OrthoBuzz previously covered WALANT (wide awake, local anesthesia, no tourniquet) surgery, and we very recently featured a JBJS study about treating ankle fractures in a limited-resource environment. These 2 concepts unite in a JBJS study by Tahir et al., which reports on WALANT surgery for ankle fractures in Pakistan.
WALANT surgery has enjoyed increasingly broad dissemination throughout the world since its popularization by Canadian hand surgeon Don Lalonde. Considering its origins, WALANT has been adopted most enthusiastically by the hand-surgery community, but it has been applied successfully to other anatomic regions. WALANT principles are particularly relevant in settings where anesthetic resources and expertise may be limited, such as hospitals where monitoring equipment that helps ensure safe general anesthesia is not readily available.
Tahir et al. used WALANT during open reduction/internal fixation (ORIF) in 58 patients (average age of 47 years) with a distal fibula fracture; 62% of those fractures were OTA-classified as 44C2. Among the excellent results in this cohort were a mean intraoperative VAS pain score of 1.24 and a mean operative time of <1 hour. These findings point to the potential for safely using WALANT techniques during ORIF of other fracture types.
The authors emphasize, however, that “each patient should be individually assessed by the operating surgeon,” not only for injury characteristics that contraindicate WALANT, such as substantial swelling, but also for anxiety and psychological disorders. Consequently, Tahir et al. recommend that surgeons undertaking WALANT procedures have a backup anesthetist available so they can convert to general anesthesia in cases of patient anxiety.
Marc Swiontkowski, MD
There is a wry saying in academic medicine that “nothing ruins good results like long-term follow-up.” But long-term follow-up helps us truly understand how our orthopaedic interventions affect patients. This is especially important with procedures on children, and the orthopaedic surgeons at the University of Iowa have been masterful with long-term outcome analysis in pediatric orthopaedics. They demonstrate that again in the August 5, 2020 issue of The Journal, as Scott et al. present their results comparing outcomes among 2 cohorts of patients who underwent treatment for developmental hip dislocations between the ages of 18 months and 5 years—and who were followed for a minimum of 40 years.
Seventy-eight hips in 58 patients underwent open reduction with Salter innominate osteotomy, and 58 hips in 45 patients were treated with closed reduction. At 48 years after reduction, 29 (50%) of the hips in the closed reduction cohort had undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA), compared to 24 (31%) of hips in the open reduction + osteotomy group. This rate of progression to THA nearly doubled compared to previously reported results at 40 years of follow-up, when 29% of hips in the closed reduction group and 14% of hips in the open reduction group had been replaced.
In addition, the authors found that patient age at the time of reduction and presence of unilateral or bilateral disease affected outcomes. Patients with bilateral disease who were treated at 18 months of age had a much lower rate of progression to THA when treated with closed reduction, compared to those treated with open reduction—but the opposite was true among patients with bilateral disease treated at 36 months of age. Treatment type and age did not seem to substantially affect hip survival among those with unilateral disease.
I commend the authors for their dedication to analyzing truly long-term follow-up data to help us understand treatment outcomes among late-diagnosed developmental hip dislocations in kids. Long-term follow-up may “ruin” good results, but it gives us more accurate and useful results. And, in this case, the findings reminded us how important it is to diagnose and treat developmental hip dislocations as early in a child’s life as possible.
Matthew R. Schmitz, MD
JBJS Deputy Editor for Social Media
Often in life, when there are many potential solutions for a single problem, none of them is found to be universally better than the others. That certainly seems to be the case when it comes to treating type III- and -IV acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations. Multiple studies have tried to clarify whether nonoperative or operative management is superior in this relatively common injury, but it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no single “right” answer. Many patients do fine with nonoperative treatment; others report being highly satisfied with an operation.
In the November 21, 2018 issue of The Journal, Murray et al. try to provide further guidance for treating these injuries. They performed a prospective, randomized controlled trial that compared nonoperative treatment with open reduction and tunneled suspensory device fixation among 60 patients with a type-III or type-IV AC joint dislocation. The authors used DASH, OSS, and SF-12 scores to quantify functional differences between the groups at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year post-injury. They found that, while the operative group showed improved radiographic alignment of the AC joint compared to the nonoperative group, there were no differences in functional outcomes between the two groups at any time beyond the 6-week mark (at which point the nonoperative group had better outcomes).
Notably, 5 of the 31 patients allocated to nonoperative treatment ended up requesting surgical treatment for the injury because of persistent discomfort (4 patients) or cosmesis (1 patient). Also, not surprisingly, the mean economic expenditure in the fixation group was significantly greater than that in the nonoperative group.
Whether to provide operative or nonoperative treatment for type-III and -IV acromioclavicular joint dislocations is not an easy decision, and it entails multiple factors. While this study evaluates only one modern surgical technique for treating this injury, the data is valuable nonetheless for informing a shared decision-making process to help patients choose the most appropriate treatment for them. The good news is that, whether managed operatively or not, patients tend to improve significantly after these injuries, and after 1 year end up with a shoulder that functions well. The authors conclude that “the routine use of [this surgical procedure] for displaced AC joint injuries is not justified,” and that “treatment should be individualized on the basis of [patient] age, activity level, and expectations.”
Chad A. Krueger, MD
JBJS Deputy Editor for Social Media