Introduction: The objectives for this study were to identify whether diagnostic or procedural errors more commonly resulted in lawsuit, as well as to elucidate how specific variables affected mean indemnity. Methods: Systematic review of English-language articles in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases (through 2020) using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate measures of proportions and differences in mean indemnity. Results: The estimated probability of lawsuits related to orthopedic trauma in overall studies was 23.3%. There were no significant rate differences between main causes of claims (diagnostic vs procedural errors) and areas of injury (upper vs lower). There was no significant difference of mean indemnity between the probabilities of trauma-related claims, diagnostic error, and procedural error. Conclusion: Non-trauma cases were more likely to result in lawsuit than trauma cases. Procedural errors accounted for most malpractice claims. The average indemnity increased according to the higher diagnostic errors, while the indemnity was lower with a relatively higher proportion of procedural errors. The most common cause of litigation varied between studies; however, among the most cited reasons were missed diagnosis/error in diagnosis, improper/substandard surgical performance, and, though not specifically studied in this analysis, errors of informed consent. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analyses Level VI

To evaluate the Taylor spatial frame (TSF) for primary and definitive fixation of open supracondylar–intracondylar femoral (SIF) fractures. Retrospective. Level I trauma center. Subset of 20 SIF open fractures treated with TSF extracted from a consecutive series of 80 SIF fractures treated between 2007 and 2013. Eighteen (90%) fractures underwent definitive fixation with the TSF; 2 were treated primarily within 24 hours of injury. Mean time interval between primary treatment and secondary TSF was 5 days. Clinical and radiological. Complete union was obtained in 17 (85%) fractures without additional surgery at an average of 33 weeks. Three nonunions and 1 malunion occurred. No deep infection occurred. Results based on Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov criteria: 37% excellent, and 63% good for bone outcomes; 5% excellent, 58% good, and 37% fair for functional outcomes. Neer knee scores were 21% excellent, 68% good, and 11% fair. The mechanical lateral distal femoral angle and anatomic posterior distal femoral angle values were within normal range in 80% and 90% of patients, respectively. Abnormal mechanical axis deviation was observed in 4 (20%) cases (2 had associated tibia fractures). Primary and definitive fixation with the TSF are effective. Advantages include continuity of device until union, reduced risk of infection, early mobilization, restoration of primary defect caused by bone loss, easy and accurate application, convertibility and versatility, and improved union rate and range of motion for SIF open fractures. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Arthroereisis is a surgical procedure primarily used to treat flexible pes planus (flatfoot) in pediatric and young adult patients. The principal goal of subtalar arthroereisis is to relieve pain and restore function. This is primarily done by restoring the medial foot arch without fusing the subtalar joint and without requiring a long recovery period needed after osteotomies. Although the procedure can be performed in isolation to treat flexible flatfoot, it can also be performed as an ancillary in the treatment of tarsal coalition, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction, and accessory navicular syndrome. Various implants and multiple surgical techniques exist for arthroereisis, such as the sinus tarsi implant and calcaneo-stop. The type of device and the surgical approach to proceed with are based on the surgeon’s discretion rather than an evidence-based protocol. Multiple complications can arise from subtalar arthroereisis, most commonly sinus tarsi pain. Currently, there is a dearth of quality clinical data and evidence on the long-term outcomes and complications of arthroereisis. This lack of literature for a commonly performed procedure validates the need for future studies to better guide a standard protocol, reach consensus on well-defined indications and contraindications, provide expected complications, and improve the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Background: Successful surgical management of pelvic ring and acetabular fractures requires technical expertise to achieve an accurate reduction and stable fixation. The use of 3-dimensional (3D) intraoperative imaging (3DIOI) as an assessment tool has led to improved reduction and placement of implants. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of using 3DIOI in the management of acetabular and pelvic fractures on the basis of outcomes reported in the literature. