The PASTA Bridge – A Repair Technique for Partial Articular-Sided Rotator Cuff Tears: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Construct Strength

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:16
Display Headline
The PASTA Bridge – A Repair Technique for Partial Articular-Sided Rotator Cuff Tears: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Construct Strength

ABSTRACT

Partial articular-sided supraspinatus tendon avulsion (PASTA) tears are a common clinical problem that can require surgical intervention to reduce patient symptoms. Currently, no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal repair technique. The PASTA Bridge technique was developed by the senior author to address these types of lesions. A controlled laboratory study was performed comparing the PASTA Bridge with a standard transtendon rotator cuff repair to confirm its biomechanical efficacy. A 50% articular-sided partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon was created on 6 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders. For each matched pair, 1 humerus received a PASTA Bridge repair, whereas the contralateral side received a repair using a single suture anchor with a horizontal mattress suture. The ultimate load, yield load, and stiffness were determined from the load-displacement results for each sample. Video tracking software was used to determine the cyclic displacement of each sample at the articular margin and the repair site. Strain at the margin and repair site was then calculated using this collected data. There were no significant differences between the 2 repairs in ultimate load (P = .577), strain at the repair site (P = .355), or strain at the margin (P = .801). No instance of failure was due to the PASTA Bridge construct itself. The results of this study have established that the PASTA Bridge is biomechanically equivalent to the transtendon repair technique. The PASTA Bridge is technically easy, percutaneous, reproducible, and is associated with fewer risks.

Continue to: Rotator cuff tests...

 

 

Rotator cuff tears can be classified as full-thickness or partial-thickness; the latter being further divided into the bursal surface, articular-sided, or intratendinous tears. A study analyzing the anatomical distribution of partial tears found that approximately 50% of those at the rotator cuff footprint were articular-sided and predominantly involved the supraspinatus tendon.1 These partial-thickness articular-sided supraspinatus tendon avulsion tears have been coined “PASTA lesions.” Current treatment recommendations suggest that a debridement, a transtendon technique, or a “takedown” method of completing a partial tear and performing a full-thickness repair be utilized for partial-thickness rotator cuff repairs.

The primary goal of a partial cuff repair is to reestablish the tendon footprint at the humeral head. It has been argued that the “takedown” method alters the normal footprint and presents tension complications that can result in poor outcomes.2-5 Also, if the full-thickness repair fails, the patient is left with a full-thickness tear that could be more disabling. The trans-tendon technique has proven to be superior in this sense, demonstrating an improvement in both footprint contact and healing potential.3-5 This article aims to evaluate the biomechanical effectiveness of a new PASTA lesion repair technique, the PASTA Bridge,6 when compared with a traditional transtendon suture anchor repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BIOMECHANICAL OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: PASTA BRIDGE REPAIR

A 17-gauge spinal needle was used to create a puncture in the supraspinatus tendon approximately 7.5 mm anterior to the centerline of the footprint and just medial to the simulated tear line. A 1.1-mm blunt Nitinol wire (Arthrex) was placed over the top of the spinal needle, and the spinal needle was removed. A 2.4-mm portal dilation instrument (Arthrex) was placed over the top of the 1.1 blunt wire (Arthrex) followed by the drill spear for the 2.4-mm BioComposite SutureTak (Arthrex). A pilot hole was created just medial to the simulated tear using the spear and a 1.8-mm drill followed by insertion of a 2.4-mm BioComposite SutureTak (Arthrex). This process was repeated approximately 5 mm posterior to the centerline of the footprint. A strand of suture from each anchor was tied in a manner similar to the “double pulley” method described by Lo and Burkhart.3 The opposing 2 limbs were tensioned to pull the knot taut over the repair site and fixed laterally with a 4.75-mm BioComposite SwiveLock (Arthrex) placed approximately 1 cm lateral to the greater tuberosity.

BIOMECHANICAL OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: CONTROL (4.5-MM CORKSCREW FT GROUP)

A No. 11 scalpel was used to create a puncture in the tendon for a transtendon approach. A 4.5-mm titanium Corkscrew FT (Arthrex) was placed just medial to the beginning of the simulated tear. The No. 2 FiberWire (Arthrex) was passed anterior and posterior to the hole made for the transtendon approach. A horizontal mattress stitch was tied using a standard 2-handed knot technique.

BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

The proximal humeri with intact supraspinatus tendons were removed from 6 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaver shoulders (3 males, 3 females; average age, 49 ± 12 years). The shaft of the humerus was potted in fiberglass resin. For each sample, a partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon was replicated by using a sharp blade to transect 50% of the medial side of the supraspinatus from the tuberosity.2,5 From each matched pair, 1 humerus was selected to receive a PASTA Bridge repair,6 and the contralateral repair was performed using one 4.5-mm titanium Corkscrew FT. Half of the samples of each repair were performed on the right humerus to avoid a mechanical bias. Each repair was performed by the same orthopedic surgeon.

Continue to: Biomechanical testing was...

 

 

Biomechanical testing was conducted using an INSTRON 8871 Axial Table Top Servo-hydraulic Testing System (INSTRON), with a 5 kN load cell attached to the crosshead. The system was calibrated using FastTrack software (AEC Software), and both the load and position controls were run through WaveMaker software (WaveMaker). Each sample was positioned on a fixed angle fixture and secured to the testing surface so that the direction of pull would be performed 45° to the humeral shaft. A custom fixture with inter-digitated brass clamps was attached to the crosshead, and dry ice was used to freeze the tendon to the clamp. The test setup can be seen in Figures 1A, 1B.

Test set up for the transtendon suture anchor repair

Each sample was pre-loaded to 10 N to remove slack from the system. Pre-loading was followed by cyclic loading between 10 N and 100 N,7-11 at 1 Hz, for 100 cycles. One-hundred cycles were chosen based on literature stating that the majority of the cyclic displacement occurs in the first 100 cycles.7-10 Post cycling, the samples were loaded to failure at a rate of 33 mm/sec.7-12 Load and position data were recorded at 500 Hz, and the mode of failure was noted for each sample.

Results for Each Sample of the 2 PASTA Repair Groups

Before loading, a soft-tissue marker was used to create individual marks on the supraspinatus in-line with the articular margin and lateral edge of the tuberosity (Figures 1A, 1B). The individual marks, a digital camera, and MaxTraq video tracking software (Innovision Systems) were used to calculate displacement and strain.

Failure by mode of tendon tearing at the repair site

For each sample, the ultimate load, yield load, and stiffness were determined from the load-displacement results. Video tracking software was used to determine the cyclic displacement of each sample at both the articular margin (medial dots) and at the repair site. The strain at these 2 locations was calculated by dividing the cyclic displacement of the respective site by the distance between the site of interest and the lateral edge of the tuberosity (lateral marks) (ΔL/L). Paired t tests (α = 0.05) were used to determine if differences in ultimate load or strain between the 2 repairs were significant.

Failure by mode of muscle tearing for the PASTA

RESULTS

BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

The results of the biomechanical testing are provided in the Table. There were no significant differences between the 2 repairs in ultimate load (P = .577), strain at the repair site (P = .355), or strain at the margin (P = .801). A post-hoc power analysis revealed that a sample size of at least 20 matched pairs would be needed to establish a significant difference for strain at the repair site. The modes of failure were mid-substance tendon tearing, the humeral head breaking, tearing at the musculotendinous junction, or the tendon tearing at the repair site. All 4 modes of failure occurred in at least 1 sample from both repair groups (Figures 2-4). Visual inspection of the samples post-testing revealed no damage to the anchors or sutures. A representative picture of the tendon tearing at the repair site can be seen in Figures 2A, 2B.

Failure by mode of humeral head breaking for the PASTA bridge construct

Continue to: The purpose of...

 

 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical strength of a new technique for PASTA repairs—the PASTA Bridge.After creation of a partial-thickness tear on a cadaveric model, we compared the PASTA Bridge technique6 with a standard transtendon suture anchor repair. We hypothesized that the PASTA Bridge would yield equivalent or better biomechanical properties including the ultimate load to failure and the degree of strain at different locations in the repair. Our results supported this hypothesis. The PASTA Bridge was biomechanically equivalent to transtendon repair.

For repairs of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, 2 traditional techniques are transtendon repairs and the “takedown” method of completing a partial tear into a full tear with a subsequent repair.13 While clinical outcomes of the 2 methods suggest no superiority over the other,13 studies have demonstrated a biomechanical advantage with transtendon repairs. Repairs of PASTA lesions exhibit both lower strain and displacement of the repaired tendon compared with a full-thickness repair.2-5 Failure of the “takedown” method results in a full-thickness rotator cuff tear as opposed to a partial tear. This outcome can prove to be more debilitating for the patient. Furthermore, Mazzocca and colleaguesillustrated that for partial tears >25% thickness, the cuff strain returned to the intact state once repaired.

