A Clinical Overview of Management of First Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 47-52 | Abhay Narvekar, Nikhil Iyer, Nagraj Shetty, Shreya Joshi

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.467

Author: Abhay Narvekar [1], Nikhil Iyer [2], Nagraj Shetty [3], Shreya Joshi [4]

[1] Department of Orthopaedic and Arthroscopy surgeon, P D Hinduja National Hospital and Research Center, Mahim 400016, Global Hospital, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India
[2] Department of Orthopaedic and Arthroscopic Surgeon, Zen Multi-speciality Hospital, Chembur, Global Hospital, Parel, Reliance Hospital, Navi. Mumbai, India
[3] Department of Arthroscopy, Complex Knee and Shoulder Surgeon, Lilavati Hospital and Medical Research Centre, P D Hinduja, Khar, Max Nanavati Super-Speciality
hospital, Mumbai, India
[4] Department Orthopaedic and Arthroscopic Surgeon, Shushrusha Citizens Co-operative Hospital, Dadar, LifeCare Hospital, Sion, Mumbai, India

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Nikhil Iyer,
Consultant Orthopaedic and Arthroscopic Surgeon, Director ArthroSports Medical Service LLP.
OrthoCare Clinic, 603 Centerpoint, Opp. State Bank of India, Near Ambedkar garden, Chembur, Mumbai 400071, India.
E-mail: iyernikhil@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background: Instability following a traumatic shoulder dislocation is known to cause significant morbidity especially as ost-traumatic dislocations occur in young active patients. The management of this injury is still controversial. There is always a debate between those that recommend surgical stabilization following a 1st time dislocation (FTD) and those that prefer treating them conservatively. The aim of treatment following a dislocation is to manage the episode such that there is no threat of recurrence, there is a full functional recovery with no apprehension, and an ability to get back to the same level of sporting activity.

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to review the current literature and provide recommendations regarding management following FTD.

Design: Clinical overview, Perspective.

Methods: Review of literature using PUBMED, MEDLINE.

Results: The present thought process is towards Arthroscopic primary stabilization following 1st time post-traumatic dislocation in young active individuals with projected significant overhead activities.

Conclusion: Management of a patient following a FTD/subluxation has been the subject of debate for a long time. A number of factors have been studied and published such as age, sports participation, sex, pathological findings after the dislocation to enable the surgeon to decide on the management of this condition. Recurrence comes at a cost of increasing the instability with every episode of dislocation. More the instability before the surgical stabilization, more are the chances of either failure or the requirement of a salvage procedure like a Latarjet with its inherent high complication rate. But not every patient with FTD should warrant a surgical stabilization. A personalized approach is recommended and not a one size fits all approach.

Keywords: First time dislocator, microinstability, Bankart lesion, Latarjet

References

  1. Imhoff AB, Beitzel K, Voss A. Overview of the spectrum of instability in the very young: Evolving concepts. In: Shoulder Instability Across the Life Span. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media; 2017. p. 3-5. Available from: https://www.link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-54077-0_1 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 07].
  2. Wheeler JH, Ryan JB, Arciero RA, Molinari RN. Arthroscopic versus nonoperative treatment of acute shoulder dislocations in young athletes. Arthroscopy 1989;5:213-7.
  3. Kirkley A, Werstine R, Ratjek A, Griffin S. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder: Long-term evaluation. Arthroscopy 2005;21:55-63.
  4. Norlin R. Intraarticular pathology in acute, first-time anterior shoulder dislocation: An arthroscopic study. Arthroscopy 1993;9:546-9.
  5. Carrazzone OL, Tamaoki MJ, Ambra LF, Neto NA, Matsumoto MH, Belloti JC. Prevalence of lesions associated with traumatic recurrent shoulder dislocation. Rev Bras Ortop 2011;46:281.
  6. Provencher MT, Frank RF, Gross DJ, Golijanin P. Normal and Pathological Anatomy of the Shoulder. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media; 2015. p. 35-45. Available from: https://www.link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-45719-1- [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 07].
  7. Seung-Ho K. Pathoanatomy of glenohumeral instability. In: Bain GI, Itoi E, Di Giacomo G, Sugaya H. editors. Normal and Pathological Anatomy of the Shoulder. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2015. p. 115-22.
  8. Pollock RG, Wang VM, Bucchieri JS, Cohen NP, Huang CY, Pawluk RJ, et al. Effects of repetitive subfailure strains on the mechanical behavior of the inferior glenohumeral ligament. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2000;9:427-35.
  9. Urayama M, Itoi E, Sashi R, Minagawa H, Sato K. Capsular elongation in shoulders with recurrent anterior dislocation. Quantitative assessment with magnetic resonance arthrography. Am J Sports Med 2003;31:64-7.
  10. Yiannakopoulos CK, Mataragas E, Antonogiannakis E. A comparison of the spectrum of intra-articular lesions in acute and chronic anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 2007;23:985-90.
  11. Thomas SC, Matsen FA. An approach to the repair of avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments in the management of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71:506-13.
  12. O’Brien SJ, Neves MC, Arnoczky SP, Rozbruck SR, Dicarlo EF, Warren RF, et al. The anatomy and histology of the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med 1990;18:449-56.
  13. McLaughlin HL, Maclellan DI. Recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder. II. A comparative study. J Trauma 1967;7:191-201.
  14. Robinson CM, Howes J, Murdoch H, Will E, Graham C. Functional outcome and risk of recurrent instability after primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:2326-36.
  15. Bain G, Phadnis J, Itoi E, Di Giacomo G, Sugaya H, Sonnabend DH, et al. Shoulder crane: A concept of suspension, stability, control and motion. J ISAKOS 2019;4:63-70.
  16. Buss DD, Lynch GP, Meyer CP, Huber SM, Freehill MQ. Nonoperative management for in-season athletes with anterior shoulder instability. Am J Sports Med 2004;32:1430-3.
  17. Marans HJ, Angel KR, Schemitsch EH, Wedge JH. The fate of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:1242-4.
  18. Hovelius L, Olofsson A, Sandström B, Augustini BG, Krantz L, Fredin H, et al. Nonoperative treatment of primary anterior shoulder dislocation in patients forty years of age and younger. Aprospective twenty-five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:945-52.
  19. Hovelius L, Eriksson K, Fredin H, Hagberg G, Hussenius A, Lind B, et al. Recurrences after initial dislocation of the shoulder. Results of a prospective study of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983;65:343-9.
  20. Liavaag S, Brox JI, Pripp AH, Enger M, Soldal LA, Svenningsen S. Immobilization in external rotation after primary shoulder dislocation did not reduce the risk of recurrence: A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:897-904.
  21. Burkhart SS. Editorial commentary: Off-track hill-sachs lesions in adolescents with multiple anterior dislocations: The case for stabilizing adolescent first-time dislocators. Arthroscopy 2017;33:1762-3.
  22. Vaswani R, Gasbarro G, Como C, Golan E, Fourman M, Wilmot A, et al. Labral morphology and number of preoperative dislocations are associated with recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Arthroscopy 2020;36:993-9.
  23. Duethman NC, Bernard CD, Leland D, Wilbur RR, Krych AJ, Dahm DL, et al. Multiple instability events at initial presentation are the major predictor of failure of nonoperative treatment for anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 2021;37:2432-9.
  24. Shin SJ, Ko YW, Lee J. Intra-articular lesions and their relation to arthroscopic stabilization failure in young patients with first-time and recurrent shoulder dislocations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:1756-63.
  25. Chahal J, Marks PH, MacDonald PB, Shah PS, Theodoropoulos J, Ravi B, et al. Anatomic Bankart repair compared with nonoperative treatment and/or arthroscopic lavage for first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation. Arthroscopy 2012;28:565-75.
  26. Jacobson ME, Riggenbach M, Wooldridge AN, Bishop JY. Open capsular shift and arthroscopic capsular plication for treatment of multidirectional instability. Arthroscopy 2012;28:1010-7.
  27. Hurley ET, Manjunath AK, Bloom DA, Pauzenberger L, Mullett H, Alaia MJ, et al. Arthroscopic bankart repair versus conservative management for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthroscopy 2020;36:2526-32.
  28. Brophy R, Marx R. The Treatment of traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder: Nonoperative and surgical treatment. Arthroscopy 2008;25:298-304.
  29. Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;2004:CD004325.
  30. Porcellini G, Campi F, Pegreffi F, Castagna A, Paladini P. Predisposing factors for recurrent shoulder dislocation after arthroscopic treatment. J Bone Joint Surg 2009;91:2537-42.
  31. Provencher CM, Midtgaard KS. Editorial commentary: Evidence to support surgical intervention for first-time shoulder instability: Stabilize them early! Arthroscopy 2020;36:2533-6.
  32. Mather RC, Orlando LA, Henderson RA, Lawrence JTR, Taylor DC. A predictive model of shoulder instability after a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. J Shoul Elbow Surg 2011;20:259-66.
  33. Jakobsen B, Johannsen H, Suder P, Søjbjerg J. Primary repair versus conservative treatment of first-time traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder: A randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2007;23:118-23.
  34. Bottoni C, Wilckens J, De Berardino T, D’Alleyrand J, Rooney R, Harpstrite J, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization versus nonoperative treatment in patients with acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations. Am J Sports Med 2002;30:576-80.
  35. Sheth U. Editorial commentary: Management of first-time anterior shoulder instability requires risk stratification and surgery for many, but not all. Arthroscopy 2021;37:2440-3.

