Fractures of talar body are uncommon injuries often associated with fractures of other long bones and in polytraumatized patients. The integrity of the talus is essential for the normal function of the ankle, subtalar, and midtarsal joints. The relative infrequency of this injury limits the number of studies available to guide treatment. They occur as a result of high-velocity trauma and are therefore associated with considerable soft tissue damage. Axial compression with supination or pronation is the common mechanism of injury. Great care is necessary for diagnosing and treating these injuries. Clinically, talar body fractures present with soft tissue swelling, hematoma, deformity, and restriction of motion. Associated neurovascular injury of the foot should be carefully examined. The initial evaluation should be done with foot, and ankle radiographs and computed tomography is often done to analyze the extent of the fracture, displacement, intraarticular extension, comminution, and associated fractures. Differentiating talar neck from body fractures is important. Optimal treatment relies on an accurate understanding of the injury and the goals of treatment are the restoration of articular surface and axial alignment. Indications for nonoperative management are seldom indicated and are few as in nonambulatory patients, or in with multiple comorbidities who are not able to tolerate surgery. Splinting, followed by short leg casting for 6 weeks until fracture union should be undertaken. Surgery is indicated in most of the cases, and different approaches have been described. Sometimes, a dual approach with a malleolar osteotomy is necessary for articular restoration. Clinical outcomes depend on the severity of the initial injury and the quality of reduction and internal fixation. The various complications are avascular necrosis, malunion, infections, late osteoarthritis, and ankylosis of subtalar joint.

Background:The knee dislocation–3 (KD3) injury pattern is the most common form of multiligamentous injury. Medial KD3 (KD3-M) and lateral KD3 (KD3-L) are 2 anatomically different varieties of this injury.Purpose:To compare the surgical outcomes of KD3-M and KD3-L multiligamentous knee injury patterns and to determine the factors that could influence the outcomes after single-stage reconstruction.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A cohort of 45 patients with multiligamentous knee injuries (31 KD3-M, 14 KD3-L) who were operated on between 2011 and 2015 were compared. The cruciate ligaments were reconstructed, and the collateral ligaments were managed either conservatively or surgically depending on intraoperative laxity, tissue condition, injury site, and chronicity. The mean follow-up was 36 months (range, 24-72 months). The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, knee flexion range of motion (ROM), and laxity on stress radiographs were compared. Various factors likely to influence the outcomes were also analyzed.Results:The mean IKDC score, Lysholm score, and knee flexion ROM for the 45 patients were 74.74, 87.66, and 126.78°, respectively. There was no significant difference between the KD3-M and KD3-L groups in terms of the postoperative IKDC score (P = .768), Lysholm score (P = .689), knee flexion ROM (P = .798), and laxity on stress radiographs (P = .011). Patients with a transient dislocation had better outcomes (76.51, 89.41, and 128.61°, respectively) than those with a frank dislocation (67.62, 80.66, and 119.44°) (P = .037, .007, and .043). The acute group had better outcomes (77.00, 89.51, and 127.86°) when compared with the subacute (66.26, 86.00, and 121.00°) and chronic groups (67.40, 76.40, and 125.00°) (P = .045, .006, and .486). Regression analysis showed the influence of these factors on outcomes. The presence or absence of dislocations, time frame in which surgery was performed, and follow-up duration were found to influence the outcome. All other factors had no bearing on outcomes. Two patients had knee stiffness and underwent arthrolysis.Conclusion:Despite anatomic and biomechanical differences between KD3-M and KD3-L injuries, single-stage management did not produce any significant difference in results. The presence of a frank dislocation, delay in surgery, and duration of follow-up were found to influence outcomes.

No abstract

Rotational dislocations of patella, which involve rotation of the patella around a horizontal or vertical axis are rare. These rotational dislocations of patella are difficult to reduce by close methods. These dislocations can have associated osteochondral and retinacular injury. We report a case of a 20-year-old male who presented with swelling and pain in the right knee following a motor cycle accident. Radiological evaluation using the computed tomography revealed a patellar dislocation with a concomitant Hoffa fracture. Patella was rotated around the vertical axis and was incarcerated into the Hoffa fracture. This is a very rare injury and first of its kind to be reported. The difficulties in diagnosis, mechanism of injury and management have been discussed. We feel closed reduction of such an injury is likely to fail and open reduction is recommended.

Purpose To compare the clinical, radiological outcomes, economic and technical diferences for ORIF by cancellous screw ixation versus ARIF by double-tunnel suture ixation for displaced tibial-side PCL avulsion fractures. Methods Forty patients with displaced tibial-sided PCL avulsions were operated upon after randomizing them into two groups (20 patients each in the open and arthroscopic group) and followed up prospectively. Assessment included duration of surgery, cost involved, pre-and post-operative functional scores, radiological assessment of union, and posterior laxity using stress radiography and complications. ResultsThe mean follow-up period was 33 months (27-42) (open group) and 30 months (26-44) (arthroscopic group). The duration of surgery was signiicantly larger in the arthroscopic group (47.8 ± 17.9 min) as compared to the open group (33.4 ± 10.1 min). The costs involved were signiicantly higher in the arthroscopic group (p− 0.01). At inal followup, knee function in the form of IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) evaluation (89.9 ± 4.8-open and 89.3 ± 5.9-arthroscopic) and Lysholm scores (94.2 ± 4.1-open and 94.6 ± 4.1-arthroscopic) had improved signiicantly with the diference (n.s.) between the two groups. The mean posterior tibial displacement was 5.7 ± 1.8 mm in the open group and 6.3 ± 3.1 mm in the arthroscopic group which was (n.s.). There were two non-unions and one popliteal artery injury in the arthroscopic group. Conclusion Both ARIF and ORIF for PCL avulsion fractures yield good clinical and radiological outcomes. However, ORIF was better than ARIF in terms of cost, duration of surgery, and complications like non-union and iatrogenic vascular injury. Level of evidence II.