Search

Disuse osteopenia is a well‐recognized consequence of prolonged physical inactivity, but its rate after orthopaedic injuries necessitating non‐weight‐bearing is not well studied. The purpose of this study was to estimate the rate of disuse osteopenia at the lumbar spine and proximal femur in patients with lower extremity trauma admitted to the hospital. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with lower extremity trauma with a period of strict non‐weight‐bearing between completion of two computed tomography (CT) scans. The radiodensity of the proximal femur or lumbar vertebrae was measured from the earliest and latest available CT scans within the non‐weight‐bearing timeframe. The change in estimated bone mineral density (eBMD) was calculated as a proxy for disuse osteopenia. A total of 189,111 patients were screened, with 17 patients in the proximal femur group and 15 patients in the lumbar spine group meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The average rate of change in eBMD of the proximal femur was a decrease of 7.54 HU/day, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.65, 11.43]. The average rate of change in eBMD of the lumbar spine was an increase of 1.45 HU/day, 95% CI [−3.15, 6.06]. In admitted, non‐weight‐bearing orthopaedic trauma patients, our novel study suggests that the proximal femur experiences disuse osteopenia during periods of non‐weight‐bearing, although this finding was not observed at the lumbar spine. The clinical significance of this data underscores the important consideration of disuse osteopenia by all physicians when caring for patients that may require non‐weight‐bearing restrictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess applicant and fellowship director (FD) perspectives on virtual interviewing based on the 2019 to 2020 orthopaedic trauma fellowship interview experience and to develop recommendations for future application cycles., Methods: Web-based surveys were distributed to all matched applicants and orthopaedic trauma FDs after the 2019 and 2020 orthopaedic trauma fellowship match. Thirty-one applicants and 23 FDs completed the survey-response rates of 34% and 38%, respectively., Results: Virtual interviews were completed by 68% of applicants and 17% of FDs. Twenty-nine percent of applicants felt they were able to familiarize themselves with the culture of programs, and 38% of applicants were satisfied with their ability to present themselves. Most (62%) were comfortable ranking programs based on the virtual interview, but 38% reported the format influenced them to rank a program lower. Among all applicants, 77% preferred the in-person interview. Most FDs (75%) reported virtual interviews limited their ability to familiarize themselves with an applicant, and only 50% were comfortable ranking an applicant afterward. Still, 78% of FDs believe there is a role for virtual interviews in the fellowship match. Choosing a virtual interview may negatively affect applicants as 97% of applicants worry the choice conveys less interest to programs, while 43% of FDs would interpret it as less interest., Conclusions: Virtual interviews have multiple shortcomings but are technically feasible and provide reasonable information to applicants and FDs to complete the match process. Our recommendations, based on the perspectives of applicants and FDs, can guide their implementation., Competing Interests: No conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this study., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association.)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate damage control plating (DCP) as an alternative to external fixation (EF) in the provisional stabilization of open tibial shaft fractures. Through retrospective analysis, the study found 445 patients who underwent operative fixation for tibial shaft fractures from 2008 to 2012. Twenty patients received DCP or EF before intramedullary nailing with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. Charts and radiographs were reviewed for postoperative complications. Hospital charges were reviewed for implant costs. Nine patients (45%) with DCP and 11 patients (55%) with EF were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the complication rates. The mean implant cost of DCP was $1028, whereas mean EF construct cost was $4204. Therefore, DCP resulted in significant cost savings with no difference in complication rates, making it a valuable alternative to EF for the provisional stabilization of open tibial shaft fractures.