No abstract

Aims Understanding of open fracture management is skewed due to reliance on small-number lower limb, specialist unit reports and large, unfocused registry data collections. To address this, we carried out the Open Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study, and report the demographic details and the initial steps of care for patients admitted with open fractures in the UK. Methods Any patient admitted to hospital with an open fracture between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 was included, excluding phalanges and isolated hand injuries. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture. Demographic details, injury, fracture classification, and patient dispersal were detailed. Results In total, 1,175 patients (median age 47 years (interquartile range (IQR) 29 to 65), 61.0% male (n = 717)) were admitted across 51 sites. A total of 546 patients (47.1%) were employed, 5.4% (n = 63) were diabetic, and 28.8% (n = 335) were smokers. In total, 29.0% of patients (n = 341) had more than one injury and 4.8% (n = 56) had two or more open fractures, while 51.3% of fractures (n = 637) occurred in the lower leg. Fractures sustained in vehicle incidents and collisions are common (38.8%; n = 455) and typically seen in younger patients. A simple fall (35.0%; n = 410) is common in older people. Overall, 69.8% (n = 786) of patients were admitted directly to an orthoplastic centre, 23.0% (n = 259) were transferred to an orthoplastic centre after initial management elsewhere, and 7.2% were managed outwith specialist units (n = 81). Conclusion This study describes the epidemiology of open fractures in the UK. For a decade, orthopaedic surgeons have been practicing in a guideline-driven, network system without understanding the patient features, injury characteristics, or dispersal processes of the wider population. This work will inform care pathways as the UK looks to the future of trauma networks and guidelines, and how to optimize care for patients with open fractures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):746–752.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo compare the outcomes between autograft and allograft reconstruction in patients with PCL deficiency. During the extraction of data and its comparison and interpretation in the development of this meta-analysis, the lack of standardisation in patient follow-up with regards to length of follow-up, modalities measured, and reports of adverse events were notable. Many studies were thus excluded due to failure to meet preset inclusion criteria. The subsequent data analysis therefore became limited in its translation towards guiding clinical and surgical practice. The development of a standardised pre and post-operative assessment and follow-up criteria will not only benefit patients, but will also ensure that future systematic reviews conducted will carry a higher impact towards guiding clinical practice.MethodMedline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January, 1980 until December 1 st, 2016 to identify all relevant articles. Clinical outcomes including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner and Lysholm scores, joint laxity and posterior tibial displacement were evaluated. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled into odds ratios while continuous outcomes were pooled into weighted mean differences (MD) using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsWe conducted a systematic review looking at outcomes of isolated PCL reconstruction comparing autograft vs allograft sources. Clinical outcomes including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm and Tegner scores, joint laxity, and posterior tibial displacement were evaluated. Amongst the 145 unique articles found through the screening process, 25 studies, with a combined patient population of 900, were deemed eligible for inclusion in this study. Post-operative improvement was observed regardless of graft source. Pooled findings revealed that autografts demonstrated a statistically significant post-operative activity as measured by Tegner scores (MD: 0.5, 95% CI 0.03, 0.9; p=0.04) and a reduced posterior laxity (MD: −1.2, 95% CI −1.6,–0.8; p<0.00001).ConclusionsHowever, despite a statistically significant improvement, there is difficulty establishing a clinically significant improvement. This stems from the absence of a standardised guideline of measuring pre-operative and post-operative functions. One example is the inconsistent usage of IKDC scores between studies, a failure of reporting both pre and post-operative IKDC scores, and subjective reporting as either ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ rather than following a protocol. Thus, the development of a systematic approach to assess patients before and after operations, along with establishment of an agreed minimally clinical important difference will lend to more impactful data analysis and ease of generating guidelines.