No abstract

Nonunions are a relevant economic burden affecting about 1.9% of all fractures. Rather than specifying a certain time frame, a nonunion is better defined as a fracture that will not heal without further intervention. Successful fracture healing depends on local biology, biomechanics and a variety of systemic factors. All components can principally be decisive and determine the classification of atrophic, oligotrophic or hypertrophic nonunions. Treatment prioritizes mechanics before biology. The degree of motion between fracture parts is the key for healing and is described by strain theory. If the change of length at a given load is > 10%, fibrous tissue and not bone is formed. Therefore, simple fractures require absolute and complex fractures relative stability. The main characteristics of a nonunion are pain while weight bearing, and persistent fracture lines on X-ray. Treatment concepts such as ‘mechanobiology’ or the ‘diamond concept’ determine the applied osteosynthesis considering soft tissue, local biology and stability. Fine wire circular external fixation is considered the only form of true biologic fixation due to its ability to eliminate parasitic motions while maintaining load-dependent axial stiffness. Nailing provides intramedullary stability and biology via reaming. Plates are successful when complex fractures turn into simple nonunions demanding absolute stability. Despite available alternatives, autograft is the gold standard for providing osteoinductive and osteoconductive stimuli. The infected nonunion remains a challenge. Bacteria, especially staphylococcus species, have developed mechanisms to survive such as biofilm formation, inactive forms and internalization. Therefore, radical debridement and specific antibiotics are necessary prior to reconstruction. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:46-57. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190037

Background and purposeRecent studies have shown that compared to the posterolateral approach, the anterolateral approach reduces the risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fractures. We have therefore started to use the anterolateral approach on these patients and we now report the consequences of this change for the dislocation rate.Patients and methodsWe chose two 1-year time periods, 2007 (n = 199) and 2008 (n = 173), the former being before and the latter after the implementation of the anterolateral approach as the standard incision for hip arthroplasties in patients with femoral neck fractures. During 2007, 77% of the hips were operated on with the posterolateral approach and in 2008, 78% of the hips were operated on using the anterolateral approach.ResultsThe dislocation rate was reduced from 8% (16/199) in 2007 to 2% (3/173) in 2008. A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the posterolateral approach was the only factor associated with an increased risk of dislocation, with an odds ratio of 8 (2–35). Age, sex, ASA classification, type of arthroplasty, cognitive dysfunction, or the experience of the surgeon had no effect on the risk of dislocation.InterpretationSince most of our surgeons had earlier used the posterolateral approach when performing hip arthroplasties in patients with a femoral neck fracture, this study shows our surgical learning curve. We conclude that a collective policy change regarding surgical approach for these patients is both feasible and to be recommended, as it leads to a substantial reduction in dislocation rate.

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the proximal femur and in more recent years quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of the heel are the most established methods for assessing hip fracture risk. Measurement of the fingers offers a new approach. We performed DXA of the proximal femur, QUS of the heel and fingers, and radiographic absorptiometry (RA) of the fingers in 87 non-institutionalized women, 65-85 years of age, with a first hip fracture and compared them with 195 randomly selected age-matched controls. Bone mineral density (BMD) of the femoral neck and heel Stiffness Index were significantly lower among cases than among controls (by 15% and 17%, respectively; p < 0.0001), whereas no significant differences were found for finger measurements. When applying the WHO criterion of osteoporosis, 62-98% of the patients were classified as osteoporotic, compared with 19-85% of the controls, depending on method and site. The risks of hip fracture, estimated as odds ratios for every 1 SD reduction in femoral neck BMD, heel Stiffness Index, finger QUS and finger RA, were: 3.6 (95% CI 2.4-5.5), 3.4 (95% CI 2.2-5.0), 1.0 (95% CI 0.7-1.3) and 1.2 (95% CI 0.8-1.6), respectively. Compared with women with normal BMD of the femoral neck, those classified as osteopenic had an odds ratio of hip fracture of 14 (95% CI 2-110), whereas those classified as osteoporotic had an odds ratio of 63 (95% CI 8-501). We conclude that hip DXA and heel QUS have similar capacities to discriminate the risk of a first hip fracture, whereas QUS and RA of the phalanges seem inferior techniques for differentiating female hip fracture patients from controls.

No abstract