Background Clavicle fractures are common, especially in military personnel. A persistent problem of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the clavicle is the high percentage of symptomatic implants needing removal. Prominent implants can lead to discomfort in military service members performing activities such as carrying rucksacks and firing high-caliber weapons, potentially resulting in a high removal of implant rate. Alternative approaches to plate fixation may mitigate this, but to our knowledge, only limited evidence is available comparing various plate-fixation approaches. Questions/purposes In a military population, we asked (1) Is there a difference in implant removal rates after midshaft clavicle fixation using orthogonal plating with 2.7-mm reconstruction plates versus a single 3.5-mm locking compression plate? (2) What complications are associated with each fixation approach? (3) Is there a difference in surgical time between the approaches? Methods Between January 2010 and May 2015, three surgeons performed 99 ORIF procedures of midshaft clavicle fractures, always using a single small-fragment plate, and one surgeon performed 34 procedures, always using two mini-fragment plates with an orthogonal plating construct. Of those, 89 (90%) in the small-fragment plating group were available for analysis in this retrospective study and 33 (97%) were available for analysis in the mini-fragment plating group, both groups with a minimum of 2 years of followup. There were no between-group differences in terms of gender, tobacco use, injured side, hand dominance, 100% displacement, comminution, shortening, and active-duty status. We analyzed the proportion of patients who had their plates removed for any complications recorded in their charts. Assessment bias for indications for symptomatic removal of implant was minimized as there was always another fellowship-trained trauma surgeon at our institution available for a second opinion if the operative surgeon did not agree with a patient request for implant removal. A posthoc power calculation indicated that with the numbers available, we had 80% power to detect a between-group difference in implant removal proportion of 14.5% at the p < 0.05 level. Results We found no difference between the small-fragment plating group and the mini-fragment group in the frequency of plate removal (9% [8 of 89] versus 0% [0 of 33]; odds ratio, 3.38 [95% confidence interval 0.41 to 27.68]; p = 0.11); a worst-case analysis that assumed all patients lost to follow-up underwent plate removal did not change this no-difference finding. All cases of implant removal were performed secondary to a symptomatic implant. With the numbers available, there were no differences between the two groups in nonunion, delayed union, infection, or other complications. There was a longer mean operative time in the mini-fragment group than in the small-fragment group (173.7 minutes versus 118.7 minutes; mean difference, 55 minutes [95% CI 38.71 to 71.23]; p < .001). Our overall implant removal percentage for the two groups combined was 6.6% (8 of 122). Conclusions Our study was underpowered to show differences in implant removal but may serve as a pilot for larger randomized controlled trials or multi-institutional studies on this topic. Although there was increased operative time to insert two plates, there was no difference in overall complications. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

To our knowledge, this rare injury pattern, an interposed Chaput fragment preventing closed reduction of the syndesmosis in a skeletally mature patient, has not previously been described in the literature. An open reduction and internal fixation of the Chaput fragment allowed near-anatomic reduction of the tibiotalar joint.

