No abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of revision for distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) performed as a primary procedure for native knee fractures using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR). Methods Data from the AOANJRR were obtained for DFA performed as primary procedures for native knee fractures from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2020. Pathological fractures and revision for failed internal fixation were excluded. The five prostheses identified were the Global Modular Arthroplasty System, the Modular Arthroplasty System, the Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System, the Orthopaedic Salvage System, and the Segmental System. Patient demographic data (age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade) were obtained, where available. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were used to determine the rate of revision, and the reasons for revision and mortality data were examined. Results The AOANJRR identified 153 primary DFAs performed for native knee fractures in 151 patients during the study period, with 63.3% of these (n = 97) performed within the last five years. The median follow-up was 2.1 years (interquartile range 0.8 to 4.4). The patient population was 84.8% female (n = 128), with a mean age of 76.1 years (SD 11.9). The cumulative percent revision rate at three years was 10%. The most common reason for revision was loosening, followed by infection. Patient survival at one year was 87.5%, decreasing to 72.8% at three years postoperatively. Conclusion The use of DFA to treat native knee fractures is increasing, with 63.3% of cases performed within the last five years. While long-term data are not available, the results of this study suggest that DFA may be a reasonable option for elderly patients with native knee fractures where fixation is not feasible, or for whom prolonged non-weightbearing may be detrimental. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):894–901.

Background Bunions are a common complaint, particularly among older female patients. They are characterised by progressive deformity at the metatarsophalangeal joint, resulting in a painful dorsomedial prominence. This may cause difficulties with shoe wear and contribute to falls in the elderly. Objective The aim of this article is to discuss the aetiology, non-operative and operative management of bunions, as well as indications for referral. Discussion Initial treatment of symptomatic bunions should be non-operative. Accommodative footwear is important. There is evidence supporting the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, orthotics, splints/ braces and toe spacers. However, these may not provide long-term relief, and referral to an orthopaedic surgeon is recommended if the patient has a painful prominence, has exhausted non-operative treatment and is a suitable operative candidate. Cosmesis alone is not an indication for operative management. Smoking is a relative contraindication to surgery, and cessation is recommended. In paediatric or adolescent patients (juvenile bunion), surgery should be delayed until skeletal maturity.

Case: A 57-year-old man presented with tricompartmental left knee osteoarthritis, as well as proximal tibiofibular joint arthritis and a ganglion cyst. He underwent simultaneous total knee arthroplasty and proximal tibiofibular joint arthrodesis, with an excellent outcome. Conclusion: Proximal tibiofibular joint arthritis is uncommon and may be associated with tibiofemoral arthritis, proximal tibiofibular joint instability, and ankylosing spondylitis. We present a case of simultaneous total knee arthroplasty and proximal tibiofibular arthrodesis. This is an effective option for treating patients with dual pathology. The proximal tibiofibular joint should be considered as an uncommon cause of lateral knee pain.

Case: A 9-year-old boy sustained a right distal clavicle physeal separation with superior and posterior displacement through the periosteum. He was treated surgically with open reduction, Kirschner wire fixation, and periosteal repair and had an excellent outcome. Conclusion: Distal clavicle fractures are rare in children, and acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) separations are exceedingly rare. Differentiating between the 2 is often difficult radiographically and clinically. Our case represents a Type IV distal clavicle fracture but could be confused with an ACJ separation. Surgical treatment was successful.