence of surgically treated acetabular fractures has been increasing in China but decreasing in the USA. Mean ISSs were comparable. Although the distribution of mechanisms of injury was different (p = 0.004), high-energy injuries (motor vehicle accidents, falls > 10 feet) still accounted for most fractures in both centers. Fracture classifications (per Letournel) were comparable, with posterior wall fractures most common. Mean time from injury to surgery and mean hospital stay were longer in China than in the USA (9 versus 3 days [p < 0.001] and 26 versus 11 days [p < 0.001], respectively). Symptomatic DVT rates were comparable.ConclusionsAlthough we identified differences between the two centers, we also noted important similarities. Multicenter clinical studies involving these locations should be performed with caution and focus on similar end points, taking into account the populations’ baseline differences. Because of the potential for such differences, this kind of validation study should be performed before embarking on resource-intensive multicenter trials.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Balloon tibioplasty: pearls and pitfalls.

Methods of tibial plateau fracture fixation have evolved over the last decades; however the techniques used to reduce these fractures have remained relatively unchanged. Balloon tibioplasty, a minimally invasive novel technique used in the reduction of depressed tibial plateau fractures, has been gaining popularity. This technique offers a slow controlled expansion of the balloon with multidirectional force vectors and a large surface area allowing for more bone to be elevated simultaneously. The technique also creates a well-defined bone void of known volume while theoretically compressing the surrounding bone, potentially limiting the risk of cement extrusion as well as late subsidence of the elevated bone. Although an attractive option, as with all novel techniques there is a learning curve. The purpose of this article is to briefly describe our technique of balloon tibioplasty, potential contraindications, and to illustrate some possible complications, and provide some tips and tricks we have found useful to avoid them.

Does the OTA Open Fracture Classification Predict the Need for Limb Amputation? A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study on 512 Patients.

Background: Few studies have examined the utility of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Open Fracture Classification (OTA-OFC) compared to the traditional Gustilo-Anderson classification for prediction of treatment outcomes in patients with open fractures. Questions/Objectives: (1) How do the Gustilo-Anderson classification and OTA-OFC systems compare in accuracy of predicting limb amputation, infection, and need for soft tissue coverage? (2) Is there an OTA-OFC summative threshold score that may guide the discussion and decision-making with regard to limb salvage or amputation? Design: Retrospective observational cohort study; Level IV evidence. Setting: Level I trauma center and urban safety-net institution. Patients/Participants: Consecutive adult patients with open long bone fractures who underwent operative treatment between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012. Main Outcome and Measurements: Postoperative complications of infection, early limb amputation, and requirement for soft-tissue procedures. Results: The study cohort comprised 512 patients with mean age 49.6 ± 14.9 years. Nineteen patients (3.7%) underwent amputation. The Gustilo-Anderson classification demonstrated no correlations with any of the primary outcome measures, while OTA-OFC summative scores significantly varied between all outcome comparison groups. The skin injury component of the OTA-OFC was an independent predictor of limb amputation (OR, 5.44; 95% CI, 2.37–12.47), and an OTA-OFC summative score of ≥10 best correlated with need for amputation (P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of the reported model were 79% and 94%, respectively. Conclusions: Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the retrospective nature of our study. Based on our data, the OTA-OFC is superior to the Gustilo-Anderson classification system for prediction of postoperative complications and treatment outcomes in patients with open long bone fractures. A summative threshold score of 10 seems to identify increased odds of successful limb salvage.

Fluoroscopic Views for a More Accurate Placement of Iliosacral Screws: An Experimental Study.

Objectives: Misperception on the fluoroscopic image showing a well-placed iliosacral (IS) screw can occur, when the screw is in reality misplaced. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate and highlight examples of misperception and suggest alternative inlet and outlet views to confirm adequate IS screw placement. Methods: We used 9 different pelvic plastic models. In 8 of those models, IS screws were purposely misplaced: exiting anterior at the midportion of the S1 body, exiting at the lateral aspect of the anterior S1 body, abutting posterior to S1 body, exiting posterior to the S1 body, exiting superior to the far-side of the sacral ala, exiting superior to the S1 body, exiting partially in the S1 foramen, exiting completely in the S1 foramen. One model was used as control with correct screw placement. Different outlet and inlet views were tested to accurately detect important anatomic landmarks and avoid fake phenomenon (FP) using 3 different angles. Results: Misperception occurred in 3 models: (1) penetration at the midportion of the anterior border of S1, (2) penetration of the superior sacrum ala, and (3) partial penetration of S1 foramen. In the first situation, misperception could be avoided when the “anterior inlet view” was obtained. In the other 2 situations, misperception could be avoided using specific outlet views herein described. Conclusions: Our findings highlight that misperception can occur using standard inlet and outlet views. We suggest using 2 variations of the inlet views and 3 variations of the outlet views to avoid misperception in clinical practice.