 

How to Cite this article: Narvekar A, Iyer N, Shetty N, Joshi S. A Clinical Overview of Management of First Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):47-52.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Management of Chronic Palmar Distal Radio-ulnar Joint Dislocation of Wrist: A Case Report on Young Gymnast with 1-Year Follow-up

/in , /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 64-66 | Parag Lad, Pankaj Ahire

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.475

Author: Parag Lad [1], Pankaj Ahire [2]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Pinnacle Orthocentre & Jupiter Hospital, Thane, Maharashtra, India

[2] Department of Orthopaedics, P D Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Parag Lad,
Department of Orthopaedic, Pinnacle Orthocentre, Chandanwadi-Charai Junction, Thane (401602), Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: orthodoc_p@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background: A palmar dislocation of distal radio-ulnar joint (DRUJ) is rare and causes gross functional restriction of pronation. It is certainly major cosmetic concern for the patient as keeps the forearm supinated because of dislocation. Usually, such injuries are caused due to high velocity trauma and fall on supinated hand. The literature is sparse on the management of palmar dislocation of DRUJ.

Materials and Methods: We present a case report on the management of chronic palmar dislocation in a 27-year-old professional gymnast trainer with 1-year follow-up. We describe the surgical technique of open reduction by palmar approach and reconstruction of triangular fibrocartilage complex ligament by suture anchor. The post-operative rehabilitation protocol is also mentioned in detail.

Results: The patient has 80° pronation and painless wrist range of movements at 1-year follow-up. She is able to perform all activities of daily living though not confident in weight bearing on affected wrist.

Conclusion: As per our knowledge, this is described for the 1st time about the management of chronic palmar DRUJ case in young gymnast. The restricted pronation is important sign of palmar DRUJ dislocation. The return of pronation gives immense satisfaction to the patient.

Keywords: Case report, palmar, chronic, DRUJ, dislocation, wrist, gymnast

References

  1. Xiao JY, Liu B, Li L, Shi HF, Wu F. Predictors for poor outcome for conservatively treated traumatic triangular fibrocartilage complex tears. Bone Joint J 2021;103-B:1386-91.
  2. Lee JK, Hwang JY, Lee SY, Kwon BC. What is the natural history of the triangular fibrocartilage complex tear without distal radioulnar joint instability? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019;477:442-9.
  3. Kikuchi Y, Nakamura T, Horiuchi Y. Irreducible chronic palmar dislocation of the distal radioulnar joint–a case report. Hand Surg 2005;10:319-22.
  4. Paley D, Rubenstein J, McMurtry RY. Irreducible dislocation of distal radial ulnar joint. Orthop Rev 1986;15:228-31.
  5. Deshmukh SC, Wajid M, Thomas B. Matched distal ulnar resection for chronic, traumatic volar dislocation of the distal radioulnar joint. Orthopaedics 2001;24:169-70.
  6. Ridoux PE, Brientini JM, Garbuio P, Tropet Y. Traumatic isolated palmar dislocation of the distal radio-ulnar joint. Apropos of a case. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1996;82:255-9.

 

How to Cite this article: Lad P, Ahire P. Management of Chronic Palmar Distal Radio-ulnar Joint Dislocation of Wrist: A Case Report on Young Gymnast with 1-Year Follow-up. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):64-66.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Vertebral Fragility Fractures in Osteoporosis – A Comprehensive Review on its Management

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 67-76 | Vibhu Krishnan Viswanathan, Rishi M Kanna, Ajoy Prasad Shetty

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.477

Author: Vibhu Krishnan Viswanathan [1], Rishi M Kanna [1], Ajoy Prasad Shetty [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Rishi M Khana,
Department of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: rishiortho@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Approximately 20% of individuals older than 50 years of age have been reported to present with vertebral fragility fractures (VFF) – a prevalence which is anticipated to steadily increase in future. VFF is associated with disabling pain, significant impairment of quality of life, reduced ambulatory capacity, impaired social interactions, and poor quality of sleep. Early detection, appropriate management, evaluation of osteoporosis, and prevention of future fragility fractures would form the crux of treatment. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on what constitutes the ideal management protocol for symptomatic VFF.

Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were used to prepare this review. A detailed review of the literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which were searched for eligible studies with terms “treatment of VEF,” “osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF),” “management of osteoporotic compression fracture,” “imaging in OVF,” “percutaneous vertebral augmentation,” and “conservative treatment of OVF” from inception to November 2021. Duplicate studies, case reports, and letters to the editor were excluded from the study.

Results: A total of 286 studies were identified using our search criteria. Of these, 142 were duplicates and 107 did not meet inclusion criteria. After removal of these articles through various stages of screening, a total of 37 studies were finally included in the review. Plain radiographs, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are helpful in the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of these fractures. Radiologically, unstable VFFs need to be identified based on the following criteria (>50% vertebral height loss, kyphosis ≥25–35°, substantial retropulsion of bony fragments, significant bony, or ligamentous posterior column injuries). Conservative treatment (which includes analgesics, orthoses, and early mobilization) has remained the traditional way of treating these fractures. More recent systematic reviews have demonstrated a significant improvement in early pain control, vertebral height restoration, and ambulation with percutaneous augmentation (PKP or PVP) procedures. These studies have recommended cement augmentation in patients with intractable pain, not responding to medications. Surgical stabilization is recommended in elderly patients with pseudoarthrosis, substantial intervertebral instability, intractable pain with vertebral collapse, neurological deficit, and kyphosis. The need for long-term medical therapy to improve the bone density cannot be understated.

Conclusion: A high index of suspicion is necessary to diagnose VFFs in elderly patients with back pain. Conservative treatment has remained the traditional way of treating these fractures. Recent evidence shows early pain control and better vertebral height restoration with cement augmentation procedures (PKP or PVP). Open surgical stabilization can be helpful in a subset of patients with substantial intervertebral instability, deformity, and neuro-deficit.

Keywords: Osteoporosis, vertebral fragility fractures, cement augmentation, kyphosis

