Background: Pediatric traumas are common and remain a unique challenge for trauma surgeons. Demographic data provide a crucial source of information to better understand mechanisms and patterns of injury. The aim of this study was to provide this information to improve treatment strategies of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality in children. Material and methods: A retrospective review of every pediatric trauma treated in the emergency department (ED) between 2015 and 2019 was performed. Inclusion criteria were the age between 0 and 14 years and admission to the ED after trauma. Demographic data, time of presentation, mechanism of injury and pattern of injury, treatment, and outcome were analyzed. Different injury patterns were assessed in relation to age group, sex, mechanism of injury and treatment. Results: A total of 12,508 patients were included in this study. All patients were stratified into five age groups: babies under the age of 1 (8.8%), toddlers between 1 and 3 (16.8%), preschool children between 4 and 6 (19.3%), young school children between 7 and 10 (27.1%), and young adolescents between 11 and 14 (27.9%). The predominant sex in all age groups was male. 47.7% of patients were admitted between 4 and 10 pm; 14.8% of the patients arrived between 10 pm and 8 am. Peak months of admissions were May to July. Overall, 2703 fractures, 2924 lacerations and superficial tissue injury, 5151 bruises, 320 joint dislocations, 1284 distortions, 76 burns, and 50 other injuries were treated. Most common mechanisms for fractures were leisure activities, falls, and sports-related activities. Forearm fractures were the most common fractures (39.5%) followed by humerus fractures (14%) and fractures of the hand (12.5%). A total of 700 patients with fractures (25.9%) needed surgery. 8.8% of all patients were hospitalized for at least one day. 4 patients died in the hospital (0.03%). Conclusion: Despite of higher risk, severe injuries in children are rare. Minor injuries and single fractures are common. Treatment should be managed in specialized centers to ensure an interdisciplinary care and fast recovery. Peak times in the late afternoon and evening and summer months should be taken into consideration of personnel planning.

Background: Hip fractures in the elderly population are common and the number of patients is rising. For young and geriatric patients with undisplaced fractures osteosynthesis is the primary type of treatment. The dynamic hip screw (DHS) is around for many years and proved its value especially in displaced fractures. Since 2018 the femoral neck system (FNS) is available as an alternative showing promising biomechanical results. The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical results of the FNS and compare it to the DHS. Materials and methods: Patients older than 18 years with Garden I–IV fractures that were treated with osteosynthesis in a level 1 trauma center were included in the study. Between January 2015 and March 2021, all patients treated with FNS (1-hole plate, DePuy-Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland) or DHS (2-hole plate, DePuy-Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland) for proximal femur fractures were included in the study. Closed reduction was achieved using a traction table. All operations were carried out by experienced orthopedic trauma surgeons. Primary outcome measures were rate of implant failure (cut out) and surgical complications (hematoma, infection). Secondary outcome measures were Hb-difference, length of hospital stay and mortality. Results: Overall, 221 patients were included in the study. 113 were treated with FNS, 108 with DHS. Mean age was 69 ± 14 years. There were 17.2% Garden I, 47.5% Garden II, 26.7% Garden III and 8.6% Garden IV fractures. No difference between the groups for age, body mass index (BMI), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), time to surgery, Pauwels and Garden classification, rate of optimal blade position or tip apex distance was found. FNS showed lower pre- to postoperative Hb-difference (1.4 ± 1.1 g/l vs. 2.1 ± 1.4 g/l; p < 0.05), shorter operating time (36.3 ± 11.6 min vs. 54.7 ± 17.4 min; p < 0.05) and hospital stay (8.8 ± 4.3 d vs. 11.2 ± 6.8 d; p < 0.05). Surgical complications (FNS 13.3% vs. DHS 18.4%, p > 0.05), rate of cut out (FNS 12.4% vs. DHS 10.2%, p > 0.05) and mortality (FNS 3.5%; DHS 0.9%; p > 0.05) showed no difference between the groups. Logistic regression showed that poor blade position was the only significant predictor for cut out and increased the risk by factor 7. Implant related infection (n = 3) and hematoma/seroma (n = 6) that needed revision was only seen in DHS group. Conclusion: FNS proved to be as reliable as DHS in all patients with hip fractures. Not the type of implant but blade positioning is still key to prevent implant failure. Still due to minimal invasive approach implant related infections and postoperative hematomas might have been prevented using the FNS.

