Purpose To determine how concomitant medial collateral ligament (MCL) and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) injuries affect outcome after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods Patients aged > 15 years who were registered in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry for primary ACL reconstruction between 2005 and 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Patients with a concomitant MCL or LCL injury were stratified according to collateral ligament treatment (non-surgical, repair or reconstruction), and one isolated ACL reconstruction group was created. The outcomes were ACL revision and the 2-year Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which were analyzed using univariable and multivariable Cox regression and an analysis of covariance, respectively. Results A total of 19,457 patients (mean age 27.9 years, 59.4% males) met the inclusion criteria. An isolated ACL reconstruction implied a lower risk of ACL revision compared with presence of a non-surgically treated MCL injury (HR = 0.61 [95% CI 0.41–0.89], p = 0.0097) but not compared with MCL repair or reconstruction. A concomitant LCL injury did not impact the risk of ACL revision. Patients with a concomitant MCL or LCL injury reported inferior 2-year KOOS compared with isolated ACL reconstruction. The largest difference was found in the sports and recreation subscale across all groups, with MCL reconstruction resulting in the maximum difference (14.1 points [95% CI 4.3–23.9], p = 0.005). Conclusion Non-surgical treatment of a concomitant MCL injury in the setting of an ACL reconstruction may increase the risk of ACL revision. However, surgical treatment of the MCL injury was associated with a worse two-year patient-reported knee function. A concomitant LCL injury does not impact the risk of ACL revision compared with an isolated ACL reconstruction. Level of evidence Cohort study, Level III.

Introduction:Fractures of the proximal femur and hip are relatively common injuries in adults and common source of morbidity and mortality among the elderly. Many methods have been recommended for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.Material and methods:We retrospective analyzed all the patients with fractures of the hip treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) at the Clinic of Orthopedic and Traumatology, University Clinical Centre Tuzla from the first of January 2012 to 31 December 2012 years. The study included 63 patients averaged 73.6±11.9 years (range, 29 to 88 years). Fracture type was classified as intertrochanteric (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen classification 31.A.1, A.2 and A.3) and subtrochanteric fractures (Seinsheimer classification).Results and discussion:The ratio between the genders female-male was 1.6:1. There was statistically significant difference prevalence of female compared to male patients (p=0.012). There were 31 left and 32 right hip fractured. Low energy trauma was the cause of fractures in 57(90.5%) patients. Averaged waiting time for hospitalization was 3.2±7.5 days (range, 0 to 32 days). 44 patients were admitted the same day upon injuring. The average waiting time for the treatment was 3.6±5.7 days. The ratio between with or without co-existent disease was 4.7:1. During the three months postoperatively with ASA score 3 and 4 six patients died. There were no significant differences in deaths from ASA score 1 and 2 (p=0.52). Reoperation for the treatment of implant or fracture-related complications was required in three (4.7%) patients (infection, reimplantation and extraction). Three patient developed deep vein thrombosis. Statistically significant difference was found in the deaths in the first three months compared to the next three months (p=0.02). We found statistically significant difference between pre-injury and postoperative mobility score (p=0.0001).Conclusion:PFNA is an excellent device for osteosynthesis as it can be easily inserted. Moreover, it provides stable fixation, which allows early full weightbearing mobilization of the patient.

SUMMARY Introduction:The best treatment for intertrochanteric fractures remains controversial. number of deaths in the first 6 months was significantly higher than in the next 6 months (p = 0.001). The mean TAD was 25.6 mm. The Cleveland zone centre-centre was the most common placement of the blade, accounting for 33 (29 %) of the cases. Reoperation was required in four patients. There were four patients with cut-out. The pre-facture mean value NMS was 8.6 (SD 1.1) and the postoperative mean value was 4.3 (SD 3.6). Conclusion: We concluded that PFNA offers biomechanical advantages, but the best position of the blade is still unknown.

Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk.

<p><strong>Aim <br /></strong>To explore the experience of registered nurses in assessing pain in hip fracture in patients with dementia in the postoperative setting. <br /><strong>Methods<br /></strong> The study questionnaire contained 23 items mainly addressing demographic and social data, information about communication and pain assessment, attention and awareness of the health-care professionals on the ward and suggestions for improving nursing. <br /><strong>Results<br /></strong> The nurses claimed that they began their assessment of pain in patients with dementia first by observing the patient and making a visual assessment of pain, after which they began to communicate with these patients; majority of dementia patients with hip fractures displayed more facial expressions of pain than patients without dementia. All the nurses agreed that the more severe the patient's dementia was, the less clear the facial expressions and that this in turn made it difficult for the nurses to take care of such patients. Body language was the most common way the patients with dementia and hip fractures expressed their pain. Assessing the pain of a dementia patient with hip fracture and interpreting a non-verbally communicative patient was experienced as very difficult by all the nurses. <br /><strong>Conclusion<br /></strong> The nurses found that the fact that they had not attended any courses on dementia and pain assessment in those patients made their work more difficult; they need to know more and to have more information about those patients and their needs for a more comprehensive exchange of information between the hospital wards and the patients' care homes.</p>