References

  1.  Ferreira ML, March L. Vertebral fragility fractures-how to treat them? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2019;33:227-35.
  2. Ensrud KE, Schousboe JT. Clinical practice. Vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1634-42.
  3. Chen Y, Yin P, Hai Y, Su Q, Yang J. Is osteoporotic thoracolumbar burst fracture a contraindication to percutaneous kyphoplasty? Asystematic review. Pain Physician 2021;24:E685-92.
  4. Cummings SR, Melton LJ. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 2002;359:1761-7.
  5. Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:1726-33.
  6. Rzewuska M, Ferreira M, McLachlan AJ, Machado GC, Maher CG. The efficacy of conservative treatment of osteoporotic compression fractures on acute pain relief: Asystematic review with meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2015;24:702-14.
  7. Anselmetti GC, Bernard J, Blattert T, Court C, Fagan D, Fransen H, et al. Criteria for the appropriate treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Pain Physician 2013;16:E519-30.
  8. Ballane G, Cauley JA, Luckey MM, El-Hajj Fuleihan G. Worldwide prevalence and incidence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 2017;28:1531-42.
  9. Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, et al. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following afracture. JAMA 2001;285:320-3.
  10. Burger H, van Daele PL, Grashuis K, Hofman A, Grobbee DE, Schütte HE, et al. Vertebral deformities and functional impairment in men and women. J Bone Miner Res 1997;12:152-7.
  11. Silverman SL. The clinical consequences of vertebral compression fracture. Bone 1992;13 Suppl 2:S27-31.
  12. Hoyt D, Urits I, Orhurhu V, Orhurhu MS, Callan J, Powell J, et al. Current concepts in the management of vertebral compression fractures. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2020;24:16.
  13. Beall D, Lorio MP, Yun BM, Runa MJ, Ong KL, Warner CB. Review of vertebral augmentation: An updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness. Int J Spine Surg 2018;12:295-321.
  14. Edidin AA, Ong KL, Lau E, Kurtz SM. Morbidity and mortality after vertebral fractures: Comparison of vertebral augmentation and nonoperative management in the medicare population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:1228-41.
  15. Kim DH, Vaccaro AR. Osteoporotic compression fractures of the spine; current options and considerations for treatment. Spine J 2006;6:479-87
  16. Musbahi O, Ali AM, Hassany H, Mobasheri R. Vertebral. compression fractures. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2018;79:36-40.
  17. Clark EM, Cummings SR, Schousboe JT. Spinal radiographs in those with back pain-when are they appropriate to diagnose vertebral fractures? Osteoporos Int 2017;28:2293-7.
  18. Sugita M, Watanabe N, Mikami Y, Hase H, Kubo T. Classification of vertebral compression fractures in the osteoporotic spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005;18:376-81.
  19. Kanchiku T, Imajo Y, Suzuki H, Yoshida Y, Taguchi T. Usefulness of an early MRI-based classification system for predicting vertebral collapse and pseudoarthrosis after osteoporotic vertebral fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014;27:E61-5.
  20. Tsujio T, Nakamura H, Terai H, Hoshino M, Namikawa T, Matsumura A, et al. Characteristic radiographic or magnetic resonance images of fresh osteoporotic vertebral fractures predicting potential risk for nonunion: Aprospective multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:1229-35.
  21. Omi H, Yokoyama T, Ono A, Numasawa T, Wada K, Fujisawa Y. Can MRI predict subsequent pseudarthrosis resulting from osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures? Eur Spine J 2014;23:2705-10.
  22. Schnake KJ, Blattert TR, Hahn P, Franck A, Hartmann F, Ullrich B, et al. Classification of osteoporotic thoracolumbar spine fractures: Recommendations of the spine section of the German society for orthopaedics and trauma (DGOU). Glob Spine J 2018;8 Suppl 2:46S-9S.
  23.  Muratore M, Ferrera A, Masse A, Bistolfi A. Osteoporotic vertebral fractures: Predictive factors for conservative treatment failure. A systematic review. Eur Spine J 2018;27:2565-76.
  24. Suzuki N, Ogikubo O, Hansson T. The course of the acute vertebral body fragility fracture: Its effect on pain, disability and quality of life during 12 months. Eur Spine J 2008;17:1380-90.
  25. Suzuki N, Ogikubo O, Hansson T. The prognosis for pain, disability, activities of daily living and quality of life after an acute osteoporotic vertebral body fracture: Its relation to fracture level, type of fracture and grade of fracture deformation. Eur Spine J 2009;18:77-88.
  26. Knopp-Sihota JA, Newburn-Cook CV, Homik J, Cummings GG, Voaklander D. Calcitonin for treating acute and chronic pain of recent and remote osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2012;23:17-38.
  27. Erhan B, Ataker Y. Rehabilitation of patients with osteoporotic fractures. J Clin Densitom 2020;23:534-8.
  28. Pratelli E, Cinotti I, Pasquetti P. Rehabilitation in osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2010;7:45-7.
  29. Parreira PC, Maher CG, Megale RZ, March L, Ferreira ML. An overview of clinical guidelines for the management of vertebral compression fracture: A systematic review. Spine J 2017;17:1932-8.
  30. Kweh BT, Lee HQ, Tan T, Rutges J, Marion T, Tew KS, et al. The role of spinal orthoses in osteoporotic vertebral fractures of the elderly population (age 60 years or older): Systematic review. Glob Spine J 2021;11:975-87..
  31. Sinaki M, Itoi E, Wahner HW, Wollan P, Gelzcer R, Mullan BP, et al. Stronger back muscles reduce the incidence of vertebral fractures: A prospective 10 year follow-up of postmenopausal women. Bone 2002;30:836-41.
  32. Kong M, Zhou C, Zhu K, Zhang Y, Song M, Zhang H, et al. 12-month teriparatide treatment reduces new vertebral compression fractures incidence and back pain and improves quality of life after percutaneous kyphoplasty in osteoporotic women. Clin Interv Aging 2019;14:1693-703.
  33. Ohtori S, Orita S, Yamauchi K, Eguchi Y, Ochiai N, Kuniyoshi K, et al. More than 6 months of teriparatide treatment was more effective for bone union than shorter treatment following lumbar posterolateral fusion surgery. Asian Spine J 2015;9:573-80.
  34. Huang TW, Chuang PY, Lin SJ, Lee CY, Huang KC, Shih HN, et al. Teriparatide improves fracture healing and early functional recovery in treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3626.
  35. Kawabata A, Yoshii T, Hirai T, Ushio S, Kaito T, Yamashita T, et al. Effect of bisphosphonates or teriparatide on mechanical complications after posterior instrumented fusion for osteoporotic vertebral fracture: A multi-center retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020;21:420.
  36. Iwata A, Kanayama M, Oha F, Hashimoto T, Iwasaki N. Effect of teriparatide (rh-PTH 1-34) versus bisphosphonate on the healing of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: A retrospective comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18:148.
  37. NICE. Overview, Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty for Treating Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures, Guidance. Ra’anana, Israel: NICE; 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta279 [Last accessed on 2021 Dec 26].
  38. Jensen ME, McGraw JK, Cardella JF, Hirsch JA. Position statement on percutaneous vertebral augmentation: A consensus statement developed by the American society of interventional and therapeutic neuroradiology, society of interventional radiology, American association of neurological surgeons/congress of neurological surgeons, and American society of spine radiology. J Neurointerv Surg 2009;1:181-5.
  39. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:569-79.
  40. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, Wark JD, Mitchell P, Wriedt C, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:557-68.
  41. Hinde K, Maingard J, Hirsch JA, Phan K, Asadi H, Chandra RV. Mortality outcomes of vertebral augmentation (vertebroplasty and/or balloon kyphoplasty) for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: Asystematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 2020;295:96-103.
  42. Chen AT, Cohen DB, Skolasky RL. Impact of nonoperative treatment, vertebroplasty, and kyphoplasty on survival and morbidity after vertebral compression fracture in the medicare. population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1729-36.
  43. Firanescu CE, de Vries J, Lodder P, Venmans A, Schoemaker MC, Smeets AJ, et al. Vertebroplasty versus sham procedure for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VERTOS IV): Randomised sham controlled clinical trial. BMJ 2018;361:k1551.
  44. Clark W, Bird P, Gonski P, Diamond TH, Smerdely P, McNeil HP, et al. Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures (VAPOUR): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2016;388:1408-16.
  45. Buchbinder R, Johnston RV, Rischin KJ, Homik J, Jones CA, Golmohammadi K, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;4:CD006349.
  46. Clark W, Bird P, Diamond T, Gonski P, Gebski V. Cochrane vertebroplasty review misrepresented evidence for vertebroplasty with early intervention in severely affected patients. BMJ Evid Based Med 2020;25:85-9.
  47. Wei H, Dong C, Zhu Y, Ma H. Analysis of two minimally invasive procedures for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with intravertebral cleft: Asystematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg 2020;15:401.
  48. Hulme PA, Krebs J, Ferguson SJ, Berlemann U. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: A systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:1983-2001.
  49. Taylor RS, Fritzell P, Taylor RJ. Balloon kyphoplasty in the management of vertebral compression fractures: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1085-100.
  50. Shankar JJ, Merdad R, Finitsis S, Parker R. Imaging improves efficacy of vertebroplasty-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Neurol Sci 2019;46:540-9.
  51. Jalan H, Perumal R, Prabhu S, Palanivelayutham S, Viswanathan VK, Rajasekaran S. Intravenous bisphosphonate therapy does not delay fracture healing in inter-trochanteric femur fractures-a randomised controlled study. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2021;20:101472.
  52. Sun Y, Ma H, Yang F, Tang X, Yi P, Tan M. Clinical efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid combined with PVP/PKP in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Biomed  es Int 2021;2021:6650358.
  53. Tang B, Zeng H, Hu S, Liu K, Wu L, Shi X. Percutaneous vertebroplasty combined with zoledronic acid in treatment and prevention of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. World Neurosurg 2022;157:75-87.
  54. Li K, Gong H, Xie R, Gu J, Wang S, Lin C, et al. Clinical efficacy of zoledronic acid combined with percutaneous kyphoplasty in the prevention and treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e25215.
  55. Ataka H, Tanno T, Yamazaki M. Posterior instrumented fusion without neural decompression for incomplete neurological deficits following vertebral collapse in the osteoporotic thoracolumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2009;18:69-76.
  56. Rajasekaran S, Kanna RM, Schnake KJ, Vaccaro AR, Schroeder GD, Sadiqi S, et al. Osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures-how are they different?-Classification and treatment algorithm. J Orthop Trauma 2017;31 Suppl 4:S49-56.

 

How to Cite this article: Krishnan V, Kanna RM, Shetty AP. Vertebral Fragility Fractures in Osteoporosis – A Comprehensive Review on its Management. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):67-76.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Potpourri – Recent and Relevant Literature in Distal Femur Fractures

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 56-59 | Clevio Desouza , Nicholas Antao

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.471

Author: Clevio Desouza [1], Nicholas Antao [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Holy Spirit Hospital, Andheri, Mumbai, India

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Clevio Desouza,
Department of Orthopaedics, Holy Spirit Hospital, Andheri, Mumbai, India.
E-mail: ceviod@gmail.com

Abstract

Distal femur fractures include fractures of the supracondylar and intercondylar region and are relatively common injuries. The goals of treatment follow AO principles of anatomic reduction of the articular surface, restoration of limb alignment, length, and rotation. Despite improvements in implant design, management of distal femur fractures remains a challenge; fractures are often comminuted, intra-articular, and involve osteoporotic bone, making fixation challenging to achieve. In the geriatric trauma population, the incidence of co-morbidities is high and may impact the therapeutic options. We have aimed to bring together all the recent advances and literature in the management of distal femur fractures through this article.