Introduction: After surgical treatment of injuries of the lower extremity, partial weight bearing is often suggested until soft tissue consolidation. It is doubtful, if this recommendation can be implemented, even in the case that a patient is performing partial weight bearing with a physical therapist. Consequently the question remains, if patients are able to implement partial weight bearing after surgery and which factors favor incompliance. Materials and methods: 49 patients, who underwent surgical treatment after injuries of the lower extremity, were equipped with electronic shoe insoles on both sides. Different weight bearing instructions were given depending on the type of injury and surgery (full weight bearing vs. 20 kg weight bearing vs. non-weight bearing). Besides loading, other factors like age, gender, weight and physical activity were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test with significance set at a p value < 0.05. Results: 25 of the 40 patients, who had to perform non- or partial weight bearing, were not able to follow postoperative instructions (compliance rate 37.5%). The average loading of the whole collective was 32.6 kg (4.8–109.2 kg). The specification of loading had no statistically significant influence on real loading (p-value 0.39). Elderly patients were less able to follow instructions than younger patients (36 vs 30.2 kg). Physically active compared to non-active patients overloaded their injured extremity (37.8 vs 28.7 kg). Patients with a high body mass index (BMI) encountered more difficulties to perform partial weight bearing than lightweight patients (36.9 vs 25.1 kg). Conclusions: Most patients were not able to follow loading limitation, even a few days after surgery and even if the patients were trained by a physiotherapist. Excessive weight bearing-related complications should be evaluated.

Background: The treatment of fragility fractures of the pelvis is rising challenge for orthopedic trauma surgeons. Operative treatment should allow immediate full weight bearing and early mobilisation but should also be as minimal invasive as possible. Sacroiliac (SI) or transsacral transiliac screws (TSTI) alone or depending on the fracture in combination with an external fixator meets both of these criteria. Material and methods: The outcome of 121 operatively treated patients with fragility fractures of the pelvis were evaluated in this retrospective study. Depending on the type of fracture the patients were treated with navigated SI screw or TSTI screw alone or in combination with an external fixator. All patients were operated in supine position in a hybrid-OR, which consists of a fixed robotic 3D flatpanel detector (Artis zeego, Siemens Healthineers, Germany) and a navigation system (BrainLab Curve, BrainLab, Germany). Results: 37 patients were treated with either one or two SI screws and 57 with one TSTI screw. An additional external fixator was combined with SI screws in 17 patients and with TSTI screws in 10 patients. The preoperative pain score was significantly higher compared to the postoperative score (5.1 ± 2.5 vs 2.2 ± 1.9, p < 0.05). Follow-up at 6 month was possible for 106 patients which showed screw loosening in 16.3% of the SI Screws (n = 49) compared to only 5.2% of TSTI screws (n = 57). No screw loosening was seen in the combination of TSTI-screw and external fixator (n = 10). There were two septic and three aseptic pin loosenings of the external fixator. Overall only one patient needed revision surgery due to screw loosening and local irritation. Overall 75.2% (n = 91) of the patients could be released in their home or in a rehabilitation unit and only 14% (n = 17) were released to a nursing home due to immobility despite the operation. Non-surgical complications rate was 21.5%. Conclusion: SI or TSTI screws with possible combination with an external fixator show early pain relief and allows most of the patients to keep their former level of independence. With an also low surgical complication rate, it proved to be a safe and reliable treatment for fragility fractures of the pelvis. Due the effective pain relief and the minimal invasive approach, early mobilisation is possible and might prevent typical non-surgical complications which are very common during conservative treatment.