Background Ankle instability is common and previous studies have documented greater than 85% good-to-excellent outcomes based upon both patient-reported outcome measures and subjective evaluation of ability to return to previous activity levels after lateral ankle stabilization in the civilian population. However, patient-reported outcomes and performance may differ in the military population. The military oftentimes requires servicemembers to navigate uneven terrain and ladderwells, which can stress ankles differently than in their civilian counterparts. There has been limited evidence regarding patient outcomes after lateral ankle stabilization within a military population and its elucidation is important in optimizing outcomes for our servicemembers. Furthermore, the potential benefit of fibular periosteum augmentation with lateral ankle stabilization procedures in a military population has not been described. The results of using this extra tissue to reinforce the repair are important in determining whether its routine incorporation is indicated in the military. Questions/purposes In an active-duty military population, we asked: (1) What proportion of patients who underwent lateral ankle stabilization using anatomic repair techniques with or without fibular periosteum augmentation achieved good-to-excellent outcomes based on the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI) score at a minimum follow-up interval of 2 years? (2) Was the proportion of patients who achieved a good-to-excellent FADI score higher among those treated with fibular periosteum augmentation than those treated without? (3) Did the likelihood of achieving a good-to-excellent outcome after lateral ankle stabilization vary based on whether the procedure was performed by a fellowship-trained sports or foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeon versus a podiatrist? Methods Between 2007 and 2017, 15 surgeons (six orthopaedic surgeons and nine podiatrists) performed 502 lateral ankle stabilizations. We excluded 4% (18 of 502) of patients because they were not active-duty at the time of surgery, and we excluded 12% (56 of 502) of lateral ankle stabilizations because they were performed as part of other potentially confounding foot or ankle procedures. We considered 60% (303 of 502) as lost to follow-up because the patients could not be contacted at least 2 years after surgery, they declined to participate, or they did not fully answer the questionnaires. This left 125 patients for analysis. Of those, 79% (99 of 125) had a procedure with fibular periosteum augmentation and 21% (26 of 125) had a procedure without augmentation. During the study period, five fellowship-trained orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons and two podiatrists always used fibular periosteum augmentation. Orthopaedic surgeons performed 75% (94 of 125) of the procedures, and the other 25% (31 of 125) were performed by podiatrists. Whether a servicemember was treated by one specialty or the other was simply based upon whom they were referred to for care. Orthopaedic surgeons tended to perform procedures with augmentation (five with versus one without) and podiatrists tended to perform procedures without augmentation (two with versus seven without). To help account for this confounding factor, we performed separate analyses for procedures performed with versus without augmentation in addition to procedures performed by orthopaedic surgeons versus podiatrists. We retrospectively contacted each patient to obtain their self-reported overall result, FADI outcome score, and postoperative military capabilities. The minimum follow-up duration was 2 years; overall mean follow-up duration was 7 years. The fibular periosteum augmentation group mean follow-up was 7 ± 4 years and without augmentation was 6 ± 3 years. The orthopaedic surgeons group mean follow-up was 7 ± 3 years and the podiatrists group was 7 ± 3 years. We obtained postoperative FADI scores via phone interview along with data regarding the patients’ postoperative military capabilities, but did not have preoperative FADI scores. Results Pooling both surgical treatments, 67% (84 of 125) of the patients reported good-to-excellent results and 33% (41 of 125) reported very poor-to-fair results. We found no difference in the proportion of patients treated with fibular periosteal augmentation who achieved a good or excellent score on the FADI than was observed among the patients treated without periosteal augmentation (68% [67 of 99] versus 65% [17 of 26]; odds ratio 1 [95% CI 0 to 2]; p = 0.81). The proportion of patients who achieved a good or excellent score on the FADI did not differ depending on whether the procedure was performed by an orthopaedic surgeon or a podiatric surgeon (66% [62 of 94] versus 71% [22 of 31]; OR 1 [95% CI 1 to 2]; p = 0.66). Conclusion The patient-reported outcome scores after lateral ankle stabilization in our study of military servicemembers at a minimum of 2 years and a mean of 7 years were far lower than have been reported in studies on civilians. Indeed, our findings may represent a best-case scenario because more patients were lost to follow-up than were accounted for, and in general, surgical results among missing patients are poorer than among those who return for follow-up. Variability in the addition of fibular periosteum augmentation and whether an orthopaedic surgeon or podiatrist performed the procedure did not account for these findings. With one third of patients reporting very-poor-to-fair results after these reconstructions, and many patients lost to follow-up, we recommend surgeons counsel their servicemember patients accordingly before surgery. Specifically, that there is a one third chance they will need permanent restrictions or have to leave the military postoperatively; analogously, we believe that our findings may apply to similarly active patients outside the military, and we question whether these procedures may not be serving such patients as well as previously believed. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.