Keywords: Distal femur, Plating, Nailing, Prosthesis

References

  1. Imam MA, Torieh A, Matthana A. Double plating of intra-articular multifragmentary C3-type distal femoral fractures through the
    anterior approach. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2018;28:121-30.
  2. Steinberg E, Elis J, Steinberg Y, Salai M, Ben-Tov T. A double-plating approach to distal femur fracture: A clinical study. Injury 2017;48:2260-5.
  3. Sain A, Sharma V, Farooque K, Muthukumaran V, Pattabiraman K. Dual plating of the distal femur: Indications and surgical techniques. Cureus 2019;11:e6483.
  4. Lodde MF, Raschke MJ, Stolberg-Stolberg J, Everding J, Rosslenbroich S, Katthagen JC, et al. Union rates and functional outcome of double plating of the femur: Systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03767-6. Online ahead of print.
  5. Meluzio MC, Oliva MS, Minutillo F, Ziranu A, Saccomanno MF, Maccauro G. The use of knee mega-prosthesis for the management of distal femoral fractures: A systematic review. Injury 2020;51:S17-22.
  6. Mechas CA, Isla AE, Abbenhaus EJ, Landy DC, Duncan ST, Selby JB, et al. Clinical outcomes following distal femur replacement for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2022; Jan 31:S0883-5403(22)00071-7.
  7. Sukhonthamarn K, Strony JT, Patel UJ, Brown SA, Nazarian DG, Parvizi J, et al. Distal femoral replacement and periprosthetic joint infection after non-oncological reconstruction: A retrospective analysis. J Arthroplasty 2021;36:3959-65.
  8. Mancino F, Di Matteo V, Mocini F, Cacciola G, Malerba G, Perisano C, et al. Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021;22:933.
  9. Quinzi DA, Childs S, Lipof J, Soin S, Ricciardi BF. The treatment of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures after total knee replacement, JBJS Rev 2020;8:e2000003.
  10. Pitta M, Esposito CI, Li Z, Lee YY, Wright TM, Padgett DE. Failure after modern total knee arthroplasty: A prospective study of 18,065 knees. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:407-14.
  11. Yoo JD, Kim NK. Periprosthetic fractures following total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2015;27:1-9.
  12. Wright JG. Revised grades of recommendation for summaries or reviews of orthopaedic surgical studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 May;88(5):1161-2.
  13. Neradi D, Sodavarapu P, Jindal K, Kumar D, Kumar V, Goni V. Locked plating versus retrograde intramedullary nailing for distal femur fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Bone Joint Surg 2022;10:141-52.
  14. Goodnough LH, Salazar BP, Chen MJ, Storaci H, Guzman R, Heffner M, et al. Supplemental medial small fragment fixation adds stability to distal femur fixation: A biomechanical study. Injury 2021;52:1670-2.
  15. Nino S, Parry JA, Avilucea FR, Haidukewych GJ, Langford JR. Retrograde intramedullary nailing of comminuted intra-articular distal femur fractures results in high union rate. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2021; Doi: 10.1007/s00590-021-03140-8. Online ahead of print.
  16. Larsen MS, Schmal H. The enigma of atypical femoral fractures: A summary of current knowledge. EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:494-500.
  17. Prasarn ML, Ahn J, Helfet DL, Lane JM, Lorich DG. Bisphosphonate-associated femur fractures have high complication rates with operative fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:2295-301.
  18. Rudran B, Super J, Jandoo R, Babu V, Nathan S, Ibrahim E, et al. Current concepts in the management of bisphosphonate associated atypical femoral fractures. World J Orthop 2021;12:660-71.
  19. AlQarooni SH, Ruggiero U, Suresh SP. Atypical fractures secondary to bisphosphonate therapy: A case series and pictorial review. Indian J Musculoskelet Radiol 2021;3:45-53.

 

How to Cite this article: Desouza C, Antao N. Potpourri – Recent and Relevant Literature in Distal Femur Fractures. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):56-59.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Functional Outcome of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Ligamentum Flavum Preserving Discectomy

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 104-109 | Nicholas Antao, Clevio Desouza, Malcolm Pestonji, Jehangir Pestonji, Maulik Langal

DOI: 10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.487

Author: Nicholas Antao [1], Clevio Desouza [1], Malcolm Pestonji [1], Jehangir Pestonji [1], Maulik Langal [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Holy Spirit Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Clevio Desouza,
Department of Orthopaedics, Holy Spirit Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: ceviod@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Low back pain affects roughly 70–80% of people at some point in their lives. Lumbar disc prolapse is one of the major reasons of low back pain that causes severe morbidity around the world, affecting primarily the working-class young population. We conducted this study to describe the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy technique for lumbar herniated disc with the aim on how to perform theses procedure safely while also preserving the structures like the facet joints through the posterior interlaminar approach.

Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted between July 2019 and July 2021. The total number of patients included in the study was 41. A total of 54 levels of discectomy were done. The visual analog scale was used to assess back pain and lower leg symptoms, the Oswestry Disability Index was used to assess degrees of disability, and modified Macnab criteria were used to assess overall outcomes of treatment.

Results: Following the procedure, there was a significant improvement. The ultimate outcomes were excellent in 24 patients (58.53%), good in 15 (36.58%), fair in 2 (4.8%), and poor in 0 patients, according to the modified Macnab criteria. That is, 95.11% of patients had excellent or good results.

Conclusion: The UBE discectomy approach for lumbar disc herniation is a minimally invasive procedure that is both safe and successful. There is no soft-tissue degradation or facet joint destruction.

Keywords: Unilateral biportal endoscopy, ligamentum flavum, discectomy, visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, Macnab criteria

References

  1. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 1999;354:581-5.
  2. Papageorgiou AC, Croft PR, Ferry S, Jayson MI, Silman AJ. Estimating the prevalence of low back pain in the general population: Evidence from the South Manchester Back Pain Survey. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1889-94.
  3. Aslam M, Khan FR, Huda N, Pant A, Julfiqar M, Goel A. Outcome of discectomy by fenestration technique in prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. Ann Int Med Dent Res 2015;1:286-90.
  4. Kim HS, Paudel B, Jang JS, Oh SH, Lee S, Park JE, et al. Percutaneous full endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of spinal stenosis through uniportal-contralateral approach: Techniques and preliminary results. World Neurosurg 2017;103:201-9.
  5. Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, Rao PJ. Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: Comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;21:179-86.
  6. Pao JL, Chen WC, Chen PQ. Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2009;18:672-8.
  7. Minamide A, Yoshida M, Yamada H, Nakagawa Y, Hashizume H, Iwasaki H, et al. Clinical outcomes after microendoscopic laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: A 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 2015;24:396-403.
  8. Lu WW, Luk KD, Ruan DK, Fei ZQ, Leong JC. Stability of the whole lumbar spine after multilevel fenestration and discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:1277-82.
  9. Okawa A, Shinomiya K, Takakuda K, Nakai O. Acadaveric study on the stability of lumbar segment after partial laminotomy and facetectomy with intact posterior ligaments. J Spinal Disord 1996;9:518-26.
  10. Bresnahan LE, Smith JS, Ogden AT, Quinn S, Cybulski GR, Simonian N, et al. Assessment of paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area after lumbar decompression: Minimally invasive versus open approaches. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30:E162-8.
  11. Hermantin FU, Peters T, Quartararo L, Kambin P. Aprospective, randomized study comparing the results of open discectomy with those of video-assisted arthroscopic microdiscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:958-65.
  12. Kambin P, O’Brien E, Zhou L, Schaffer JL. Arthroscopic microdiscectomy and selective fragmentectomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;347:150-67.
  13. Casey KF, Chang MK, O’Brien ED, Yuan HA, McCullen GM, Schaffer J, et al. Arthroscopic microdiscectomy: Comparison of preoperative and postoperative imaging studies. Arthroscopy 1997;13:438-45.
  14. Parker SL, Xu R, McGirt MJ, Witham TF, Long DM, Bydon A. Long-term back pain after a single-level discectomy for radiculopathy: Incidence and health care cost analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;12:178-82.
  15. Fritsch EW, Heisel J, Rupp S. The failed back surgery syndrome: Reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: A report of 182 operative treatments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:626-33.
  16. Lewis PJ, Weir BK, Broad RW, Grace MG. Long-term prospective study of lumbosacral discectomy. J Neurosurg 1987;67:49-53.
  17. He J, Xiao S, Wu Z, Yuan Z. Microendoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2016;25:1373-81.
  18. Choi CM, Chung JT, Lee SJ, Choi DJ. How I do it? Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Neurochir 2016;158:459-63.
  19. Mayer HM, Brock M, Berlien HP, Weber B. Percutaneous endoscopic laser discectomy (PELD). Anew surgical technique for non-sequestrated lumbar discs. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1992;54:53-8.

