MurphyThe purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts.
Background: Fractures of the distal femur comprise 4% to 6% of all femoral fractures. Elderly patients are predisposed to lowenergy fractures due to osteoporosis. Treatment of these fractures in the elderly group remains a challenge. Our hypothesis is that locking plates inserted with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) techniques will produce better results compared to those inserted by open technique. The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes of MIPO technique using locking plates in the elderly patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 24 elderly patients (mean age 73 years) with distal femur fractures treated using the MIPO technique (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010) were reviewed retrospectively. Parameters analyzed included classification of fracture, time to fracture union, knee range of motion, functional knee score (Knee Society Score-Functional) at 6 months, and other significant complications. One patient was lost to follow-up. Results: In all, 88% of the fractures were extraarticular. The mean time to union was 13.48 (range: 8-28) weeks. Mean range of motion achieved at 6 months and beyond was 100 ranging from 0 to 30 (extension) to 90 to 140 (flexion). Functional knee scores at 6 months from fixation were satisfactory (mean score 88.8). There were no cases of implant failure, nonunion, and infection. In all, 6 (25%) patients developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the early postoperative period, all of which were below the level of the knee joint. Conclusion: Locking plates inserted using MIPO techniques in elderly patients with distal femur fractures appear to be promising based on clinical outcome measurements. However, there was a high incidence of DVT noted.
BackgroundPresentation of research at annual national orthopaedic conferences not only serves as a forum for the dissemination of knowledge but is also often a requirement of orthopaedic training programmes. The expected outcome is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. However, publication rates vary for a variety of reasons. The objective of this study was to determine publication rates of presentations from our local Singapore Orthopaedic Association (SOA) annual scientific meeting (ASM) and some of the potential associated factors. We also compared our findings to equivalent meetings worldwide to assess value of scientific content of various orthopaedic conferences.MethodsAll presentations of six SOA ASMs were entered into a database. Using presentation titles, author names and keywords in PubMed and Google Scholar, we determined how many presentations progressed to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Various comparisons were made to determine factors that could influence publication rates. A comparison with national orthopaedic meetings of America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Turkey and Brazil was also conducted.ResultsExcluding the ASMs with less than 4 years of follow-up, the publication rate was 35.8%. Both podium and international presenters were found to have significantly higher publication rates than poster and local presenters, respectively, while basic science and clinical research were found to have equivalent rates. Publication rates from other countries’ national conferences ranged between 26.6% and 58.1%.ConclusionsWe suggest that the quality of a presentation is related to its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our findings support the general consensus that the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is the gold standard for the dissemination of orthopaedic knowledge updates and advancements in our specialty. Each national orthopaedic association could determine the ratio of “presentations at ASM” to “publication within five years of presentation” and use this as a measure of their annual conference’s impact on the addition and advancement to the orthopaedic literature. This tool may in turn assist clinicians in determining which meetings to attend.
Purpose The review aims to provide a summary of the current literature regarding common medications prescribed in orthopaedic surgery and their potential implications in COVID-19 patients. Methods A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA guidelines. All clinical studies, reviews, consensus and guidelines related to the above medications and COVID-19 were included. Results A total of 18 articles were included. The use of analgesia, anti-inflammatories, steroids, anticoagulants, antibiotics, vitamin B, vitamin C and vitamin D and their potential impact on COVID-19 patients were reported. Conclusion Eight main recommendations were derived from the review. Firstly, paracetamol remains the first line of analgesia and antipyretic. Secondly, there is no need to avoid NSAIDs for COVID-19 patients. Thirdly, opioids have the potential for immunosuppression in addition to respiratory depression and, therefore, should be prescribed with care in COVID-19 patients. Fourthly, patients with conditions where steroids are proven to be efficacious can continue to receive their steroids; otherwise, systemic steroids are not recommended for COVID-19 patients. Fifthly, orthopaedic surgeons following up on COVID-19 patients who are using steroids should continue to follow them up for possible avascular necrosis. Sixthly, whenever possible, oral anticoagulation should be converted to parental heparin. Seventhly, common orthopaedic antibiotics including penicillin and clindamycin are safe to continue for COVID-19 patients. However, for COVID-19 patients, the antibiotics can potentially be switched to macrolides and tetracyclines if the organisms are sensitive. Lastly, prescription for vitamins B, C and D should continue as per usual clinical practice.
Purpose. To compare early versus late flap coverage for open tibial fractures. Methods. Medical records of 83 men and 6 women (mean age, 38 years) who underwent fixation for open tibial fractures (Gustilo grades IIIB and IIIC) followed by flap coverage within (n=30) or after (n=59) 72 hours were reviewed. All fractures were treated within 24 hours. Outcome measures included bone union, infection, flap failure, the need for secondary procedures to achieve union, and eventual amputation. The early and late flap coverage groups were compared. Results. Early flap coverage was associated with shorter length of hospitalisation (31.4 vs. 55.8 days, p<0.01), lower deep infection rates (23% vs. 54%, p<0.01), and smaller number of surgical procedures (6.4 vs. 9.2, p=0.01). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of the time to bone union, flap failure, amputation, and the need of secondary procedures to facilitate bone union. Surgery 2014;22(3):294-8 with more favourable outcomes in terms of length of hospitalisation and infection.
Journal of Orthopaedic
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.