Our data suggest that biomechanically the transtendon and the PASTA Bridge6 techniques were equivalent. While the ultimate load and strain at repair sites are comparable, the PASTA Bridge is percutaneous and presents significantly less risk of complications. The PASTA Bridge6 uses a medial row horizontal mattress with a lateral row fixation to recreate the rotator cuff footprint. It has been postulated that reestablishing a higher percentage of the footprint can aide in tendon-bone healing, having valuable implications for both biological and clinical outcomes of the patient.3,4,14 Greater contact at the tendon-bone interface may allow more fibers to participate in the healing process.14 In their analysis of rotator cuff repair, Apreleva and colleagues14 asserted that more laterally placed suture anchors may increase the repair-site area. The lateral anchors of the PASTA Bridge help not only to increase the footprint and thereby the healing potential of the repair but also assist in taking pressure off the medial row anchors.

In their report on double-row rotator cuff repair, Lo and Burkhart3 suggest that double-row fixation is superior to single-row repairs for a variety of reasons. Primarily, double-row techniques increase the number of points of fixation, which will secondarily reduce both the stress and load at each suture point.3 This effect improves the overall strength of the repair construct. Use of the lateral anchor of the PASTA Bridge6 allows the medial anchors to act as pivot points. Placing the stress laterally, the configuration allows for movement and strain distribution without sacrificing the integrity of the repair. In our analysis, failure occurred by the tendon tearing mid-substance, humeral head breaking, tendon tearing at the repair site, and tearing at the musculotendinous junction (Figures 2-4). There was no instance of failure due to the construct itself indicating that the 2.4-mm medial anchors are more than adequate for the PASTA Bridge.6 When visually inspecting the samples after failure, there was no damage to the anchors or sutures. This observation indicates that the PASTA Bridge construct is remarkably strong and capable of withstanding excessive forces.

There were some potential limitations of this study. The small sample size modified the potential for identifying significant differences between the groups. A post-hoc power analysis revealed that a sample size of at least 20 matched pairs would be required to determine a significant difference between the 2 repair groups in strain at the repair site. We did not test this many pairs because the data was so similar after 6 matched pairs that it did not warrant continuing further. Additional research should be done with larger sample populations to evaluate the biomechanical efficacy of this technique further.

CONCLUSION

The PASTA Bridge6 creates a strong construct for repair of articular-sided partial-thickness tears of the supraspinatus. The data suggest the PASTA Bridge6 is biomechanically equivalent to the gold standard transtendon suture anchor repair. The PASTA Bridge6 is technically sound, percutaneous, and presents less risk of complications. It does not require arthroscopic knot tying and carries only minimal risk of damage to residual tissues. In our analysis, there were no failures of the actual construct, asserting that the PASTA Bridge6 is a strong, durable repair. The PASTA Bridge6 should be strongly considered by surgeons treating PASTA lesions.

References

1. Schaeffeler C, Mueller D, Kirchhoff C, Wolf P, Rummeny EJ, Woertler K. Tears at the rotator cuff footprint: prevalence and imaging characteristics in 305 MR arthrograms of the shoulder. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1477-1484. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2066-x.

2. Gonzalez-Lomas G, Kippe MA, Brown GD, et al. In situ transtendon repair outperforms tear completion and repair for partial articular-sided supraspinatus tendon tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(5):722-728.

3. Lo IKY, Burkhart SS. Transtendon arthroscopic repair of partial-thickness, articular surface tears of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2004; 20(2):214-220. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.11.042.

4. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.

5. Mazzocca AD, Rincon LM, O’Connor RW, et al. Intra-articular partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: analysis of injured and repaired strain behavior. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(1):110-116. doi:10.1177/0363546507307502.

6. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions. Arthrosc Tech. In Press. Epub 2017 Sept 18.

7. Barber FA, Coons DA, Ruiz-Suarez M. Cyclic load testing and ultimate failure strength of biodegradable glenoid anchors. Arthroscopy. 2008; 24(2):224-228. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.08.011.

8. Barber FA, Coons DA, Ruiz-Suarez M. Cyclic load testing of biodegradable suture anchors containing 2 high-strength sutures. Arthroscopy. 2007; 23(4):355-360. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.009.

9. Barber FA, Feder SM, Burkhart SS, Ahrens J. The relationship of suture anchor failure and bone density to proximal humerus location: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(3):340-345. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.12.007.

10. Barber FA, Herbert MA, Richards DP. Sutures and suture anchors: update 2003. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):985-990.

11. Burkhart SS, Johnson TC, Wirth MA, Athanasiou KA. Cyclic loading of transosseous rotator cuff repairs: tension overload as a possible cause of failure. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(2):172-176. doi:10.1016/S0749-8063(97)90151-1.

12. Hecker AT, Shea M, Hayhurst JO, Myers ER, Meeks LW, Hayes WC. Pull-out strength of suture anchors for rotator cuff and bankart lesion repairs. Am J Sports Med. 1993; 21(6):874-879.

13. Strauss EJ, Salata MJ, Kercher J, et al. The arthroscopic management of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review of the literature. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(4):568-580. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2010.09.019.

14. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJP. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair-site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526. doi:10.1053/jars.2002.32930.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he is a consultant to, receives royalties, and receives research support from Arthrex; is a consultant to LifeNet Health, Inc; and has stock in and serves as a medical advisor for Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Dr. Hirahara is an Orthopedic Surgeon, private practice, Sacramento, California. Mr. Andersen is a Certified Athletic Trainer, Sacramento, California.

Address correspondence to: Alan M. Hirahara, MD, FRCSC, 2801 K St., #330, Sacramento, CA 95816. (tel, 916-732-3000; email, ahirahara@sacortho.net).

Am J Orthop. 2018;47(10). Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2018. All rights reserved.

Alan M. Hirahara, MD, FRCS(C) Wyatt J. Andersen, ATC . The PASTA Bridge – A Repair Technique for Partial Articular-Sided Rotator Cuff Tears: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Construct Strength. Am J Orthop. October 12, 2018.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he is a consultant to, receives royalties, and receives research support from Arthrex; is a consultant to LifeNet Health, Inc; and has stock in and serves as a medical advisor for Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Dr. Hirahara is an Orthopedic Surgeon, private practice, Sacramento, California. Mr. Andersen is a Certified Athletic Trainer, Sacramento, California.

Address correspondence to: Alan M. Hirahara, MD, FRCSC, 2801 K St., #330, Sacramento, CA 95816. (tel, 916-732-3000; email, ahirahara@sacortho.net).

Am J Orthop. 2018;47(10). Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2018. All rights reserved.

Alan M. Hirahara, MD, FRCS(C) Wyatt J. Andersen, ATC . The PASTA Bridge – A Repair Technique for Partial Articular-Sided Rotator Cuff Tears: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Construct Strength. Am J Orthop. October 12, 2018.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he is a consultant to, receives royalties, and receives research support from Arthrex; is a consultant to LifeNet Health, Inc; and has stock in and serves as a medical advisor for Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Dr. Hirahara is an Orthopedic Surgeon, private practice, Sacramento, California. Mr. Andersen is a Certified Athletic Trainer, Sacramento, California.

Address correspondence to: Alan M. Hirahara, MD, FRCSC, 2801 K St., #330, Sacramento, CA 95816. (tel, 916-732-3000; email, ahirahara@sacortho.net).

Am J Orthop. 2018;47(10). Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2018. All rights reserved.

Alan M. Hirahara, MD, FRCS(C) Wyatt J. Andersen, ATC . The PASTA Bridge – A Repair Technique for Partial Articular-Sided Rotator Cuff Tears: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Construct Strength. Am J Orthop. October 12, 2018.

ABSTRACT

Partial articular-sided supraspinatus tendon avulsion (PASTA) tears are a common clinical problem that can require surgical intervention to reduce patient symptoms. Currently, no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal repair technique. The PASTA Bridge technique was developed by the senior author to address these types of lesions. A controlled laboratory study was performed comparing the PASTA Bridge with a standard transtendon rotator cuff repair to confirm its biomechanical efficacy. A 50% articular-sided partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon was created on 6 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders. For each matched pair, 1 humerus received a PASTA Bridge repair, whereas the contralateral side received a repair using a single suture anchor with a horizontal mattress suture. The ultimate load, yield load, and stiffness were determined from the load-displacement results for each sample. Video tracking software was used to determine the cyclic displacement of each sample at the articular margin and the repair site. Strain at the margin and repair site was then calculated using this collected data. There were no significant differences between the 2 repairs in ultimate load (P = .577), strain at the repair site (P = .355), or strain at the margin (P = .801). No instance of failure was due to the PASTA Bridge construct itself. The results of this study have established that the PASTA Bridge is biomechanically equivalent to the transtendon repair technique. The PASTA Bridge is technically easy, percutaneous, reproducible, and is associated with fewer risks.

Continue to: Rotator cuff tests...