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and Google Scholar using key terms. A network meta-analysis conducted using the frequentist approach allowed for statistical analysis of reported outcomes regarding screw position (in mm), fracture reduction (in mm), and complications. Results: A total of 9 studies were included in this analysis. When compared with conventional radiography, the mean radiation dose (in cGy·cm ² ) was significantly higher in 3DIOI (mean difference, 82.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21.83 to 143.61; p = 0.007). Use of 3DIOI yielded a 93% lower risk of developing medical complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35; p = 0.014). Use of 3DIOI yielded higher odds of achieving accurate screw placement (OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.44 to 12.32; p = 0.008) and perfect reduction (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.19 to 5.68; p = 0.016). In ranking the imaging modalities, 12 of the 13 parameters analyzed were in favor of 3DIOI over conventional fluoroscopy and 2D navigation imaging. Conclusions: Current literature supports the use of 3DIOI because of the decreased rates of misplaced implants, malreduced fractures, complications, and subsequent revision operations. The use of 3DIOI allows for improved visualization of pelvic anatomy when repairing pelvic and acetabular fractures, and helps surgeons to achieve favorable surgical outcomes. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Open tibial plafond fractures (Orthopaedic Trauma Association and AO Foundation [OTA/AO] 43) are associated with severe complications, including deep infection (closed fractures, 20%; open fractures, 30%), amputation (3%-14%), and nonunion (up to 25%). Circular external fixators (CEFs) can minimize soft tissue injury. This study aimed to report the rate of union and occurrence of severe complications in patients with open tibial plafond fractures treated with CEFs. Methods: A retrospective review of case series was conducted at 3 level I trauma centers. The study included patients older than 18 years with open tibial plafond fractures treated with CEFs. The reported outcomes included union rate, deep infection, operative complications, and limb alignment. The radiographic measurements of anatomic alignment were obtained. Fifty-two patients were included in the study. Results: The primary union rate was 79%. No deep infection occurred in the majority (92%) of patients. No patient required amputation of the affected limb or free flap coverage. Conclusion: Definitive fixation of open tibial plafond fractures with CEFs avoided severe soft tissue complications but resulted in variation in final radiographic alignment. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.

Background: Obstetrical brachial plexus palsy (OBPP) is a relatively common stretch injury of the brachial plexus sustained during delivery. Tendon transfers are commonly performed to improve shoulder function among patients with OBPP. Although several techniques for the surgical management of OBPP exist, it is unclear whether tendon transfers to the rotator cuff vs. posterior humerus yield different outcomes. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to January 1, 2021, was performed. Relevant publications were classified by surgical technique of tendon transfers to the rotator cuff or posterior humerus. The standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare preoperative and postoperative aggregate Mallet scores as well as abduction and external rotation scores using the Mallet scale. A p value of <0.01 was considered significant. Results: Data from 26 studies and 951 patients (46.2% male patients) with a mean age of 68.9 ± 29.3 months were included. Eight hundred three patients underwent tendon transfer to the rotator cuff and 148 to the posterior humerus. The average postoperative follow-up period was 45.2 ± 21.7 months. The pooled cohort had an overall improvement in postoperative aggregate Mallet scores (SMD = 5.53, p < 0.001), abduction scores (SMD = 1.79, p < 0.001), and external rotation scores (SMD = 1.99, p < 0.001). Tendon transfer to the rotator cuff had a greater postoperative improvement in abduction (SMD = 1.90, p < 0.001) than transfer to the posterior humerus (SMD = 1.32, p < 0.001) while both techniques yielded similar improvements in external rotation (rotator cuff SMD = 2.01, p < 0.001, posterior humerus SMD = 1.98, p < 0.001). Conclusion: This is the first systematic review comparing outcomes for tendon transfers to the rotator cuff vs. the posterior humerus for improving shoulder function in patients with OBPP. Overall, tendon transfers are an effective treatment for improving shoulder function. Transfer of the latissimus dorsi and teres major to the rotator cuff compared with transfer to the posterior humerus results in greater improvement in abduction while both techniques have similar results in improving external rotation. Level of Evidence: Level I Systematic review of Level I and Level II studies