Background: Severe lower extremity trauma among working-age adults is highly consequential for returning to work; however, the economic impact attributed to injury has not been fully quantified. The purpose of this study was to examine work and productivity loss during the year following lower extremity trauma and to calculate the economic losses associated with lost employment, lost work time (absenteeism), and productivity loss while at work (presenteeism). Methods: This is an analysis of data collected prospectively across 3 multicenter studies of lower extremity trauma outcomes in the United States. Data were used to construct a Markov model that accumulated hours lost over time due to lost employment, absenteeism, and presenteeism among patients from 18 to 64 years old who were working prior to their injury. Average U.S. wages were used to calculate economic loss overall and by sociodemographic and injury subgroups. Results: Of 857 patients working prior to injury, 47.2% had returned to work at 1 year. The average number of productive hours of work lost was 1,758.8/person, representing 84.6% of expected annual productive hours. Of the hours lost, 1,542.3 (87.7%) were due to working no hours or lost employment, 71.1 (4.0%) were due to missed hours after having returned, and 145.4 (8.3%) were due to decreased productivity while working. The 1-year economic loss due to injury totaled $64,427/patient (95% confidence interval [CI], $63,183 to $65,680). Of the 1,758.8 lost hours, approximately 88% were due to not being employed (working zero hours), 4% were due to absenteeism, and 8% were due to presenteeism. Total productivity loss was higher among older adults (≥40 years), men, those with a physically demanding job, and the most severe injuries (i.e., those leading to amputation as well as Gustilo type-IIIB tibial fractures and type-III pilon/ankle fractures). Conclusions: Patients with severe lower extremity trauma carry a substantial economic burden. The costs of lost productivity should be considered when evaluating outcomes.

Summary: The optimal technique for a transtibial amputation in a young, active, and healthy patient is controversial. Proponents of the Ertl procedure (in which the cut ends of the tibia and fibula are joined with a bone bridge synostosis) argue that the residual limb is more stable which confers better prosthetic fit and improved function especially among high-performing individuals. At the same time, the Ertl procedure is associated with longer operative and healing time and may be associated with a higher complication rate compared with the standard Burgess procedure. The TAOS is a prospective, multicenter randomized trial comparing 18-month outcomes after transtibial amputation using the Ertl versus Burgess approach among adults aged 18 to 60. The primary outcomes include surgical treatment for a complication and patient-reported function. Secondary outcomes include physical impairment, pain, and treatment cost.

Background: Fractures in late life are highly consequential for health, services use, and spending. Little is known about trends in extremity fracture hospitalizations among older adults in the United States. Design: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. Setting: The 2003–2017 National Inpatient Sample (NIS), a representative sample of U.S. community hospitals. Participants: Hospitalized adults aged 65 and older with a diagnosis of upper or lower extremity fracture. Measurements: Incidence of extremity fracture hospitalization and mortality, using NIS discharge and trend weights, and population denominators derived from the U.S. Census Bureau. Incidence was reported separately for men and women by age, fracture diagnosis, and injury mechanism. Weighted linear regression was used to test for significant trends over time. Results: Incidence of extremity fracture hospitalizations declined in both women (15.7%, p trend < 0.001) and men (3.2%, p trend < 0.001) between 2003 and 2017. This trend was primarily attributed to a decline in low energy femur fractures which accounted for 65% of all fracture hospitalizations. Among older adults with an extremity fracture hospitalization, mortality declined from 5.1% in 2003 to 3.3% in 2017 in men, and from 2.6% to 1.9% in women ( p trend < 0.001). High energy fractures were due to falls (53%), motor vehicle accidents (34%), and other high impact injuries (13%). Overall, 12% of extremity fracture hospitalizations were attributed to high‐energy injuries: increases were observed among men ages 65–74 (20%; p trend < 0.001) and 75–84 (10%; p trend = 0.013), but not among women of any age. Conclusion: Observed declines in the incidence of extremity fracture hospitalizations and related mortality are encouraging. However, increasing incidence of fracture hospitalization from high energy injuries among men suggests that older adults with complex injuries will be seen with more prevalence in the future.

Introduction: Fit and alignment are observable objectives of the prosthesis rendering process for individuals with lower limb amputation. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of validated measures to directly assess the quality of this clinical procedure. Objectives: The objectives of this scoping review are to evaluate existing measurement parameters and clinical outcomes used in investigations of transtibial socket fit or prosthetic alignment and to identify gaps in the literature regarding tools for evaluation of prosthetic fitting. Study design: Scoping literature review. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE (through PubMed), Embase (through Elsevier), Scopus (through Elsevier), and Engineering Village (through Elsevier), resulting in 6107 studies to be screened. Results: Sixty-three studies were included in the review. When measuring fit, studies most frequently reported on patient-reported comfort (n = 22) and socket size compared with the residual limb volume (n = 9). Alignment was most frequently measured by the prosthetists' judgment and/or use of an alignment jig (n = 34). The measurement parameters used to determine alignment or fit varied greatly among the included studies. Conclusion: This review demonstrated that most measures of socket fit rely on a patient's self-report and may vary with biopsychosocial factors unrelated to the socket fitting process. Meanwhile, alignment is determined mostly by the prosthetist's judgment, paired with objective measurements, such as alignment jigs and gait analysis. Efforts to standardize and validate measures of these parameters of prosthetic fitting are vital to improving clinical practice and reporting outcomes.