 

 

Rotator cuff tears can be classified as full-thickness or partial-thickness; the latter being further divided into the bursal surface, articular-sided, or intratendinous tears. A study analyzing the anatomical distribution of partial tears found that approximately 50% of those at the rotator cuff footprint were articular-sided and predominantly involved the supraspinatus tendon.1 These partial-thickness articular-sided supraspinatus tendon avulsion tears have been coined “PASTA lesions.” Current treatment recommendations suggest that a debridement, a transtendon technique, or a “takedown” method of completing a partial tear and performing a full-thickness repair be utilized for partial-thickness rotator cuff repairs.

The primary goal of a partial cuff repair is to reestablish the tendon footprint at the humeral head. It has been argued that the “takedown” method alters the normal footprint and presents tension complications that can result in poor outcomes.2-5 Also, if the full-thickness repair fails, the patient is left with a full-thickness tear that could be more disabling. The trans-tendon technique has proven to be superior in this sense, demonstrating an improvement in both footprint contact and healing potential.3-5 This article aims to evaluate the biomechanical effectiveness of a new PASTA lesion repair technique, the PASTA Bridge,6 when compared with a traditional transtendon suture anchor repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BIOMECHANICAL OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: PASTA BRIDGE REPAIR

A 17-gauge spinal needle was used to create a puncture in the supraspinatus tendon approximately 7.5 mm anterior to the centerline of the footprint and just medial to the simulated tear line. A 1.1-mm blunt Nitinol wire (Arthrex) was placed over the top of the spinal needle, and the spinal needle was removed. A 2.4-mm portal dilation instrument (Arthrex) was placed over the top of the 1.1 blunt wire (Arthrex) followed by the drill spear for the 2.4-mm BioComposite SutureTak (Arthrex). A pilot hole was created just medial to the simulated tear using the spear and a 1.8-mm drill followed by insertion of a 2.4-mm BioComposite SutureTak (Arthrex). This process was repeated approximately 5 mm posterior to the centerline of the footprint. A strand of suture from each anchor was tied in a manner similar to the “double pulley” method described by Lo and Burkhart.3 The opposing 2 limbs were tensioned to pull the knot taut over the repair site and fixed laterally with a 4.75-mm BioComposite SwiveLock (Arthrex) placed approximately 1 cm lateral to the greater tuberosity.

BIOMECHANICAL OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: CONTROL (4.5-MM CORKSCREW FT GROUP)

A No. 11 scalpel was used to create a puncture in the tendon for a transtendon approach. A 4.5-mm titanium Corkscrew FT (Arthrex) was placed just medial to the beginning of the simulated tear. The No. 2 FiberWire (Arthrex) was passed anterior and posterior to the hole made for the transtendon approach. A horizontal mattress stitch was tied using a standard 2-handed knot technique.

BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

The proximal humeri with intact supraspinatus tendons were removed from 6 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaver shoulders (3 males, 3 females; average age, 49 ± 12 years). The shaft of the humerus was potted in fiberglass resin. For each sample, a partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon was replicated by using a sharp blade to transect 50% of the medial side of the supraspinatus from the tuberosity.2,5 From each matched pair, 1 humerus was selected to receive a PASTA Bridge repair,6 and the contralateral repair was performed using one 4.5-mm titanium Corkscrew FT. Half of the samples of each repair were performed on the right humerus to avoid a mechanical bias. Each repair was performed by the same orthopedic surgeon.

Continue to: Biomechanical testing was...

 

 

Biomechanical testing was conducted using an INSTRON 8871 Axial Table Top Servo-hydraulic Testing System (INSTRON), with a 5 kN load cell attached to the crosshead. The system was calibrated using FastTrack software (AEC Software), and both the load and position controls were run through WaveMaker software (WaveMaker). Each sample was positioned on a fixed angle fixture and secured to the testing surface so that the direction of pull would be performed 45° to the humeral shaft. A custom fixture with inter-digitated brass clamps was attached to the crosshead, and dry ice was used to freeze the tendon to the clamp. The test setup can be seen in Figures 1A, 1B.

Test set up for the transtendon suture anchor repair

Each sample was pre-loaded to 10 N to remove slack from the system. Pre-loading was followed by cyclic loading between 10 N and 100 N,7-11 at 1 Hz, for 100 cycles. One-hundred cycles were chosen based on literature stating that the majority of the cyclic displacement occurs in the first 100 cycles.7-10 Post cycling, the samples were loaded to failure at a rate of 33 mm/sec.7-12 Load and position data were recorded at 500 Hz, and the mode of failure was noted for each sample.

Results for Each Sample of the 2 PASTA Repair Groups

Before loading, a soft-tissue marker was used to create individual marks on the supraspinatus in-line with the articular margin and lateral edge of the tuberosity (Figures 1A, 1B). The individual marks, a digital camera, and MaxTraq video tracking software (Innovision Systems) were used to calculate displacement and strain.

Failure by mode of tendon tearing at the repair site

For each sample, the ultimate load, yield load, and stiffness were determined from the load-displacement results. Video tracking software was used to determine the cyclic displacement of each sample at both the articular margin (medial dots) and at the repair site. The strain at these 2 locations was calculated by dividing the cyclic displacement of the respective site by the distance between the site of interest and the lateral edge of the tuberosity (lateral marks) (ΔL/L). Paired t tests (α = 0.05) were used to determine if differences in ultimate load or strain between the 2 repairs were significant.

Failure by mode of muscle tearing for the PASTA

RESULTS

BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

The results of the biomechanical testing are provided in the Table. There were no significant differences between the 2 repairs in ultimate load (P = .577), strain at the repair site (P = .355), or strain at the margin (P = .801). A post-hoc power analysis revealed that a sample size of at least 20 matched pairs would be needed to establish a significant difference for strain at the repair site. The modes of failure were mid-substance tendon tearing, the humeral head breaking, tearing at the musculotendinous junction, or the tendon tearing at the repair site. All 4 modes of failure occurred in at least 1 sample from both repair groups (Figures 2-4). Visual inspection of the samples post-testing revealed no damage to the anchors or sutures. A representative picture of the tendon tearing at the repair site can be seen in Figures 2A, 2B.

Failure by mode of humeral head breaking for the PASTA bridge construct

Continue to: The purpose of...

 

 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical strength of a new technique for PASTA repairs—the PASTA Bridge.After creation of a partial-thickness tear on a cadaveric model, we compared the PASTA Bridge technique6 with a standard transtendon suture anchor repair. We hypothesized that the PASTA Bridge would yield equivalent or better biomechanical properties including the ultimate load to failure and the degree of strain at different locations in the repair. Our results supported this hypothesis. The PASTA Bridge was biomechanically equivalent to transtendon repair.

For repairs of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, 2 traditional techniques are transtendon repairs and the “takedown” method of completing a partial tear into a full tear with a subsequent repair.13 While clinical outcomes of the 2 methods suggest no superiority over the other,13 studies have demonstrated a biomechanical advantage with transtendon repairs. Repairs of PASTA lesions exhibit both lower strain and displacement of the repaired tendon compared with a full-thickness repair.2-5 Failure of the “takedown” method results in a full-thickness rotator cuff tear as opposed to a partial tear. This outcome can prove to be more debilitating for the patient. Furthermore, Mazzocca and colleaguesillustrated that for partial tears >25% thickness, the cuff strain returned to the intact state once repaired.

Our data suggest that biomechanically the transtendon and the PASTA Bridge6 techniques were equivalent. While the ultimate load and strain at repair sites are comparable, the PASTA Bridge is percutaneous and presents significantly less risk of complications. The PASTA Bridge6 uses a medial row horizontal mattress with a lateral row fixation to recreate the rotator cuff footprint. It has been postulated that reestablishing a higher percentage of the footprint can aide in tendon-bone healing, having valuable implications for both biological and clinical outcomes of the patient.3,4,14 Greater contact at the tendon-bone interface may allow more fibers to participate in the healing process.14 In their analysis of rotator cuff repair, Apreleva and colleagues14 asserted that more laterally placed suture anchors may increase the repair-site area. The lateral anchors of the PASTA Bridge help not only to increase the footprint and thereby the healing potential of the repair but also assist in taking pressure off the medial row anchors.

In their report on double-row rotator cuff repair, Lo and Burkhart3 suggest that double-row fixation is superior to single-row repairs for a variety of reasons. Primarily, double-row techniques increase the number of points of fixation, which will secondarily reduce both the stress and load at each suture point.3 This effect improves the overall strength of the repair construct. Use of the lateral anchor of the PASTA Bridge6 allows the medial anchors to act as pivot points. Placing the stress laterally, the configuration allows for movement and strain distribution without sacrificing the integrity of the repair. In our analysis, failure occurred by the tendon tearing mid-substance, humeral head breaking, tendon tearing at the repair site, and tearing at the musculotendinous junction (Figures 2-4). There was no instance of failure due to the construct itself indicating that the 2.4-mm medial anchors are more than adequate for the PASTA Bridge.6 When visually inspecting the samples after failure, there was no damage to the anchors or sutures. This observation indicates that the PASTA Bridge construct is remarkably strong and capable of withstanding excessive forces.

