Pertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients represent a major health issue. The available surgical options are fixation with extramedullary devices, intramedullary nailing, and arthroplasty. Intramedullary nailing for hip fractures has become more popular in recent years. Advantages of intramedullary nailing for hip fracture fixation include a more efficient load transfer due to the proximity of the implant to the medial calcar, less implant strain and shorter lever arm because of its closer positioning to the mechanical axis of the femur, significantly less soft tissue disruption and periosteal stripping of the femoral cortex, shorter operative time and hospital stay, fewer blood transfusions, better postoperative walking ability, and lower rates of leg-length discrepancy. Compromise of the posteromedial cortex and/or the lateral cortex, a subtrochanteric extension of the fracture, and a reversed obliquity fracture pattern represent signs of fracture instability, warranting the use of intramedullary nailing. However, the use of intramedullary nailing, with its unique set of clinical implications, has introduced a new set of complications. The reported complications include malalignment, cutout, infection, false drilling, wrong lag screw length and drill bit breakage during the interlocking procedure, external or internal malrotation (≥20°) of the femoral diaphysis, elongation of the femur (2 cm), impaired bone healing, periprosthetic fracture distal to the tip of the nail, fracture collapse, implant failure, lag screw intrapelvic migration, neurovascular injury, secondary varus deviation, complications after implant removal, trochanteric pain, and refracture. Many of these complications are related to technical mistakes. This article reviews intramedullary nailing for the treatment of pertrochanteric femoral fractures, with an emphasis on complications. [Orthopedics.2016; 39(1):e108–e116.]

Background: Conservative treatment of an acute Achilles rupture remains a viable and acceptable option as does surgical fixation, with open and percutaneous repair consisting the main operative techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and complication rates of open versus percutaneous surgical procedures. Methods: From 2009 to 2016, 131 patients were admitted to our department with clinically and radiologically confirmed acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Of those, 82 patients met our inclusion criteria and were randomized into 2 groups, group A (open repair) and group B (percutaneous suturing). Suture equipment was the same for both groups. All patients followed the same rehabilitation protocol. Functional evaluation was made using American Orthopaedic Ankle & Foot Society (AOFAS) hindfoot and Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS) questionnaires at the 12-month follow-up. Ankle range of motion (ROM), return-to-work time, and complication rates were additionally measured. Results: Both techniques had similar results regarding complication rates and return-to-work time. The major complication in group A was superficial infection (7%) and skin necrosis (3%), whereas 3 patients in group B developed paresthesias due to sural nerve entrapment. Patients in group B had better AOFAS hindfoot (96/100) and ATRS (95/100) scores, but the difference was not significant. ROM was similar in both groups at the 12-month follow-up. Conclusion: Percutaneous suturing seems to be a safe and effective technique that offers good functional outcomes and low complication rates in patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures who elect to have surgery. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective case series.

Background. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most severe complication, following joint arthroplasty. Identification of the causal microbial factor is of paramount importance for the successful treatment. Purpose. The aim of this study is to compare the sonication fluid cultures derived from joint prosthetic components with the respective periprosthetic tissue cultures. Methods. Explanted prosthesis components for suspected infection were placed into a tank containing sterile Ringer′s solution and sonicated for 1 minute at 40 kHz. Sonication fluid cultures were examined for 10 days, and the number and identity of any colony morphology was recorded. In addition, periprosthetic tissue specimens (>5) were collected and cultured according to standard practice. The duration of antimicrobial interruption interval before culture sampling was recorded. Results. Thirty‐four patients composed the study group. Sonication fluid cultures were positive in 24 patients (70.5%). Sixteen of thirty four periprosthetic tissue cultures (47.1%) were considered positive, all revealing the same microbial species with the respective sonication fluid cultures: 3 tissue samples showed polymicrobial infection. All tissue cultures were also found positive by the sonication fluid culture. Conclusions. Sonication fluid cultures represent a cheap, easy, accurate, and sensitive diagnostic modality demonstrating increased sensitivity compared to periprosthetic tissue cultures (70.5 versus 47.1%).