 

How to Cite this article: Antao N, Desouza C, Pestonji M, Pestonji J, Langaliya M. Functional Outcome of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Ligamentum Flavum Preserving Discectomy. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):104-109.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel and Its Role In Spine Surgeries : An Article Review

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 20-27| TausifAhmed Shikalgar, Priyank Patel, Abhay Nene, Shubhanshu Bhaladhare, Sanjay Puri, Manojkumar Gaddiker

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.461

Author: TausifAhmed Shikalgar [1], Priyank Patel [1], Abhay Nene [1], Shubhanshu Bhaladhare [1], Sanjay Puri [1], Manojkumar Gaddiker [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050, India

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Tausif Ahmed Shikalgar,
Fellow Spine Surgery, Under Dr. Abhay Nene, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: Dr.tausifahmedshikalgar@gmail.com

Abstract

The past few decades have seen tremendous improvement in the field of spine surgery. Spine surgery involves a number of procedures from simple laminectomy to deformity correction. This requires high surgical skills and care, which is achieved by a number of instruments, which, in turn, protect surgeons from committing complications. Recent advancements in spine surgery include ultrasonic bone scalpel, which cut bone accurately and precisely. It is a unique surgical device which offers a controlled osteotomy which slices the hard bone while the soft tissues remain largely unaffected. The major benefits of using this modern instrument are the soft-tissue sparing, controlled cutting, reduced bleeding, and thereby increasing the effectiveness. The aim of this article is to summarize its uses in current practice of spine surgeons and to focus on its advantages and complications associated with uses of this device.

Keywords: Ultrasonic bone scalpel, spine surgery, complications, safety, osteotomy

References

  1. Walker CT, Kakarla UK, Chang SW, Sonntag VK. History and advances in spinal neurosurgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2019;31:775-85.
  2. Grochulla F, Vieweg U. Surgical motor systems in spinal surgery. In: Vieweg U, Grochulla F, editors. Manual of Spine Surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 69-74.
  3. Bydon M, Macki M, Xu R, Ain MC, Ahn ES, Jallo GI. Spinal decompression in achondroplastic patients using high-speed drill versus ultrasonic bone curette: Technical note and outcomes in 30 cases. J Pediatr Orthop 2014;34:780-6.
  4. Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, et al. Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:14457.
  5. Ratliff JK, Lebude B, Albert T, Anene-Maidoh T, Anderson G, Dagostino P, et al. Complications in spinal surgery: Comparative survey of spine surgeons and patients who underwent spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;10:578-84.
  6. Nakase H, Matsuda R, Shin Y, Park YS, Sakaki T. The use of ultrasonic bone curettes in spinal surgery. Acta Neurochir 2006;148:207-12; discussion 212-3.
  7. Nakagawa H, Kim SD, Mizuno J, Ohara Y, Ito K. Technical advantages of an ultrasonic bone curette in spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2:431-5.
  8. Pakzaban P. BoneScalpelTM Ultrasonic Bone Cutting System: Neurosurgical and Orthopaedic Applications, Aesculap Power Systems; 2012.
  9. BoneScalpel TM Ultrasonic Bone Dissector: Applications in Spine Surgery and Surgical Technique Guide.
  10. Moon RD, Srikandarajah N, Clark S, Wilby MJ, Pigott TD. Primary lumbar decompression using ultrasonic bone curette compared to conventional technique. Br J Neurosurg 2021;35:775-9.
  11. Hu X, Ohnmeiss DD, Lieberman IH. Use of an ultrasonic osteotome device in spine surgery: Experience from the first 128 patients. Eur Spine J 2013;22:2845-9.
  12. Hazer DB, Yaşar B, Rosberg HE, Akbaş A. Technical aspects on the use of ultrasonic bone shaver in spine surgery: Experience in 307 patients. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:8428530.
  13. Bydon M, Xu R, Papademetriou K, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, et al. Safety of spinal decompression using an ultra-sonic bone curette compared with a high-speed drill: Outcomes in 337 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:627-33.
  14. Al-Mahfoudh R, Mitchell PS, Wilby M, Crooks D, Barrett C, Pillay R, et al. Management of giant calcified thoracic disks and description of the trench vertebrectomy technique. Glob Spine J 2016;6:584-91.
  15. Dave BR, Krishnan A, Rai RR, Degulmadi D, Mayi S, Gudhe M. The effectiveness and safety of ultrasonic bone scalpel versus conventional method in cervical laminectomy: A retrospective study of 311 patients. Glob Spine J 2020;10:760-6.
  16. Li K, Zhang W, Li B, Xu H, Li Z, Luo D, et al. Safety and efficacy of cervical laminoplasty using a piezosurgery device compared with a high-speed drill. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4913.
  17. Onen MR, Yuvruk E, Akay S, Naderi S, The reliability of the ultrasonic bone scalpel in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A comparative study of 46 patients. World Neurosurg 2015;84:1962-7.
  18. Al-Mahfoudh R, Qattan E, Ellenbogen JR, Wilby M, Barrett C, Pigott T. Applications of the ultrasonic bone cutter in spinal surgery our preliminary experience. Br J Neurosurg 2014;28:56-60.
  19. Shousha M, El-Saghir H, Boehm H. Corpectomy of the fifth lumbar vertebra, a challenging procedure. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014;27:347-51.
  20. Hu SS. Blood loss in adult spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 2004;13Suppl 1:S3-5.
  21. Dave BR, Degulmadi D, Dahibhate S, Krishnan A, Patel D. Ultrasonic bone scalpel: Utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note. Eur Spine J 2019;28:380-5.
  22. Jenis LG, An HS. Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine 2000;25:389-94.
  23. Morimoto D, Isu T, Kim K, Sugawara A, Matsumoto R, Isobe M. Microsurgical medial fenestration with an ultrasonic bone curette for lumbar foraminal stenosis. J Nippon Med Sch 2012;79:327-34.
  24. Chen HT, Hsu CC, Lu ML, Chen SH, Chen JM, Wu RW. Effects of combined use of ultrasonic bone scalpel and hemostatic matrix on perioperative blood loss and surgical duration in degenerative thoracolumbar spine surgery. Biomed Res Int 2019;2019:6286528.
  25. Hamburger C. T-laminoplasty-a surgical approach for cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. Technical note. Acta Neurochir  1995;132:131-3.
  26. Herman JM, Sonntag VK. Cervical corpectomy and plate fixation for postlaminectomy kyphosis. J Neurosurg 1994;80:963-70.
  27. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 1983;8:693-9.
  28. Ito K, Ishizaka S, Sasaki T, Miyahara T, Horiuchi T, Sakai K, et al. Safe and minimally invasive laminoplastic laminotomy using an ultrasonic bone curette for spinal surgery: Technical note. Surg Neurol 2009;72:470-5 discussion 475.
  29.  Park AE, Heller JG. Cervical laminoplasty: Use of a novel titanium plate to maintain canal expansion-surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:265-71.
  30. Matsuoka H, Itoh Y, Numazawa S, Tomii M, Watanabe K, Hirano Y, et al. Recapping hemilaminoplasty for spinal surgical disorders using ultrasonic bone curette. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:70.
  31. Parker SL, Kretzer RM, Recinos PF, Molina CA, Wolinsky JP, Jallo GI, et al. Ultrasonic BoneScalpel for osteoplastic laminoplasty in the resection of intradural spinal pathology: Case series and technical note. Neurosurgery 2013;73 Suppl Operative 1:ons61-6.
  32. Barbanera A, Serchi E, Fiorenza V, Nina P, Andreoli A. Giant calcified thoracic herniated disc: Considerations aiming a proper surgical strategy. J Neurosurg Sci 2009;53:19-25 discussion 25-6.
  33. Okada Y, Shimizu K, Ido K, Kotani S. Multiple thoracic disc herniations: Case report and review of the literature. Spinal Cord 1997;35:183-6.
  34. Cornips EM, Janssen ML, Beuls EA. Thoracic disc herniation and acute myelopathy: Clinical presentation, neuroimaging findings, surgical considerations, and outcome. J Neurosurg. Spine 2011;14:520-8.
  35. Hott JS, Feiz-Erfan I, Kenny K, Dickman CA. Surgical management of giant herniated thoracic discs: Analysis of 20 cases. J  eurosurg Spine 2005;3:191-7.
  36. Wahlquist S, Nelson S, Glivar P. Effect of the ultrasonic bone scalpel on blood loss during pediatric spinal deformity correction surgery. Spine Deform 2019;7:582-7.
  37. Garg S, Thomas J, Darland H, Kim E, Kittelson J, Erickson M, et al. Ultrasonic bone scalpel (USBS) does not reduce blood loss during posterior spinal fusion (PSF) in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): Randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2021;46:845-51.
  38. Kim K, Isu T, Matsumoto R, Isobe M, Kogure K. Surgical pitfalls of an ultrasonic bone curette (Sonopet) in spinal surgery. Oper Neurosurg 2006;59 Suppl 4:ONS-390; discussion ONS393.
  39. Brooks AT, Nelson CL, Stewart CL, Skinner RA, Siems ML. Effect of an ultrasonic device on temperatures generated in bone and on bone-cement structure. J Arthroplast 1993;8:413-8.
  40. Gleizal A, Bera JC, Lavandier B, Beziat JL. Piezoelectric osteotomy: A new technique for bone surgery advantages in craniofacial surgery. Childs Nerv Syst 2007;23:509-13.