There were some potential limitations of this study. The small sample size modified the potential for identifying significant differences between the groups. A post-hoc power analysis revealed that a sample size of at least 20 matched pairs would be required to determine a significant difference between the 2 repair groups in strain at the repair site. We did not test this many pairs because the data was so similar after 6 matched pairs that it did not warrant continuing further. Additional research should be done with larger sample populations to evaluate the biomechanical efficacy of this technique further.

CONCLUSION

The PASTA Bridge6 creates a strong construct for repair of articular-sided partial-thickness tears of the supraspinatus. The data suggest the PASTA Bridge6 is biomechanically equivalent to the gold standard transtendon suture anchor repair. The PASTA Bridge6 is technically sound, percutaneous, and presents less risk of complications. It does not require arthroscopic knot tying and carries only minimal risk of damage to residual tissues. In our analysis, there were no failures of the actual construct, asserting that the PASTA Bridge6 is a strong, durable repair. The PASTA Bridge6 should be strongly considered by surgeons treating PASTA lesions.

ABSTRACT

Partial articular-sided supraspinatus tendon avulsion (PASTA) tears are a common clinical problem that can require surgical intervention to reduce patient symptoms. Currently, no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal repair technique. The PASTA Bridge technique was developed by the senior author to address these types of lesions. A controlled laboratory study was performed comparing the PASTA Bridge with a standard transtendon rotator cuff repair to confirm its biomechanical efficacy. A 50% articular-sided partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon was created on 6 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders. For each matched pair, 1 humerus received a PASTA Bridge repair, whereas the contralateral side received a repair using a single suture anchor with a horizontal mattress suture. The ultimate load, yield load, and stiffness were determined from the load-displacement results for each sample. Video tracking software was used to determine the cyclic displacement of each sample at the articular margin and the repair site. Strain at the margin and repair site was then calculated using this collected data. There were no significant differences between the 2 repairs in ultimate load (P = .577), strain at the repair site (P = .355), or strain at the margin (P = .801). No instance of failure was due to the PASTA Bridge construct itself. The results of this study have established that the PASTA Bridge is biomechanically equivalent to the transtendon repair technique. The PASTA Bridge is technically easy, percutaneous, reproducible, and is associated with fewer risks.

Continue to: Rotator cuff tests...

 

 

Rotator cuff tears can be classified as full-thickness or partial-thickness; the latter being further divided into the bursal surface, articular-sided, or intratendinous tears. A study analyzing the anatomical distribution of partial tears found that approximately 50% of those at the rotator cuff footprint were articular-sided and predominantly involved the supraspinatus tendon.1 These partial-thickness articular-sided supraspinatus tendon avulsion tears have been coined “PASTA lesions.” Current treatment recommendations suggest that a debridement, a transtendon technique, or a “takedown” method of completing a partial tear and performing a full-thickness repair be utilized for partial-thickness rotator cuff repairs.

The primary goal of a partial cuff repair is to reestablish the tendon footprint at the humeral head. It has been argued that the “takedown” method alters the normal footprint and presents tension complications that can result in poor outcomes.2-5 Also, if the full-thickness repair fails, the patient is left with a full-thickness tear that could be more disabling. The trans-tendon technique has proven to be superior in this sense, demonstrating an improvement in both footprint contact and healing potential.3-5 This article aims to evaluate the biomechanical effectiveness of a new PASTA lesion repair technique, the PASTA Bridge,6 when compared with a traditional transtendon suture anchor repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BIOMECHANICAL OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: PASTA BRIDGE REPAIR

A 17-gauge spinal needle was used to create a puncture in the supraspinatus tendon approximately 7.5 mm anterior to the centerline of the footprint and just medial to the simulated tear line. A 1.1-mm blunt Nitinol wire (Arthrex) was placed over the top of the spinal needle, and the spinal needle was removed. A 2.4-mm portal dilation instrument (Arthrex) was placed over the top of the 1.1 blunt wire (Arthrex) followed by the drill spear for the 2.4-mm BioComposite SutureTak (Arthrex). A pilot hole was created just medial to the simulated tear using the spear and a 1.8-mm drill followed by insertion of a 2.4-mm BioComposite SutureTak (Arthrex). This process was repeated approximately 5 mm posterior to the centerline of the footprint. A strand of suture from each anchor was tied in a manner similar to the “double pulley” method described by Lo and Burkhart.3 The opposing 2 limbs were tensioned to pull the knot taut over the repair site and fixed laterally with a 4.75-mm BioComposite SwiveLock (Arthrex) placed approximately 1 cm lateral to the greater tuberosity.

BIOMECHANICAL OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: CONTROL (4.5-MM CORKSCREW FT GROUP)

A No. 11 scalpel was used to create a puncture in the tendon for a transtendon approach. A 4.5-mm titanium Corkscrew FT (Arthrex) was placed just medial to the beginning of the simulated tear. The No. 2 FiberWire (Arthrex) was passed anterior and posterior to the hole made for the transtendon approach. A horizontal mattress stitch was tied using a standard 2-handed knot technique.

BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

The proximal humeri with intact supraspinatus tendons were removed from 6 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaver shoulders (3 males, 3 females; average age, 49 ± 12 years). The shaft of the humerus was potted in fiberglass resin. For each sample, a partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon was replicated by using a sharp blade to transect 50% of the medial side of the supraspinatus from the tuberosity.2,5 From each matched pair, 1 humerus was selected to receive a PASTA Bridge repair,6 and the contralateral repair was performed using one 4.5-mm titanium Corkscrew FT. Half of the samples of each repair were performed on the right humerus to avoid a mechanical bias. Each repair was performed by the same orthopedic surgeon.

Continue to: Biomechanical testing was...

 

 

Biomechanical testing was conducted using an INSTRON 8871 Axial Table Top Servo-hydraulic Testing System (INSTRON), with a 5 kN load cell attached to the crosshead. The system was calibrated using FastTrack software (AEC Software), and both the load and position controls were run through WaveMaker software (WaveMaker). Each sample was positioned on a fixed angle fixture and secured to the testing surface so that the direction of pull would be performed 45° to the humeral shaft. A custom fixture with inter-digitated brass clamps was attached to the crosshead, and dry ice was used to freeze the tendon to the clamp. The test setup can be seen in Figures 1A, 1B.

Test set up for the transtendon suture anchor repair

Each sample was pre-loaded to 10 N to remove slack from the system. Pre-loading was followed by cyclic loading between 10 N and 100 N,7-11 at 1 Hz, for 100 cycles. One-hundred cycles were chosen based on literature stating that the majority of the cyclic displacement occurs in the first 100 cycles.7-10 Post cycling, the samples were loaded to failure at a rate of 33 mm/sec.7-12 Load and position data were recorded at 500 Hz, and the mode of failure was noted for each sample.

Results for Each Sample of the 2 PASTA Repair Groups

Before loading, a soft-tissue marker was used to create individual marks on the supraspinatus in-line with the articular margin and lateral edge of the tuberosity (Figures 1A, 1B). The individual marks, a digital camera, and MaxTraq video tracking software (Innovision Systems) were used to calculate displacement and strain.

Failure by mode of tendon tearing at the repair site

For each sample, the ultimate load, yield load, and stiffness were determined from the load-displacement results. Video tracking software was used to determine the cyclic displacement of each sample at both the articular margin (medial dots) and at the repair site. The strain at these 2 locations was calculated by dividing the cyclic displacement of the respective site by the distance between the site of interest and the lateral edge of the tuberosity (lateral marks) (ΔL/L). Paired t tests (α = 0.05) were used to determine if differences in ultimate load or strain between the 2 repairs were significant.

Failure by mode of muscle tearing for the PASTA

RESULTS

BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

The results of the biomechanical testing are provided in the Table. There were no significant differences between the 2 repairs in ultimate load (P = .577), strain at the repair site (P = .355), or strain at the margin (P = .801). A post-hoc power analysis revealed that a sample size of at least 20 matched pairs would be needed to establish a significant difference for strain at the repair site. The modes of failure were mid-substance tendon tearing, the humeral head breaking, tearing at the musculotendinous junction, or the tendon tearing at the repair site. All 4 modes of failure occurred in at least 1 sample from both repair groups (Figures 2-4). Visual inspection of the samples post-testing revealed no damage to the anchors or sutures. A representative picture of the tendon tearing at the repair site can be seen in Figures 2A, 2B.

Failure by mode of humeral head breaking for the PASTA bridge construct

Continue to: The purpose of...

