Introduction Femoral neck fractures in the elderly are a major event and are rising in incidence over the last decade. Advancing age and numerous comorbidities largely account for high mortality rate and require geriatric expertise. Treatment options are total hip arthroplasty (THA), hemiarthroplasty (HA) or osteosynthesis. Literature suggests THA or HA for better outcomes, although no clear guidelines exist. Material and methods A retrospective chart review was performed of 63 patients (80 ± 11 years; 32 women, 31 men) with Garden one femoral neck fractures treated between June 2018 and June 2020 with either HA or internal fixation with the Femoral Neck System (FNS). Primary outcome measures were surgical and non-surgical complication rates and best achievable mobilization during the hospital stay. Results Thirty four patients were treated with HA, and 29 with the FNS. Mobilization was measured using the Charité Mobility Index (CHARMI). No difference between age, ASA, CCI or preoperative CHARMI was found. The CHARMI was significantly lower in the HA group. No difference in surgical complications was found. The HA cohort showed more non-surgical complications, a longer ICU stay and more blood transfusions. Hospitalization was significant longer in the HA than the FNS cohort (15.1 ± 5.1 vs 9.8 ± 3.8 days). Radiographic controls were performed after 6 and 12 weeks. The FNS group showed a mean shortening of 3.3 mm. 4 of 21 patient had shortening >5 mm. 20 of 21 patients showed radiographic signs of bone healing after 3 months. Conclusion Early results with the FNS show faster recovery than patient with hemiarthroplasty. Internal fixation with the FNS may be an option in non-displaced femoral neck fractures. Further studies should be performed to better evaluate the FNS compared to traditional internal fixation methods and arthroplasty.

Background Pediatric traumas are common and remain a unique challenge for trauma surgeons. Demographic data provide a crucial source of information to better understand mechanisms and patterns of injury. The aim of this study was to provide this information to improve treatment strategies of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality in children. Material and methods A retrospective review of every pediatric trauma treated in the emergency department (ED) between 2015 and 2019 was performed. Inclusion criteria were the age between 0 and 14 years and admission to the ED after trauma. Demographic data, time of presentation, mechanism of injury and pattern of injury, treatment, and outcome were analyzed. Different injury patterns were assessed in relation to age group, sex, mechanism of injury and treatment. Results A total of 12,508 patients were included in this study. All patients were stratified into five age groups: babies under the age of 1 (8.8%), toddlers between 1 and 3 (16.8%), preschool children between 4 and 6 (19.3%), young school children between 7 and 10 (27.1%), and young adolescents between 11 and 14 (27.9%). The predominant sex in all age groups was male. 47.7% of patients were admitted between 4 and 10 pm; 14.8% of the patients arrived between 10 pm and 8 am. Peak months of admissions were May to July. Overall, 2703 fractures, 2924 lacerations and superficial tissue injury, 5151 bruises, 320 joint dislocations, 1284 distortions, 76 burns, and 50 other injuries were treated. Most common mechanisms for fractures were leisure activities, falls, and sports-related activities. Forearm fractures were the most common fractures (39.5%) followed by humerus fractures (14%) and fractures of the hand (12.5%). A total of 700 patients with fractures (25.9%) needed surgery. 8.8% of all patients were hospitalized for at least one day. 4 patients died in the hospital (0.03%). Conclusion Despite of higher risk, severe injuries in children are rare. Minor injuries and single fractures are common. Treatment should be managed in specialized centers to ensure an interdisciplinary care and fast recovery. Peak times in the late afternoon and evening and summer months should be taken into consideration of personnel planning.

Introduction Proximal humerus fractures are common and often associated with osteoporosis in the elderly. Unfortunately, the complication and revision rate for joint-preserving surgical treatment using locking plate osteosynthesis is still high. Problems include insufficient fracture reduction and implant misplacement. Using conventional intraoperative two dimensional (2D) X-ray imaging control in only two planes, a completely error-free assessment is not possible. Materials and methods The feasibility of intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) imaging control for locking plate osteosynthesis with screw tip cement augmentation of proximal humerus fractures was retrospectively studied in 14 cases with an isocentric mobile C-arm image intensifier set up parasagittal to the patients. Results The intraoperative digital volume tomography (DVT) scans were feasible in all cases and showed excellent image quality. One patient showed inadequate fracture reduction in the imaging control, which then could be corrected. In another patient, a protruding head screw was detected, which could be replaced before augmentation. Cement distribution in the humeral head was consistent around the screw tips with no leakage into the joint. Conclusion This study shows that insufficient fracture reduction and implant misplacement can be easily and reliably detected by intraoperative DVT scan with an isocentric mobile C-arm set up in the usual parasagittal position to the patient.

The invention of flat-panel detectors led to a revolution in medical imaging. The major benefits of this technology are a higher image quality and dose reduction. Flat-panel detectors have proved to be superior to standard C-arms (= C-arm with radiograph source and image intensifier).Cone-beam computed tomography (cone-beam CT) is a 3D data set, which can be acquired with a flat-panel detector. The cone-shaped beam is used for 3D data generation. For cone-beam CT acquisition, the flat-panel detector rotates around the patient lying on the operating table. Intra-operative cone-beam CT can be a very helpful tool in orthopaedic surgery. Immediate control of fracture reduction and implant positioning in high image quality can reduce the need for secondary revision surgery due to implant malposition.In recent years there has been a revival of standard fan beam CT technology in operating rooms. Fixed and mobile systems are available. Fixed systems are typically placed on a sliding gantry. Different mobile intra-operative CT scanners were recently introduced. Due to their mobility, they are not bound to a specific operating room. The use of standard intra-operative CT scanners results in high 3D image quality but, in comparison with a cone-beam CT scanner, fluoroscopy is not possible.The introduction of flat-panel detectors has led to improvements in intra-operative image quality combined with dose reduction. The possibility of high-quality 3D imaging in combination with navigation can assure optimal implant placement. Due to immediate control of the osteosynthesis, revision surgery at a later time can be prevented.Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170055

Introduction After surgical treatment of injuries of the lower extremity, partial weight bearing is often suggested until soft tissue consolidation. It is doubtful, if this recommendation can be implemented, even in the case that a patient is performing partial weight bearing with a physical therapist. Consequently the question remains, if patients are able to implement partial weight bearing after surgery and which factors favor incompliance. Materials and methods 49 patients, who underwent surgical treatment after injuries of the lower extremity, were equipped with electronic shoe insoles on both sides. Different weight bearing instructions were given depending on the type of injury and surgery (full weight bearing vs. 20 kg weight bearing vs. non-weight bearing). Besides loading, other factors like age, gender, weight and physical activity were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and Fisher's exact test with significance set at a p value < 0.05. Results 25 of the 40 patients, who had to perform non-or partial weight bearing, were not able to follow postoperative instructions (compliance rate 37.5%). The average loading of the whole collective was 32.6 kg (4.8-109.2 kg). The specification of loading had no statistically significant influence on real loading (p-value 0.39). Elderly patients were less able to follow instructions than younger patients (36 vs 30.2 kg). Physically active compared to non-active patients overloaded their injured extremity (37.8 vs 28.7 kg). Patients with a high body mass index (BMI) encountered more difficulties to perform partial weight bearing than lightweight patients (36.9 vs 25.1 kg). Conclusions Most patients were not able to follow loading limitation, even a few days after surgery and even if the patients were trained by a physiotherapist. Excessive weight bearing-related complications should be evaluated.