 

How to Cite this article: Shikalgar TA, Patel P, Nene A, Bhaladhare S, Puri S, Gaddikeri M. Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel and its Role in Spine Surgeries: An Article Review. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):20-27.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Arthroscopic Latarjet – Retrospective Study of 74 Patients – Technique, Indications, and Results

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 94-99 | Sameer Shaikh, Farzana Shaikh, Santosh Takale, Amol Gowaikar, Manohar Kachare, Vijaykumar Rukde, Mahadev Mali

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.483

Author: Sameer Shaikh [1], Farzana Shaikh [1], Santosh Takale [1], Amol Gowaikar [1], Manohar Kachare [1], Vijaykumar Rukde [1], Mahadev Mali [1] 

[1] Department of Sports Injuries & Joint Replacement, Shaikh Institute of Orthopaedics & Trauma, Miraj – 416410, Maharashtra, India

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Sameer Salim Shaikh,
Department of Sports Injuries & Joint Replacement, Shaikh Institute of Orthopaedics & Trauma, Miraj – 416410, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: drsameerphysio@rediffmail.com

Abstract

Objective: The all arthroscopic latarjet procedure was performed to manage anterior recurrent shoulder instability with bone loss. The aim of present study was to briefly describe the technique and to evaluate the results and complications following procedure.

Materials and Methods: Retrospective study of 74 patients with anterior shoulder instability since 2010–2019 conducted in a single center. Out of 74 patients, 32 patients were sportsperson who were involved in at least district level games, 14 were manual laborers and remaining were non-sportsmen. Fifty-five patients were males and 19 were females. Arthrolatarjet was done using DePuy Synthes double barrel cannula system and fixation of coracoid with 4.00 mm titanium cannulated cancellous screws with Top Hat. No capsular repair done in our cases..

Results: Out of 74 cases, two-screw fixation was possible in 98% of patients. No neurological complications seen in our series. Two patients had graft resorption and non-union. Osteolysis of the graft around upper screw is seen in eight patients post-operative computed tomography scans but clinically no complaints. Technically challenging in first 25 cases.

Conclusion: Arthrolatarjet is a safe and reproducible procedure which gives good results, better visualization of anatomy, more precise graft positioning, concomitant abnormalities that can be treated. Cadaveric workshops needed. Technically demanding.

Keywords: Arthroscopic latarjet, glenoid bone loss, humeral boneless, double barrel cannula, depuy synthes

References

  1. Allain J, Goutallier D, Glorion C. Long-term results of the latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior instability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:841-52.
  2. Young DC, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of a failed Bristow procedure and their management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:969-81.
  3. Longo UG, Rizzello G, Ciuffreda M, Locher J, Berton A, Salvatore G, Denaro V. Humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments: Asystematic review. Arthroscopy 2016;32:1868-76.
  4. Southgate DF, Bokor DJ, Longo UG, Wallace AL, Bull AM. The effect of humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments and humeral repair site on joint laxity: A biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 2013;29:990-7.
  5. Hartzler RU, Bui CN, Jeong WK, Akeda M, Peterson A, McGarry M, et al. Remplissage of an off-track hill-sachs lesion is necessary to restore biomechanical glenohumeral joint stability in a bipolar bone loss model. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2016;25:e325-6.
  6. Latarjet M. Treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Lyon Chir 1954;49:994-7.
  7. Latarjet M. Technic of coracoid preglenoid arthroereisis in the treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Lyon Chir 1958;54:604-7.
  8. Boileau P, Mercier N, Roussanne Y, Thélu CÉ, Old J. Arthroscopic Bankart-Bristow-Latarjet procedure: The development and early results of a safe and reproducible technique. Arthroscopy 2010;26:1434-50.
  9. Boileau P, Thélu CÉ, Mercier N, Ohl X, Houghton-Clemmey R, Carles M, et al. Arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet combined with bankart repair restores shoulder stability in patients with glenoid bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:2413-24.
  10. Lafosse L, Boyle S. Arthroscopic latarjet procedure. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19 Suppl 2:2-12.
  11. Longo UG, Huijsmans PE, Maffulli N, Denaro V, De Beer JF. Video analysis of the mechanisms of shoulder dislocation in four elite rugby players. J Orthop Sci 2011;16:389-97.
  12. Longo UG, Loppini M, Rizzello G, Ciuffreda M, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Management of primary acute anterior shoulder dislocation: Systematic review and quantitative synthesis of the literature. Arthroscopy 2014;30:506-22.
  13. Kartus C, Kartus J, Matis N, Forstner R, Resch H. Long-term independent evaluation after arthroscopic extra-articular Bankart repair with absorbable tacks. A clinical and radiographic study with a seven to ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89: 1442-8.
  14. Longo UG, Loppini M, Rizzello G, Ciuffreda M, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Latarjet, bristow, and eden-hybinette procedures for anterior shoulder dislocation: systematic review and quantitative synthesis of the literature. Arthroscopy 2014;30:1184-211.
  15. Longo UG, Rizzello G, Loppini M, Locher J, Buchmann S, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Multidirectional instability of the shoulder: Asystematic review. Arthroscopy 2015;31:2431-43.
  16. Longo UG, van der Linde JA, Loppini M, Coco V, Poolman RW, Denaro V. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment in patients up to 18 years old with traumatic shoulder instability: A systematic review and quantitative synthesis of the literature. Arthroscopy  2016;32:944-52.
  17. Locher J, Wilken F, Beitzel K, Buchmann S, Longo UG, Denaro V, et al. Hill-Sachs off-track lesions as risk factor for recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Arthroscopy 2016;32:1993-9.
  18. Longo UG, Rizzello G, Locher J, Salvatore G, Florio P, Maffulli N, et al. Bone loss in patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability: A systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016;24:612-7.
  19. Lazarides AL, Duchman KR, Ledbetter L, Riboh JC, Garrigues GE. Arthroscopic remplissage for anterior shoulder instability: A systematic review of clinical and biomechanical studies. Arthroscopy 2019;35:617-28.
  20. Funakoshi T, Hartzler R, Stewien E, Burkhart S. Remplissage using interconnected knotless anchors: Superior biomechanical properties to a knotted technique? Arthroscopy 2018;34:2954-9.
  21. Lafosse L, Boyle S, Gutierrez-Aramberri M, Shah A, Meller R. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41:393-405.
  22. Longo UG, Loppini M, Rizzello G, Ciuffreda M, Berton A, Maffulli N, et al. Remplissage, humeral osteochondral grafts, weber osteotomy, and shoulder arthroplasty for the management of humeral bone defects in shoulder instability: Systematic review and quantitative synthesis of the literature. Arthroscopy 2014;30:1650-66.
  23. Ruci V, Duni A, Cake A, Ruci D, Ruci J. Bristow-Latarjet technique: Still a very successful surgery for anterior glenohumeral instability-a forty year one clinic experience. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2015;3:310-4.White KK. Orthopaedic aspects of mucopolysaccharidoses. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011;50 Suppl 5:v26-33.
  24. Pereira NR, van der Linde JA, Alkaduhimi H, Longo UG, van den Bekerom MP. Are collision athletes at a higher risk of  e-dislocation after an open Bristow-Latarjet procedure? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Shoulder Elbow 2018;10:75-86.
  25. van der Linde JA, van Wijngaarden R, Somford MP, van Deurzen DF, van den Bekerom MP. The Bristow-Latarjet procedure, a historical note on a technique in comeback. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016;24:470-8.
  26. Boileau P, Mercier N, Old J. Arthroscopic Bankart-Bristow-Latarjet (2B3) procedure: How to do it and tricks to make it easier and safe. Orthop Clin North Am 2010;41:381-92.
  27. Ellman H, Hanker G, Bayer M. Repair of the rotator cuff. End-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:1136-44.
  28.  Lafosse L, Lejeune E, Bouchard A, Kakuda C, Gobezie R, Kochhar T. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 2007;23:1242.e1-5.
  29. Castricini R, De Benedetto M, Orlando N, Rocchi M, Zini R, Pirani P. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure: Analysis of the learning curve. Musculoskelet Surg 2013;97 Suppl 1:93-8.
  30. Longo UG, Forriol F, Loppini M, Lanotte A, Salvatore G, Maffulli N, et al. The safe zone for avoiding suprascapular nerve injury
    in bone block procedures for shoulder instability. A cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015;23:1506-10.
  31. Beranger JS, Klouche S, Bauer T, Demoures T, Hardy P. Anterior shoulder stabilization by Bristow-Latarjet procedure in athletes: Return-to-sport and functional outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2016;26:277-82.
  32. Hovelius LK, Sandström BC, Rösmark DL, Saebö M, Sundgren KH, Malmqvist BG. Long-term results with the Bankart and Bristow-Latarjet procedures: Recurrent shoulder instability and arthropathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001;10:445-52.
  33. Hovelius L, Sandström B, Olofsson A, Svensson O, Rahme H. The effect of capsular repair, bone block healing, and position on the results of the Bristow-Latarjet procedure (Study III): Long-term follow-up in 319 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012;21:64 7-60.
  34. Griesser MJ, Harris JD, McCoy BW, Hussain WM, Jones MH, Bishop JY, et al. Complications and re-operations after bristow- Latarjet shoulder stabilization: A systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013;22:286-92.
  35. Walch G, Agostini JY, Levigne C, Nové-Josserand L. Recurrent anterior and multidirectional instability of the shoulderpx. Rev
    Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1995;81:682-90.
  36. Hovelius L, Akermark C, Albrektsson B, Berg E, Körner L, Lundberg B, et al. Bristow-Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder. A 2-5 year follow-up study on the results of 112 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;54:284-90.
  37. Gupta A, Delaney R, Petkin K, Lafosse L. Complications of the Latarjet procedure. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015;8:59-66.
  38. Longo UG, Saris D, Poolman RW, Berton A, Denaro V. Instruments to assess patients with rotator cuff pathology: A systematic review of measurement properties. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012;20:1961-70.