 

 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical strength of a new technique for PASTA repairs—the PASTA Bridge.After creation of a partial-thickness tear on a cadaveric model, we compared the PASTA Bridge technique6 with a standard transtendon suture anchor repair. We hypothesized that the PASTA Bridge would yield equivalent or better biomechanical properties including the ultimate load to failure and the degree of strain at different locations in the repair. Our results supported this hypothesis. The PASTA Bridge was biomechanically equivalent to transtendon repair.

For repairs of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, 2 traditional techniques are transtendon repairs and the “takedown” method of completing a partial tear into a full tear with a subsequent repair.13 While clinical outcomes of the 2 methods suggest no superiority over the other,13 studies have demonstrated a biomechanical advantage with transtendon repairs. Repairs of PASTA lesions exhibit both lower strain and displacement of the repaired tendon compared with a full-thickness repair.2-5 Failure of the “takedown” method results in a full-thickness rotator cuff tear as opposed to a partial tear. This outcome can prove to be more debilitating for the patient. Furthermore, Mazzocca and colleaguesillustrated that for partial tears >25% thickness, the cuff strain returned to the intact state once repaired.

Our data suggest that biomechanically the transtendon and the PASTA Bridge6 techniques were equivalent. While the ultimate load and strain at repair sites are comparable, the PASTA Bridge is percutaneous and presents significantly less risk of complications. The PASTA Bridge6 uses a medial row horizontal mattress with a lateral row fixation to recreate the rotator cuff footprint. It has been postulated that reestablishing a higher percentage of the footprint can aide in tendon-bone healing, having valuable implications for both biological and clinical outcomes of the patient.3,4,14 Greater contact at the tendon-bone interface may allow more fibers to participate in the healing process.14 In their analysis of rotator cuff repair, Apreleva and colleagues14 asserted that more laterally placed suture anchors may increase the repair-site area. The lateral anchors of the PASTA Bridge help not only to increase the footprint and thereby the healing potential of the repair but also assist in taking pressure off the medial row anchors.

In their report on double-row rotator cuff repair, Lo and Burkhart3 suggest that double-row fixation is superior to single-row repairs for a variety of reasons. Primarily, double-row techniques increase the number of points of fixation, which will secondarily reduce both the stress and load at each suture point.3 This effect improves the overall strength of the repair construct. Use of the lateral anchor of the PASTA Bridge6 allows the medial anchors to act as pivot points. Placing the stress laterally, the configuration allows for movement and strain distribution without sacrificing the integrity of the repair. In our analysis, failure occurred by the tendon tearing mid-substance, humeral head breaking, tendon tearing at the repair site, and tearing at the musculotendinous junction (Figures 2-4). There was no instance of failure due to the construct itself indicating that the 2.4-mm medial anchors are more than adequate for the PASTA Bridge.6 When visually inspecting the samples after failure, there was no damage to the anchors or sutures. This observation indicates that the PASTA Bridge construct is remarkably strong and capable of withstanding excessive forces.

There were some potential limitations of this study. The small sample size modified the potential for identifying significant differences between the groups. A post-hoc power analysis revealed that a sample size of at least 20 matched pairs would be required to determine a significant difference between the 2 repair groups in strain at the repair site. We did not test this many pairs because the data was so similar after 6 matched pairs that it did not warrant continuing further. Additional research should be done with larger sample populations to evaluate the biomechanical efficacy of this technique further.

CONCLUSION

The PASTA Bridge6 creates a strong construct for repair of articular-sided partial-thickness tears of the supraspinatus. The data suggest the PASTA Bridge6 is biomechanically equivalent to the gold standard transtendon suture anchor repair. The PASTA Bridge6 is technically sound, percutaneous, and presents less risk of complications. It does not require arthroscopic knot tying and carries only minimal risk of damage to residual tissues. In our analysis, there were no failures of the actual construct, asserting that the PASTA Bridge6 is a strong, durable repair. The PASTA Bridge6 should be strongly considered by surgeons treating PASTA lesions.

References

1. Schaeffeler C, Mueller D, Kirchhoff C, Wolf P, Rummeny EJ, Woertler K. Tears at the rotator cuff footprint: prevalence and imaging characteristics in 305 MR arthrograms of the shoulder. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1477-1484. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2066-x.

2. Gonzalez-Lomas G, Kippe MA, Brown GD, et al. In situ transtendon repair outperforms tear completion and repair for partial articular-sided supraspinatus tendon tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(5):722-728.

3. Lo IKY, Burkhart SS. Transtendon arthroscopic repair of partial-thickness, articular surface tears of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2004; 20(2):214-220. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.11.042.

4. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.

5. Mazzocca AD, Rincon LM, O’Connor RW, et al. Intra-articular partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: analysis of injured and repaired strain behavior. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(1):110-116. doi:10.1177/0363546507307502.

6. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions. Arthrosc Tech. In Press. Epub 2017 Sept 18.

7. Barber FA, Coons DA, Ruiz-Suarez M. Cyclic load testing and ultimate failure strength of biodegradable glenoid anchors. Arthroscopy. 2008; 24(2):224-228. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.08.011.

8. Barber FA, Coons DA, Ruiz-Suarez M. Cyclic load testing of biodegradable suture anchors containing 2 high-strength sutures. Arthroscopy. 2007; 23(4):355-360. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.009.

9. Barber FA, Feder SM, Burkhart SS, Ahrens J. The relationship of suture anchor failure and bone density to proximal humerus location: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(3):340-345. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.12.007.

10. Barber FA, Herbert MA, Richards DP. Sutures and suture anchors: update 2003. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):985-990.

11. Burkhart SS, Johnson TC, Wirth MA, Athanasiou KA. Cyclic loading of transosseous rotator cuff repairs: tension overload as a possible cause of failure. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(2):172-176. doi:10.1016/S0749-8063(97)90151-1.

12. Hecker AT, Shea M, Hayhurst JO, Myers ER, Meeks LW, Hayes WC. Pull-out strength of suture anchors for rotator cuff and bankart lesion repairs. Am J Sports Med. 1993; 21(6):874-879.

13. Strauss EJ, Salata MJ, Kercher J, et al. The arthroscopic management of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review of the literature. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(4):568-580. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2010.09.019.

14. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJP. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair-site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526. doi:10.1053/jars.2002.32930.

References

1. Schaeffeler C, Mueller D, Kirchhoff C, Wolf P, Rummeny EJ, Woertler K. Tears at the rotator cuff footprint: prevalence and imaging characteristics in 305 MR arthrograms of the shoulder. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1477-1484. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2066-x.

2. Gonzalez-Lomas G, Kippe MA, Brown GD, et al. In situ transtendon repair outperforms tear completion and repair for partial articular-sided supraspinatus tendon tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(5):722-728.

3. Lo IKY, Burkhart SS. Transtendon arthroscopic repair of partial-thickness, articular surface tears of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2004; 20(2):214-220. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.11.042.

4. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.

5. Mazzocca AD, Rincon LM, O’Connor RW, et al. Intra-articular partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: analysis of injured and repaired strain behavior. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(1):110-116. doi:10.1177/0363546507307502.

6. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions. Arthrosc Tech. In Press. Epub 2017 Sept 18.

7. Barber FA, Coons DA, Ruiz-Suarez M. Cyclic load testing and ultimate failure strength of biodegradable glenoid anchors. Arthroscopy. 2008; 24(2):224-228. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.08.011.

8. Barber FA, Coons DA, Ruiz-Suarez M. Cyclic load testing of biodegradable suture anchors containing 2 high-strength sutures. Arthroscopy. 2007; 23(4):355-360. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.009.

9. Barber FA, Feder SM, Burkhart SS, Ahrens J. The relationship of suture anchor failure and bone density to proximal humerus location: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(3):340-345. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.12.007.

10. Barber FA, Herbert MA, Richards DP. Sutures and suture anchors: update 2003. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):985-990.

11. Burkhart SS, Johnson TC, Wirth MA, Athanasiou KA. Cyclic loading of transosseous rotator cuff repairs: tension overload as a possible cause of failure. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(2):172-176. doi:10.1016/S0749-8063(97)90151-1.

12. Hecker AT, Shea M, Hayhurst JO, Myers ER, Meeks LW, Hayes WC. Pull-out strength of suture anchors for rotator cuff and bankart lesion repairs. Am J Sports Med. 1993; 21(6):874-879.

13. Strauss EJ, Salata MJ, Kercher J, et al. The arthroscopic management of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review of the literature. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(4):568-580. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2010.09.019.

14. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJP. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair-site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526. doi:10.1053/jars.2002.32930.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The PASTA Bridge – A Repair Technique for Partial Articular-Sided Rotator Cuff Tears: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Construct Strength
Display Headline
The PASTA Bridge – A Repair Technique for Partial Articular-Sided Rotator Cuff Tears: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Construct Strength
Sections
Inside the Article

TAKE-HOME POINTS

  • The PASTA Bridge is biomechanically equivalent to the gold-standard transtendon repair technique.
  • The configuration is a double-row repair, increasing the number of fixation points.
  • The lateral anchor of the PASTA Bridge assumes the stress of the repair, allowing the medial anchors to act as pivot points.
  • The PASTA Bridge is strong and capable of withstanding excessive forces.
  • The PASTA Bridge poses less risk of complication.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Sat, 04/06/2019 - 20:30
Un-Gate On Date
Sat, 04/06/2019 - 20:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Sat, 04/06/2019 - 20:30
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Superior Capsular Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes After Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:20

Take-Home Points

  • The SCR is a viable treatment option for massive, irreparable RCTs.
  • Arm position and exact measurement between anchors will help ensure proper graft tensioning.
  • Anterior and posterior tension and margin convergence are critical to stabilizing the graft.
  • Acromial-humeral distance, ASES, and VAS scores are improved and maintained over long-term follow-up.
  • The dermal allograft should be 3.0 mm or thicker.

Conventional treatments for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) have ranged from nonoperative care to débridement and biceps tenotomy,1,2 partial cuff repair,3,4 bridging patch grafts,5 tendon transfers,6,7 and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA).8,9 Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), originally described by Mihata and colleagues,10 has been developed as an alternative to these interventions. Dr. Hirahara modified the technique to use dermal allograft instead of fascia lata autograft.10,11

Biomechanical analysis has confirmed the integral role of the superior capsule in shoulder function.10,12-14 In the presence of a massive RCT, the humeral head migrates superiorly, causing significant pain and functional deficits, such as pseudoparalysis. It is theorized that reestablishing this important stabilizer—centering the humeral head in the glenoid and allowing the larger muscles to move the arm about a proper fulcrum—improves function and decreases pain.

Using ultrasonography (US), radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), clinical outcome scores, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, we prospectively evaluated minimum 2-year clinical outcomes of performing SCR with dermal allograft for irreparable RCTs.

Methods

Except where noted otherwise, all products mentioned in this section were made by Arthrex.

Surgical Technique

The surgical technique used here was described by Hirahara and Adams.11 ArthroFlex dermal allograft was attached to the greater tuberosity and the glenoid, creating a superior restraint that replaced the anatomical superior capsule (Figures 1A, 1B). Some cases included biceps tenotomy, subscapularis repair, or infraspinatus repair.

Figure 1.
Mean number of anchors used was 6.13 (range, 4-8). A SpeedBridge construct, which was used for the greater tuberosity, had 2 medial anchors with FiberWire and FiberTape attached. The medial and lateral anchors typically used were 4.75-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLocks; in 1 case, significant bone defects were found after removal of previous anchors, and 6.5-mm corkscrew anchors were medially augmented with QuickSet cement. A double pulley using the FiberWire eyelet sutures from the medial row anchors was fixated into the anterior anchor in the lateral row.

Medial fixation was obtained with a PASTA (partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion) bridge-type construct15 that consisted of two 3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak anchors (placed medially on the glenoid rim, medial to the labrum) and a 3.5-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. In some cases, a significant amount of tissue was present medially, and the third anchor was not used; instead, a double surgeon knot was used to fixate the double pulley medially.

Posterior margin convergence (PMC) was performed in all cases. Anterior margin convergence (AMC) was performed in only 3 cases.

Clinical Evaluation

All patients who underwent SCR were followed prospectively, and all signed an informed consent form. Between 2014 and the time of this study, 9 patients had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Before surgery, all patients received a diagnosis of full-thickness RCT with decreased acromial-humeral distance (AHD). One patient had RTSA 18 months after surgery, did not reach the 2-year follow-up, and was excluded from the data analysis. Patients were clinically evaluated on the 100-point American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder index and on a 10-point VAS for pain—before surgery, monthly for the first 6 months after surgery, then every 6 months until 2 years after surgery, and yearly thereafter. These patients were compared with Dr. Hirahara’s historical control patients, who had undergone repair of massive RCTs. Mean graft size was calculated and reported. Cases were separated and analyzed on the basis of whether AMC was performed. Student t tests were used to determine statistical differences between study patients’ preoperative and postoperative scores, between study and historical control patients, and between patients who had AMC performed and those who did not (P < .05).

Imaging

For all SCR patients, preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained in 2 planes: anterior-posterior with arm in neutral rotation, and scapular Y. On anteroposterior radiographs, AHD was measured from the most proximal aspect of the humeral head in a vertical line to the most inferior portion of the acromion (Figures 2A, 2B).

Figure 2.
Student t tests were used to identify statistical differences (P < .05) between preoperative and postoperative groups for radiographs obtained immediately after surgery and most recent radiographs at time of study (minimum 24 months after surgery). US, performed by either Dr. Hirahara or Dr. Panero in the same clinic with the same machine (X-Porte; FujiFilm SonoSite), was used to assess patients 1 month after surgery, between 4 months and 8 months after surgery, and 1 year and 2 years after surgery. MRI was ordered if there was any concern about the reconstruction.

Results

The Table provides an overview of the study results. Eight patients (6 men, 2 women) met the final inclusion criteria for postoperative ASES and VAS data analysis.

Table.
Mean age at time of surgery was 61.33 years (range, 47-78 years). Of the 8 surgeries, 7 were performed on the dominant arm. Mean number of previous rotator cuff surgeries was 1.50 (SD, 0.93; range, 0-3). Mean follow-up was 32.38 months (range, 25-39 months). For 1 patient, who lived out of state, a postoperative radiograph, a 2-year ASES score, and a 2-year VAS pain score were obtained, but postoperative US could not be arranged.

Figure 3.
From before surgery to 2 years after surgery, mean ASES score improved significantly (P < .00002), from 41.75 (SD, 12.71; range, 25-58) to 86.50 (SD, 12.66; range, 63-100) (Figure 3), and mean VAS pain score decreased significantly (P < .00002), from 6.25 (SD, 1.56; range, 4-8.5) to 0.38 (SD, 1.06; range, 0-3) (Figure 4). 

Figure 4.
The historical control patients’ mean (SD) postoperative VAS pain score, 3.00 (3.37), was significantly (P < .05) higher than that of the study patients, 0.38 (1.06). However, there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ mean (SD) ASES scores: historical control patients, 70.71 (29.09), and study patients, 86.50 (12.66).

AHD was measured on a standard anteroposterior radiograph in neutral rotation. The Hamada grading scale16 was used to classify the massive RCTs before and after surgery. Before surgery, 4 were grade 4A, 1 grade 3, 2 grade 2, and 1 grade 1; immediately after surgery, all were grade 1 (AHD, ≥6 mm). Two years after surgery, 1 patient had an AHD of 4.6 mm after a failure caused by a fall. Mean (SD) preoperative AHD was 4.50 (2.25) mm (range, 1.7-7.9 mm). Radiographs obtained immediately (mean, 1.22 months; range, 1 day-2.73 months) after surgery showed AHD was significantly (P < .0008) increased (mean, 8.48 mm; SD, 1.25 mm; range, 6.0-10.0 mm) (Figure 5).

Figure 5.
The case of the out-of-state patient with only an immediate postoperative (day after surgery) radiograph was included only in the immediate postoperative AHD data. As of this writing, radiographs were most recently obtained at a mean (SD) follow-up of 27.24 (4.37) months (range, 24.03-36.57 months). Mean (SD) postoperative AHD was 7.70 (2.08) mm (range, 4.6-11.0 mm), which was significantly (P < .05) larger than the preoperative AHD. There was no significant difference between the immediate postoperative and the 2-year postoperative AHD measurements (Figure 5).

Mean graft size was 2.9 mm medial × 3.6 mm lateral × 5.4 mm anterior × 5.4 mm posterior. Three patients had AMC performed. There was a significant (P < .05) difference in ASES scores between patients who had AMC performed (93) and those who did not (77).

Ultrasonography

Two weeks to 2 months after surgery, all patients had an intact capsular graft and no pulsatile vessels on US. Between 4 months and 10 months, US showed the construct intact laterally in all cases, a pulsatile vessel in the graft at the tuberosity (evidence of blood flow) in 4 of 5 cases, and a pulsatile vessel hypertrophied in 2 cases (Figures 6A, 6B).

Figure 6.
After 1 year, all pulsatile vessels were gone. Between 25 months and 36 months, 5 patients had an intact graft construct. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents during the postoperative period. One had an intact graft laterally, and the other had a ruptured midsubstance. In both cases, MRI was ordered.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Before surgery, 4 patients had Goutallier17 stage 4 rotator cuff muscle degeneration, 2 had stage 3 degeneration, and 2 had stage 2 degeneration. Throughout the follow-up period, US was as effective as MRI in determining graft integrity, graft thickness, and greater tuberosity fixation. Therefore, the SCRs were assessed primarily with US. MRI was ordered only if a failure was suspected or if the patient had some form of trauma. A total of 7 MRIs were ordered for 5 of the 8 patients in the study. The graft was intact in 4 of the 5 (Figures 7A-7C) and ruptured in the fifth.

