Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miniAVR) have become alternatives to surgical aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy (SAVR) to treat severe aortic stenosis (AS). Despite increased interest and utilization, few studies have directly compared TAVR and miniAVR. A review of the current literature shows TAVR to be an indispensable tool for inoperable, high-risk, and perhaps intermediate-risk patients with severe AS. However, it is associated with a number of deleterious perioperative outcomes, such as valvular regurgitation and vascular complications. MiniAVR is associated with decreased intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, a lower incidence of blood transfusions, decreased ventilation time, and improved cosmetic results. MiniAVR maintains potential advantages over SAVR, including the implantation of a durable prosthesis and low rates of perioperative myocardial infarction and paravalvular leak. It is associated with longer aortic cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times; however, the use of sutureless valve implants can circumvent this. Studies comparing TAVR and miniAVR demonstrate decreased postoperative mortality, valvular regurgitation, and incidence of stroke in the miniAVR cohorts. Few studies currently exist comparing TAVR and miniAVR, as it is hard to compare the typically low-risk miniAVR versus high-risk TAVR patient populations. It is clear that both strategies will be cornerstones in the modern AVR era, but the situations in which to apply each strategy have not yet been clearly delineated. This highlights the need for surgeons to adopt these minimally invasive techniques. We believe there is a compelling role for miniAVR in low-and intermediate-risk patients, but due to the paucity of data, neither TAVR nor miniAVR should be discounted before a randomized, risk-stratified trial is performed. More studies are needed to compare TAVR and miniAVR in low-and intermediate-risk patients.

No abstract

Objectives: To determine the infection and nonunion rates for open tibia fracture treatment over the past 4 decades since the introduction of the Gustilo–Anderson (GA) open fracture classification. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were reviewed using the PRISMA checklist for articles between 1977 and September 2018. Study Selection: One hundred sixty-one articles meeting the following inclusion criteria: English language, published between 1977 and 2018, reported infection rates, reported nonunion rates, and fractures classified by the GA open fracture criteria were selected. Data Extraction: All articles were thoroughly evaluated to extract infection and nonunion data for open tibia fractures. Data Synthesis: Due to variability in the data reviewed, statistical evaluation could not be reliably done. Results: 11,326 open tibia fractures were reported with 17% type I, 25.2% type II, 25.3% type IIIA, and 32.5% type IIIB/C. The average infection rate over 4 decades was 18.3%, with 24.3% superficial, 11.2% deep, and 14.7% pin tract. The infection rate by decade was 14% for 1977–1986, 16.2% for 1987–1996, 20.5% for 1997%–2006%, and 18.1% from 2007 to 2017. The overall nonunion rate was 14.1%. The nonunion rate was 13% for 1977–1986, 17% for 1987–1996, 12.8% for 1997%–2006%, and 12.3% for 2007–2017. Conclusions: This in-depth summary has demonstrated that the percentage rate for infections and nonunion has remained similar over the past 40 years. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims To compare results of institutional preferences with regard to treatment of soft tissues in the setting of open tibial shaft fractures. Methods We present a retrospective review of open tibial shaft fractures at two high-volume level 1 trauma centres with differing practices with regard to the acute management of soft tissues. Site 1 attempts acute primary closure, while site 2 prefers delayed closure/coverage. Comparisons include percentage of primary closure, number of surgical procedures until definitive closure, percentage requiring soft tissue coverage, and percentage of 90-day wound complication. Results Overall, there were 219 patients at site 1 and 282 patients at site 2. Differences in rates of acute wound closure were seen (168 (78%) at site 1 vs 101 (36%) at site 2). A mean of 1.5 procedures for definitive closure was seen at site 1 compared to 3.4 at site 2. No differences were seen in complication, nonunion, or amputation rates. Similar results were seen in a sub-analysis of type III injuries. Conclusion Comparing outcomes of open tibial shaft fractures at two institutions with different rates initial wound management, no differences were seen in 90-day wound complications, nonunion rates, or need for amputation. Attempted acute closure resulted in a lower number of planned secondary procedures when compared with planned delayed closure. Providers should consider either acute closure or delayed coverage based on the injury characteristics, surgeon preference and institutional resources without concern that the decision at the time of index surgery will lead to an increased risk of complication. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:481–487.