 

How to Cite this article: Shaikh S, Shaikh F, Takale S, Gowaikar A, Kachare M, Rukde V, Mali M. Arthroscopic Latarjet – Retrospective Study of 74 Patients – Technique, Indications, and Results. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):94-99.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Management of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures following Total Hip Replacement: A Case Series

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 100-103 | Lokesh Kumar Yogi, Vijay Chandrakant Shinde, Moti Janardhan Naik, Vikash Kumar

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.485

Author: Lokesh Kumar Yogi [1], Vijay Chandrakant Shinde [1], Moti Janardhan Naik [1], Vikash Kumar [2]

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.

[2] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Lokesh Kumar Yogi,
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: lokesh.k.yogi@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: Periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are not very uncommon. At present the Vancouver classification provides management algorithm for deciding treatment options but treatment options may vary between surgeons, where as in this study most patients managed were according to Vancouver classification management algorithm. The most common treatment modality for treating periprosthetic femoral fractures around a well-fixed stem is with osteosynthesis, but fracture with loose stem requires revision arthroplasty and fracture with poor bone requires bone graft augmentation.

Methods: We reviewed 21 consecutive cases with periprosthetic femoral fractures in association with THA between June 2018 and December 2020. Locking and non locking compression plates, wires, cables system were used for osteosynthesis. Most of fractures were managed according to Vancouver classification management algorithm but modified in some cases according to the surgeon’s skills and judgment.

Results: According to Vancouver classification, two patients had AL fractures, two patients had AG fractures, twelve Patients had B1, five patients had B2, two patients had B3 and one patient had type C fracture. Of these two cases were treated by conservatively, sixteen cases were treated by osteosynthesis, three cases by revision arthroplasty.

Conclusion: The careful analysis of implant stability and fracture patterns is crucial for the optimal treatment of Periprosthetic femoral fractures. Expert Surgeon’s skills are needed to deal with periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Keywords: Locking compression plate, periprosthetic fractures, total hip arthroplasty, Vancouver classification

References

  1. Lindahl H. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury. 2007;38(6):651-4.
  2. Berend ME, Smith A, Meding JB, Ritter MA, Lynch T, Davis K. Long-term outcome and risk factors of proximal femoral fracture in uncemented and cemented total hip arthroplasty in 2551 hips. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(6 Suppl 2):53-9.
  3. Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: principles of prevention and management. Instr Course Lect. 1998;47:237-42.
  4. Haddad FS, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. The prevention of periprosthetic fractures in total hip and knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999;30:191-207.
  5. Katzer A, Ince A, Wodtke J. Component exchange in treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21:572-9.
  6. Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty2000;15:59–62.
  7. Naqvi GA, Baig SA, Awan N. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification system of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:1047-1050.
  8. Tsiridis E, Haddad FS, Gie GA. The management of periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip replacements. Injury. 2003;34:95-105.
  9. Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Kambouroglou G. A unique peri-prosthetic fracture pattern in well xed femoral stems with polished, tapered, collarless design of total hip replacement. Injury. 2011; 42:1271-6.
  10. Campbell P, Mcwilliams TG. Periprosthetic femoral fractures. Curr Orthop. 2002;16:126-32.
  11. Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instr Course Lect. 1998;47:243-9.
  12. Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish NationalHip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:857-65.
  13. Corten K, Vanrykel F, Bellemans J, Frederix PR, Simon JP, Broos PL. An algorithm for the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a well-fixed femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91(11):1424–1430.
  14. Marsland D, Mears SC. A review of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 2012;3(3):107–120.
  15. Streubel PN. Mortality after periprosthetic femur fractures. J Knee Surg2013;26:27–30.
  16. Sledge JB, Abiri A (2002) An algorithm for the treatment of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty 17:887–892.
  17. Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop 327:238–246.
  18. Kavanagh BF. Femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23:249-57.
  19. McElfresh EC, Coventry MB. Femoral and pelvic fractures after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56:483-92.
  20. Porsch M, Galm R, Hovy L, Starker M, Kerschbaumer F (1996) Total femur replacement following multiple periprosthetic fractures between ipsilateral hip and knee replacement in chronic rheumatoid arthritis. Case report of 2 patients. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 134(1):16-20.

 

How to Cite this article: Yogi LK, Shinde VC, Naik MJ, Kumar V. Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip replacement: A case series. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):100-103.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Massive Tophaceous Gout at Right Elbow Region Sin 55 Years Old Male: A Case Report

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 122-125 | Ida Bagus Anom Krishna Caitanya, Made Agus Maharjana

DOI: 10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.493

Author: Ida Bagus Anom Krishna Caitanya [1], Made Agus Maharjana [2]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Sanglah Hospital, Udayansa University, Bali, Indonesia.

[2] Pediatric consult of Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Sanglah Hospital, Udayansa University, Bali, Indonesia

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ida Bagus Anom Krishna Caitanya,
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Sanglah Hospital, Udayansa University, Bali, Indonesia.
E-mail: krishnacaitanya2112@gmail.com

Abstract

Gouty arthritis is one of the most common inflammatory joint diseases, characterized by monosodium urate crystals in or around the joints that comes from purine metabolism. Risk factors of gout are age, excessive intake of purine, alcohol, obesity, lack of physical activity, hypertension and heart disease, certain drugs, and impaired kidney function. This case presented a 55-year-old male patient with lumps and pain in the right elbow. Uric acid laboratory test results with a level of 9.20 mg/dL. Surgical excision could be the only solution to solve minimally decreased range of motion and aesthetic problems. Metabolic problems should be considered a priority with the patients who have unilateral joints problems.

Keywords: Chronic gout, tophaceous, elbow, pseudotumor

References

  1. Thompson JC, Netter FH. Netter’s Concise Orthopaedic Anatomy, Netter Clinical Science 2nd ed. 2010. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc; 2010.
  2. Lee W, Mak A. An atypically located solitary gouty tophus. Rheumatology 2019;58:1891-3.
  3. Simman R, Kirkland B, Jackson S. Posttraumatic tophaceous gout: A case report and literature review. J Am Coll Certif Wound Spec 2009;1:114-6.
  4. Trost JR, Konstantinov KN. The consequences of untreated gout: Is this a tophus? Am J Med 2019;132:e805-6.
  5. Richette P, Doherty M, Pascual E, Barskova V, Becce F, Castaneda J, et al. 2018 updated European league against rheumatism evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of gout. Ann Rheumatic Dis 2020;79:31-8.
  6. Iacobellis G. A rare and asymptomatic case of mitral valve tophus associated with severe gouty tophaceous arthritis. J Endocrinol Investig 2004;27:965-6.
  7. Goebel L, Schneider G, Bohle R, Veith C, Orth P. Gouty tophus in the quadriceps tendon: exclude malignancy. Lancet 2019;394:2197.
  8. Lee SS, Sun IF, Lu YM, Chang KP, Lai CS, Lin SD. Surgical treatment of the chronic tophaceous deformity in upper extremities the shaving technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009;62:669-74.
  9. Bernard A, Faury A, Oehler E. Intramuscular tophus. Joint Bone Spine 2020;87:355-6.
  10. Souissi A, de Bandt M. Pseudotumor of the knee: Tophus with cutaneous fistulation. Joint Bone Spine 2020;87:257.
  11. Jalan D, Maley DK, Elhence A, Elhence P, Jain P. Massive gouty tophi presenting as pseudotumor of the elbow: A rare presentation. Cureus 2020;12:e6769.
  12. Özdemir G, Deveci A, Andıç K, Yaşar NE. Bilateral olecranon tophaceous gout bursitis. Case Rep Med 2017;2017:3514796.

 

How to Cite this article: Caitanya IBAK, Maharjana MA. Massive Tophaceous Gout at Right Elbow Region Sin 55 Years Old Male: A Case Report. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):122-125.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Classification of Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Narrative Review

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 77-84 | Harvinder Singh Chhabra, Jitesh Manghwani

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.479

Author: Harvinder Singh Chhabra [1], Jitesh Manghwani [1]

[1] Department of Spine Services, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi, India

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Harvinder Singh Chhabra,
Medical Director and Chief of Spine service, Department of Spine Services, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi, India.
E-mail: drhschhabra@isiconline.org

Abstract

Thoracolumbar fractures constitute 75% of the cases of spine trauma. Thoracolumbar classification systems are important to diagnose, stage, determine the management of vertebral lesions, and predict the results of the different treatment options. This narrative review describes how the classification systems evolved over time with the unique features of each historically. Radiographs are the initial step of investigation. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography help in delineating the injury better. This article narrates diagnosing instability and the role of each classification system in aiding to make a decision of a particular thoracolumbar fracture with merits and demerits of each.

