Introduction:The Vancouver algorithm recommends revision arthroplasty (RA) for Vancouver type B2 (VTB2) fractures. However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using locking compression plates (LCP) may be a valid and less invasive alternative treatment.Materials and Methods:Between January 2007 and March 2017, we retrospectively recruited all patients treated with either ORIF with LCP or RA for VTB2 fractures in our clinic. All of the following were reviewed: the length of hospital stay, the operating time, the need for blood transfusions during and/or after surgery, implant-related and patient-related complications, need for revision surgery, and the radiological outcome. Additionally, the functional outcome was investigated.Results:Fifty-nine patients were recruited. Thirty-five (59.3%) patients underwent RA, while 24 (40.7%) patients received ORIF with LCP. The median surgical time was 137.50 minutes in the LCP group compared to 160.00 minutes in the RA group ( P = .051). Three (12.5%) patients in the LCP group and 10 (28.6%) patients in the RA group experienced an implant-associated complication ( P = .131). Patient-related complications occurred in 3 (12.5%) patients in the LCP group versus 6 (17.1%) patients in the RA group ( P = .628). The mean preoperative Parker mobility score was 9 points in both groups and decreased in both groups to a mean of 5 points in the LCP and 7 points in the RA group.Discussion:Open reduction and internal fixation with LCP seems to be a less invasive procedure for VTB2 fractures in comparison to RA. It is a bone-sparing procedure that can be advantageous for further revision operations. Moreover, some fractures can only be anatomically reduced by ORIF with LCP, whereas for proximal fractures with a radiologically unambiguously loosened stem RA might be advantageous.Conclusion:In line with previously published studies, our data suggest that ORIF using LCP is a valid treatment option for VTB2 fractures.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction:The Lower Extremity Measure (LEM) was developed to provide a specific instrument to detect changes in physical function in patients with hip fracture. Of 29 questions, 3 have a valid “not applicable” answer option. The goal of this study was to validate the LEM in German and to determine the added value to the physical functioning (pf) subscale of the Short Form 36 (SF-36).Materials and Methods:The LEM was translated according to published guidelines and administered to patients with hip fracture (31 A1-A3 and 31 B1-B3) shortly after surgery (baseline), at 3 months (3M), and for reliability testing at 3 months plus 1 week (3M+). The reproducibility, internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, construct validity, and responsiveness of the German LEM were assessed.Results:A total of 106 patients completed the LEM and SF-36 (mean age 75.5; 67% women) at baseline (mean of 4.9 days after operation), and 88 completed both questionnaires at both the 3M and 3M+ assessments. At each assessment time point, between 6% and 23% of the patients answered 7 questions as “not applicable.” Reproducibility and internal consistency were high (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93; Cronbach's α = .96). No floor effect (0%) and a minor ceiling effect (7.87%) were found for the total LEM score. The strongest correlation was found between the LEM and the SF-36 subscale pf (Spearman ρ = .93). Responsiveness was similar for the SF-36 pf subscale and the LEM when using effect size (SF-36 pf 0.71 vs LEM 0.72) and better for the LEM when using standardized response mean (SF-36 pf 0.65 vs LEM 0.76).Discussion:The German LEM is a reliable, valid, and responsive measure for the self-assessment of patients after hip fracture surgery. As a number of questions are not applicable to elderly patients, the added value of this lengthy questionnaire in these often frail, sometimes cognitively impaired patients is still open for debate.