Background: Critical-size bone defects are defined as bone defects where spontaneous regeneration is not expected without treatment 1. The characteristics of bone defects (etiology, location, size, presence of infection, and softtissue conditions) vary greatly and, to be effective, the treatment method should address this variability. The induced-membrane technique, or Masquelet technique, is a method for treating critical-size bone defects 2,3 of various sizes and anatomic locations. It has been used to treat infected and noninfected bone defects and may be performed with a variety of fixation methods 2,3. Description: The induced-membrane technique is a 2-stage procedure. The first stage consists of debridement followed by insertion of a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacer in the bone defect. The presence of the PMMA leads to a foreign-body reaction with the development of a thick pseudosynovial membrane that is extremely vascularized and rich in growth factors. The filling of the bone defect with the cement spacer prevents fibrous tissue invasion and allows the development of an optimal vascularized gap for bone-grafting. After 6 to 8 weeks, the membrane around the spacer is carefully opened for the removal of the spacer, which is then replaced by bone graft 2,3 , which can be expanded with allograft or biomaterials. Alternatives: Alternatives include vascularized or nonvascularized autologous bone graft, allograft, bone transport methods, titanium cages, megaprostheses, shortening, and amputation. Rationale: Posttraumatic bone defects frequently are associated with soft-tissue injury and infection that impair the local vascularization and the healing potential. The highly vascularized induced membrane may play a role in restoring the local regenerative capacity. Numerous studies have demonstrated its successful use in the treatment of posttraumatic bone defects in the hand, forearm, humerus, femur, tibia, and foot. The induced-membrane technique is especially advantageous in the treatment of infected bone defects because the presence of the spacer helps in the treatment of the infection by reducing dead space, acting as a local antibiotic carrier, and promoting some degree of bone stability 3-5 .

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the inter- and intra observer reproducibility of the radiographic score of consolidation of the tibia shaft fractures.MethodsFifty-one sets of radiographs in anteroposterior (AP) and profile (P) of the tibial shaft treated with intramedullary nail were obtained. The analysis of X-rays was performed in two stages, with a 21-day interval between assessments by a group of nine evaluators. To evaluate the reproducibility of RUST score between the evaluators, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval was used. ICC values range from +1, representing perfect agreement, to −1, complete disagreement.ResultsThere was a significant correlation among all evaluators: ICC = 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91). The intraobserver agreement proved to be substantial with ICC = 0.88 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.91).ConclusionThis study confirms that the RUST scale shows a high degree of reliability and agreement.

Introduction: Distal radius fractures with articular involvement are more likely to require surgical management. Treatment decisions are based on parameters which are obtained from plain radiographs. This study aims to determine the differences between computed tomography and standard radiographs in the preoperative planning of distal radius fractures with articular involvement. This was performed by measuring the intraobserver and interobserver reliability between three systems used to interpret the main fracture characteristics and two treatment decisions. Materials and methods: Forty-three cases of distal radius fractures with articular involvement were included. Fracture displacement was measured using plain radiographic and computed tomography. Five orthopedic surgeons evaluate the images to determine the AO/OTA classification, the articular fragments, the biomechanical columns involved, and recommend a surgical approach and implant for fracture fixation. Results: An articular step-off was identified in 13 cases (30%) with the standard radiographs and in 22 (51%) cases with the computed tomography (p = 0.00). Interobserver variation for preoperative planning was slight when evaluated using the standard radiographs. Computed tomography improves reliability for AO/OTA classification and articular fragments but not for the biomechanical columns. Intraobserver variation for preoperative planning was slight to moderate for AO/OTA classification and slight to fair for identification of articular fragments and biomechanical columns. With regard to selection of the surgical approach, there was slight to moderate variation and, finally, for fracture fixation it was slight to fair. Conclusion: Information provided by conventional radiography and computed tomography are sufficiently different as to induce the surgeon to select different treatments for the same fracture.

No abstract