Keywords: Thoracolumbar, classification, review, AOSpine, TLICS, SCS

References

  1.  Smith HE, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Hilibrand AS, Harrop JS, et al. Anatomy, biomechanics, and classification of thoracolumbar injuries. Semin Spine Surg 2010;22:2-7.
  2. Stagnara P, De Mauroy JC, Dran G, Gonon GP, Costanzo G, Dimnet J, et al. Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in a sagittal plane: Approach to references for the evaluation of kyphosis and lordosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1982;7:335-42.
  3. Liu B, Zhu Y, Liu S, Chen W, Zhang F, Zhang Y. National incidence of traumatic spinal fractures in China: Data from China national fracture study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e12190.
  4. Doud AN, Weaver AA, Talton JW, Barnard RT, Meredith JW, Stitzel JD, et al. Has the incidence of thoracolumbar spine injuries increased in the United States from 1998 to 2011? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:297-304.
  5. Katsuura Y, Osborn JM, Cason GW. The epidemiology of thoracolumbar trauma: A meta-analysis. J Orthop 2016;13:383-8.
  6. Berry GE, Adams S, Harris MB, Boles CA, McKernan MG, Collinson F, et al. Are plain radiographs of the spine necessary during evaluation after blunt trauma? Accuracy of screening torso computed tomography in thoracic/lumbar spine fracture diagnosis. J Trauma 2005;59:1410-3.
  7. Prajapati H, Kumar R. Thoracolumbar fracture classification: Evolution, merits, demerits, updates, and concept of stability. Br J Neurosurg 2020;35:1-6.
  8. Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. J Sports Chiropr Rehabil 2001;15:5-19.
  9. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev 2019;4:5.
  10. Böhler L. The technique in the treatment of bone fractures in Griedenund in war Vienna, Austria. Vienna, Austria: Verlagvon Wilheim Maudrich; 1930. p. 9-11.
  11. Sethi MK, Schoenfeld AJ, Bono CM, Harris MB (2009) The evolution of thoracolumbar injury classification systems. Spine 9: 780-788..
  12. Watson-Jones R. The results of postural reduction of fractures of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg 1938;20:567-86.
  13. Nicholl EA. Fractures of the dorsolumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1949;31:376-94.
  14. Panjabi MM, Brand RA, White AA. Three-dimensional flexibility and stiffness properties of the human thoracic spine. J Biomech 1976;9:185-92.
  15.  Roberts JB, Curtiss PH Jr. Stability of the thoracic and lumbar spine in traumatic paraplegia following fracture or fracture-dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970;52:1115-30.
  16. Whitesides TE Jr. Traumatic kyphosis of the thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop 1977;128:78-92.
  17. Lee JY, Vaccaro AR, Lim MR, Oner FC, Hulbert RJ, Hedlund R, et al. Thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score: A new paradigm for the treatment of thoracolumbar spine trauma. J Orthop Sci 2005;10:671-5.
  18. Kelly RP, Whitesides TE. Treatment of lumbodorsal fracture-dislocations. Ann Surg 1968;167:705-17.
  19. Denis F. The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983;8:817-31.
  20. Wood KB, Khanna G, Vaccaro AR, Arnold PM, Harris MB, Mehbod AA. Assessment of two thoracolumbar fracture classification systems as used by multiple surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1423-9.
  21. Agus H, Kayali C, Arslantas M. Nonoperative treatment of burst-type thoracolumbar vertebra fractures: Clinical and radiological results of 29 patients. Eur Spine J 2004;14:536-40.
  22. Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A, Garvey T, Jhanjee R, Sechriest V, et al. Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit: A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:773-81.
  23. McAfee PC, Yuan HA, Fredrickson BE, Lubicky JP. The value of computed tomography in thoracolumbar fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983;65:461-73.
  24. McCormack T, Karaikovic E, Gaines RW. The load sharing classification of spine fractures Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:1741-4.
  25. Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S. A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 1994;3:184-201.
  26. Patel AA, Vaccaro AR. Thoracolumbar spine trauma classification. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010;18:63-71.
  27. Koh YD, Kim DJ, Koh YW. Reliability and validity of thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score (TLICS). Asian Spine J 2010;4:109-17.
  28. Vaccaro AR, Oner C, Kepler CK, Dvorak M, Schnake K, Bellabarba C, et al, AOSpine Spinal Cord Injury and Trauma Knowledge Forum. AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: Fracture description, neurological status, and key modifiers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:2028-37.
  29. Chhabra HS, Yelamarthy PK, Moolya SN, Erli HJ, Theron F, Abel R, et al. Development and validation of a simplified thoracolumbar spine fracture classification system. Spinal Cord 2021;59:1268-77.
  30. McAfee PC, Yuan HA, Lasda NA. The unstable burst fracture. Spine (Philos Pa 1976) 1982;7:365-73.
  31. Rojas-Tomba F, Hernández-Ruiz Á, Menéndez-Quintanilla I, García de Quevedo-Puerta D, Moriel-Durán J, Villanueva-Pareja F. Radiologic and functional outcomes in unstable thoracolumbar fractures treated with short-segment pedicle instrumentation. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30:459-65.
  32. Kanna RM, Shetty AP, Rajasekaran S. Posterior fixation including the fractured vertebra for severe unstable thoracolumbar fractures. Spine J 2015;15:256-64.
  33. Gelb D, Ludwig S, Karp JE, Chung EH, Werner C, Kim T, et al. Successful treatment of thoracolumbar fractures with short-segment pedicle instrumentation. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010;23:293-301.
  34. Yang M, Ding GZ, Xu ZJ. Surgical outcome in thoracolumbar fractures managed by short-segment pedicle instrumentation. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2014;43:24-32.
  35. Blauth M, Bastian L, Knop C, Lange U, Tusch G. Inter-observer reliability in the classification of thoraco-lumbar spinal injuries. Orthopäde 1999;28:662-81.
  36. Oner EG, Ramos LM, Simmermacher RK, Kingma PT, Diekerhof CH, Dhert WJ, et al. Glassification of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: Problems of reproducibility. A study of 53 patients using GTand MRI. Eur Spine J 2002;1:235-45.
  37. Patel AA, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Hilibrand AS, Harrop JS, Anderson DG, et al. The adoption of a new classification system: Time-dependent variation in interobserver reliability of the thoracolumbar injury severity score classification system. Spine 2007;32:E105-10.
  38. Rampersaud YR, Fisher C, Wilsey J, Arnold P, Anand N, Bono CM, et al. Agreement between orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons regarding a new algorithm for the treatment of thoracolumbar injuries: A multicenter reliability study. J Spinal
    Disord Tech 2006;19:477-82.
  39. Vaccaro AR, Lehman RA Jr., Hulbert RJ, Anderson PA, Harris M, Hedlund R, et al. A new classification of thoracolumbar. injuries: The importance of injury morphology, the integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex, and neurologic status. Spine 2005;30:2325-33.
  40. . Whang PG, Vaccaro AR, Poelstra KA, Patel AA, Anderson DG, Albert TJ, et al. The influence of fracture mechanism and morphology on the reliability and validity of two novel thoracolumbar injury classification systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:79-5.
  41. Joaquim AF, Fernandes YB, Cavalcante RA, Fragoso RM, Honorato DC, Patel AA. Evaluation of the thoracolumbar injury classification system in thoracic and lumbar spinal trauma. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:33-6.
  42. Joaquim AF, Ghizoni E, Tedeschi H, Batista UC, Patel AA. Clinical results of patients with thoracolumbar spine trauma treated according to the thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;20:562-7.
  43. Joaquim AF, Daubs MD, Lawrence BD, Brodke DS, Cendes F, Tedeschi H, et al. Retrospective evaluation of the validity of the thoracolumbar injury classification system in 458 consecutively treated patients. Spine J 2013;13:1760-5.
  44. Rihn JA, Yang N, Fisher G, Saravanja D, Smith H, Morrison WB, et al. Using magnetic resonance imaging to accurately assess injury to the posterior ligamentous complex of the spine: A prospective comparison of the surgeon and radiologist. Neurosurg Spine 2010;12:391-6.
  45. Kaul R, Chhabra HS, Vaccaro AR, Abel R, Tuli S, Shetty AP, et al. Reliability assessment of AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system and thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score (TLICS) for thoracolumbar spine injuries: Results of a multicentre study. Eur Spine J 2017;26:1470-6.
  46. Joaquim AF, de Almeida Bastos DC, Jorge Torres HH, Patel AA. Thoracolumbar injury classification and injury severity score system: A literature review of its safety. Global Spine J 2016;6:80-5.
  47. Vu C, Gendelberg D. Classifications in brief: AO thoracolumbar classification system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020;478:434-40.
  48. Chhabra HS, Kaul R, Kanagaraju V. Do we have an ideal classification system for thoracolumbar and subaxial cervical spine injuries: What is the expert’s perspective? Spinal Cord 2015;53:42-8.

 

How to Cite this article: Chhabra HS, Manghwani J. Classification of Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Narrative Review. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):77-84.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)