Figure 7.
One patient fell just after surgery. The graft was intact, but the infraspinatus was torn. As this patient was doing well, there was no need for treatment. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. One was found to have a detached glenoid-sided graft, but refused treatment because symptoms were tolerable (this patient had been improving before the accident). The other patient, who had an MRI-confirmed rupture of the graft midsubstance, was considering revision SCR or RTSA.

Discussion

Mihata and colleagues10 published 2-year data for their reconstructive procedure with fascia lata autograft. In a modification of their procedure, Dr. Hirahara used dermal allograft to recreate the superior capsule.11 The results of the present 2-year study mirror the clinical outcomes reported by Mihata and colleagues10 and confirm that SCR improves functional outcomes and increases AHD regardless of graft type used.

The outcomes of the SCR patients in our study were significantly better than the outcomes of the historical control patients, who underwent repair of massive RCTs. Although there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ ASES scores, the control patients had significantly higher postoperative VAS pain scores. We think that, as more patients undergo SCR and the population sample increases, we will see a significant difference in ASES scores as well (our SCR patients already showed a trend toward improved ASES scores).

Compared with RTSA, SCR has fewer risks and fewer complications and does not limit further surgical options.8,9,18 The 9 patients who had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up in our study had 4 complications. Six months after surgery, 1 patient fell and tore the infraspinatus and subscapularis muscles. Outcomes continued to improve, and no issues were reported, despite a decrease in AHD, from 8 mm immediately after surgery to 4.6 mm 2 years after surgery.

Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. In 1 case, the accident occurred about 2 months after surgery. This patient also sustained a possible injury in a fall after receiving general anesthesia for a dental procedure. After having done very well the preceding months, the patient now reported increasing pain and dysfunction. MRI showed loss of glenoid fixation. Improved ASES and VAS pain scores were maintained throughout the follow-up period. AHD was increased at 13 months and mildly decreased at 2 years. Glenoid fixation was obtained with 2 anchors and a double surgeon knot. When possible, however, it is best to add an anchor and double-row fixation, as 3 anchors and a double-row construct are biomechanically stronger.19-24

The other motor vehicle accident occurred about 23 months after surgery. Two months later, a graft rupture was found on US and MRI, but the patient was maintaining full range of motion, AHD, and improved strength. The 1.5-mm graft in this patient was thinner than the 3.5-mm grafts in the rest of the study group. This was the only patient who developed a graft rupture rather than loss of fixation.

If only patients with graft thickness >3.0 mm are included in the data analysis, mean ASES score rises to 89.76, and mean VAS pain score drops to 0. Therefore, we argue against using a graft thinner than 3.5 mm. Our excellent study results indicate that larger grafts are unnecessary. Mihata and colleagues10 used fascia lata grafts of 6 mm to 8 mm. Ultimate load to failure is significantly higher for dermal allograft than for fascia lata graft.25 In SCR, the stronger dermal allograft withstands applied forces and repeated deformations and has excellent clinical outcomes.

Only 1 patient had a failure that required RTSA. VAS pain scores were lower and ASES scores were improved the first year after surgery, but then function deteriorated. The patient said there was no specific precipitating incident. Computed tomography arthrogram, ordered to assess the construct, showed anterior and superior subluxation of the humeral head, even with an intact subscapularis tendon—an indication of underlying instability, which most likely caused the failure. Eighteen months after surgery, the patient was able to undergo RTSA. On further evaluation of this patient’s procedure, it was determined that the graft needed better fixation anteriorly.

Mihata and colleagues10,12,14 indicated that AMC was unnecessary, and our procedure did not require it. However, data in our prospective evaluation began showing improved outcomes with AMC. As dermal allograft is more elastic than fascia lata autograft,25 we concluded that graft tensioning is key to the success of this procedure. Graft tension depends on many factors, including exact measurement of the distances between the anchors to punch holes in the graft, arm position to set the relationship between the anchor distances, and AMC and PMC. We recommend placing the arm in neutral rotation, neutral flexion, and abduction with the patient at rest, based on the size of the patient’s latissimus dorsi. Too much abduction causes overtensioning, and excess rotation or flexion-extension changes the distance between the glenoid and the greater tuberosity asymmetrically, from anterior to posterior. With the arm in neutral position, distances between anchors are accurately measured, and these measurements are used to determine graft size.

Graft tension is also needed to control the amount of elasticity allowed by the graft and thereby maintain stability, as shown by the Poisson ratio, the ratio of transverse contraction to longitudinal extension on a material in the presence of a stretching force. As applied to SCR, it is the ratio of mediolateral elasticity to anteroposterior deformation or constraint. If the graft is appropriately secured in the anteroposterior direction by way of ACM and PMC, elongation in the medial-lateral direction will be limited—reducing the elasticity of the graft, improving overall stability, and ultimately producing better clinical outcomes. This issue was discussed by Burkhart and colleagues26 with respect to the “rotator cable complex,” which now might be best described as the “rotator-capsule cable complex.” In our study, this phenomenon was evident in the finding that patients who had AMC performed did significantly better than patients who did not have AMC performed. The ability of dermal allograft to deform in these dimensions without failure while allowing excellent range of motion makes dermal allograft an exceptional choice for grafting during SCR. Mihata25 also found dermal allograft had a clear advantage in providing better range of motion, whereas fascia lata autograft resulted in a stiffer construct. 

Dermal allograft can also incorporate into the body and transform into host tissue. The literature has described musculoskeletal US as an effective diagnostic and interventional tool.27-31 We used it to evaluate graft size, patency, and viability. As can be seen on US, the native rotator cuff does not have any pulsatile vessels and is fed by capillary flow. Dermal allograft has native vasculature built into the tissue. After 4 months to 8 months, presence of pulsatile vessels within the graft at the greater tuberosity indicates clear revascularization and incorporation of the tissue (Figure 6B). Disappearance of pulsatile vessels on US after 1 year indicates transformation to a stabilizing structure analogous to capsule or ligament with capillary flow. US also showed graft hypertrophy after 2 years, supporting a finding of integration and growth.

Conclusion

In the past, patients with irreparable massive RCTs had few good surgical management options, RTSA being the most definitive. SCR is technically challenging and requires use of specific implantation methods but can provide patients with outstanding relief. Our clinical data showed that technically well executed SCR effectively restores the superior restraints in the glenohumeral joint and thereby increases function and decreases pain in patients with irreparable massive RCTs, even after 2 years.

References

1 Lee BG, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Results of arthroscopic decompression and tuberoplasty for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(10):1341-1350.

2. Liem D, Lengers N, Dedy N, Poetzl W, Steinbeck J, Marquardt B. Arthroscopic debridement of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(7):743-748.

3. Kim SJ, Lee IS, Kim SH, Lee WY, Chun YM. Arthroscopic partial repair of irreparable large to massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(6):761-768.

4. Wellmann M, Lichtenberg S, da Silva G, Magosch P, Habermeyer P. Results of arthroscopic partial repair of large retracted rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(8):1275-1282.

5. Mori D, Funakoshi N, Yamashita F. Arthroscopic surgery of irreparable large or massive rotator cuff tears with low-grade fatty degeneration of the infraspinatus: patch autograft procedure versus partial repair procedure. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(12):1911-1921.

6. Gavriilidis I, Kircher J, Mogasch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Pectoralis major transfer for the treatment of irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):689-694.

7. Grimberg J, Kany J, Valenti P, Amaravathi R, Ramalingam AT. Arthroscopic-assisted latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for irreparable posterosuperior cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):599-607.

8. Bedi A, Dines J, Warren RF, Dines DM. Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(9):1894-1908.

9. Ek ET, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1199-1208.

10. Mihata T, Lee TQ, Watanabe C, et al. Clinical results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):459-470.

11. Hirahara AM, Adams CR. Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction for treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(6):e637-e641.

12. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Kahn T, Goldberg I, Neo M, Lee TQ. Biomechanical role of capsular continuity in superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable tears of the supraspinatus tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1423-1430.

13. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Ishihara Y, et al. Biomechanical analysis of articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tear and repair. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(2):439-446.

14. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Pirolo JM, Kinoshita M, Lee TQ. Superior capsule reconstruction to restore superior stability in irreparable rotator cuff tears: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2248-2255.

15. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions [published online ahead of print September 18, 2017]. Arthrosc Tech. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.022.

16. Hamada K, Yamanaka K, Uchiyama Y, Mikasa T, Mikasa M. A radiographic classification of massive rotator cuff tear arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2452-2460.

17. Oh JH, Kim SH, Choi JA, Kim Y, Oh CH. Reliability of the grading system for fatty degeneration of rotator cuff muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1558-1564.

18. Boileau P, Sinnerton RJ, Chuinard C, Walch G. Arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(5):562-575.

19. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJ. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526.

20. Baums MH, Spahn G, Steckel H, Fischer A, Schultz W, Klinger HM. Comparative evaluation of the tendon–bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(12):1466-1472.

21. Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):1035-1042.

22. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.

23. Pauly S, Fiebig D, Kieser B, Albrecht B, Schill A, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of four double-row speed-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques with or without medial or lateral row enhancement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(12):2090-2097.

24. Pauly S, Kieser B, Schill A, Gerhardt C, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of 4 double-row suture-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques using different medial-row configurations. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(10):1281-1288.

25. Mihata T. Superior capsule reconstruction using human dermal allograft: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Presentation at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; March 1-5, 2016; Orlando, FL.

26. Burkhart SS, Esch JC, Jolson RS. The rotator crescent and rotator cable: an anatomic description of the shoulder’s “suspension bridge.” Arthroscopy. 1993;9(6):611-616.

27. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460. 

28. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157.

29. Hirahara AM, Mackay G, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided InternalBrace of the medial collateral ligament. Arthrosc Tech. Accepted for publication.

30. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.

31. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238. 

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex; is a consultant for LifeNet Health; and a medical advisor for Clarius Mobile Health. Dr. Panero reports that he is a consultant for Arthrex, and a speaker for Tenex Health and Lipogems. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
266-272, 278
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex; is a consultant for LifeNet Health; and a medical advisor for Clarius Mobile Health. Dr. Panero reports that he is a consultant for Arthrex, and a speaker for Tenex Health and Lipogems. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex; is a consultant for LifeNet Health; and a medical advisor for Clarius Mobile Health. Dr. Panero reports that he is a consultant for Arthrex, and a speaker for Tenex Health and Lipogems. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Take-Home Points

  • The SCR is a viable treatment option for massive, irreparable RCTs.
  • Arm position and exact measurement between anchors will help ensure proper graft tensioning.
  • Anterior and posterior tension and margin convergence are critical to stabilizing the graft.
  • Acromial-humeral distance, ASES, and VAS scores are improved and maintained over long-term follow-up.
  • The dermal allograft should be 3.0 mm or thicker.

Conventional treatments for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) have ranged from nonoperative care to débridement and biceps tenotomy,1,2 partial cuff repair,3,4 bridging patch grafts,5 tendon transfers,6,7 and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA).8,9 Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), originally described by Mihata and colleagues,10 has been developed as an alternative to these interventions. Dr. Hirahara modified the technique to use dermal allograft instead of fascia lata autograft.10,11

Biomechanical analysis has confirmed the integral role of the superior capsule in shoulder function.10,12-14 In the presence of a massive RCT, the humeral head migrates superiorly, causing significant pain and functional deficits, such as pseudoparalysis. It is theorized that reestablishing this important stabilizer—centering the humeral head in the glenoid and allowing the larger muscles to move the arm about a proper fulcrum—improves function and decreases pain.

Using ultrasonography (US), radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), clinical outcome scores, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, we prospectively evaluated minimum 2-year clinical outcomes of performing SCR with dermal allograft for irreparable RCTs.

Methods

Except where noted otherwise, all products mentioned in this section were made by Arthrex.

Surgical Technique

The surgical technique used here was described by Hirahara and Adams.11 ArthroFlex dermal allograft was attached to the greater tuberosity and the glenoid, creating a superior restraint that replaced the anatomical superior capsule (Figures 1A, 1B). Some cases included biceps tenotomy, subscapularis repair, or infraspinatus repair.

Figure 1.
Mean number of anchors used was 6.13 (range, 4-8). A SpeedBridge construct, which was used for the greater tuberosity, had 2 medial anchors with FiberWire and FiberTape attached. The medial and lateral anchors typically used were 4.75-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLocks; in 1 case, significant bone defects were found after removal of previous anchors, and 6.5-mm corkscrew anchors were medially augmented with QuickSet cement. A double pulley using the FiberWire eyelet sutures from the medial row anchors was fixated into the anterior anchor in the lateral row.

Medial fixation was obtained with a PASTA (partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion) bridge-type construct15 that consisted of two 3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak anchors (placed medially on the glenoid rim, medial to the labrum) and a 3.5-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. In some cases, a significant amount of tissue was present medially, and the third anchor was not used; instead, a double surgeon knot was used to fixate the double pulley medially.

Posterior margin convergence (PMC) was performed in all cases. Anterior margin convergence (AMC) was performed in only 3 cases.

Clinical Evaluation

All patients who underwent SCR were followed prospectively, and all signed an informed consent form. Between 2014 and the time of this study, 9 patients had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Before surgery, all patients received a diagnosis of full-thickness RCT with decreased acromial-humeral distance (AHD). One patient had RTSA 18 months after surgery, did not reach the 2-year follow-up, and was excluded from the data analysis. Patients were clinically evaluated on the 100-point American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder index and on a 10-point VAS for pain—before surgery, monthly for the first 6 months after surgery, then every 6 months until 2 years after surgery, and yearly thereafter. These patients were compared with Dr. Hirahara’s historical control patients, who had undergone repair of massive RCTs. Mean graft size was calculated and reported. Cases were separated and analyzed on the basis of whether AMC was performed. Student t tests were used to determine statistical differences between study patients’ preoperative and postoperative scores, between study and historical control patients, and between patients who had AMC performed and those who did not (P < .05).

Imaging

For all SCR patients, preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained in 2 planes: anterior-posterior with arm in neutral rotation, and scapular Y. On anteroposterior radiographs, AHD was measured from the most proximal aspect of the humeral head in a vertical line to the most inferior portion of the acromion (Figures 2A, 2B).

Figure 2.
Student t tests were used to identify statistical differences (P < .05) between preoperative and postoperative groups for radiographs obtained immediately after surgery and most recent radiographs at time of study (minimum 24 months after surgery). US, performed by either Dr. Hirahara or Dr. Panero in the same clinic with the same machine (X-Porte; FujiFilm SonoSite), was used to assess patients 1 month after surgery, between 4 months and 8 months after surgery, and 1 year and 2 years after surgery. MRI was ordered if there was any concern about the reconstruction.

Results

The Table provides an overview of the study results. Eight patients (6 men, 2 women) met the final inclusion criteria for postoperative ASES and VAS data analysis.

Table.
Mean age at time of surgery was 61.33 years (range, 47-78 years). Of the 8 surgeries, 7 were performed on the dominant arm. Mean number of previous rotator cuff surgeries was 1.50 (SD, 0.93; range, 0-3). Mean follow-up was 32.38 months (range, 25-39 months). For 1 patient, who lived out of state, a postoperative radiograph, a 2-year ASES score, and a 2-year VAS pain score were obtained, but postoperative US could not be arranged.

Figure 3.
From before surgery to 2 years after surgery, mean ASES score improved significantly (P < .00002), from 41.75 (SD, 12.71; range, 25-58) to 86.50 (SD, 12.66; range, 63-100) (Figure 3), and mean VAS pain score decreased significantly (P < .00002), from 6.25 (SD, 1.56; range, 4-8.5) to 0.38 (SD, 1.06; range, 0-3) (Figure 4). 

Figure 4.
The historical control patients’ mean (SD) postoperative VAS pain score, 3.00 (3.37), was significantly (P < .05) higher than that of the study patients, 0.38 (1.06). However, there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ mean (SD) ASES scores: historical control patients, 70.71 (29.09), and study patients, 86.50 (12.66).

AHD was measured on a standard anteroposterior radiograph in neutral rotation. The Hamada grading scale16 was used to classify the massive RCTs before and after surgery. Before surgery, 4 were grade 4A, 1 grade 3, 2 grade 2, and 1 grade 1; immediately after surgery, all were grade 1 (AHD, ≥6 mm). Two years after surgery, 1 patient had an AHD of 4.6 mm after a failure caused by a fall. Mean (SD) preoperative AHD was 4.50 (2.25) mm (range, 1.7-7.9 mm). Radiographs obtained immediately (mean, 1.22 months; range, 1 day-2.73 months) after surgery showed AHD was significantly (P < .0008) increased (mean, 8.48 mm; SD, 1.25 mm; range, 6.0-10.0 mm) (Figure 5).

Figure 5.
The case of the out-of-state patient with only an immediate postoperative (day after surgery) radiograph was included only in the immediate postoperative AHD data. As of this writing, radiographs were most recently obtained at a mean (SD) follow-up of 27.24 (4.37) months (range, 24.03-36.57 months). Mean (SD) postoperative AHD was 7.70 (2.08) mm (range, 4.6-11.0 mm), which was significantly (P < .05) larger than the preoperative AHD. There was no significant difference between the immediate postoperative and the 2-year postoperative AHD measurements (Figure 5).

Mean graft size was 2.9 mm medial × 3.6 mm lateral × 5.4 mm anterior × 5.4 mm posterior. Three patients had AMC performed. There was a significant (P < .05) difference in ASES scores between patients who had AMC performed (93) and those who did not (77).

Ultrasonography

Two weeks to 2 months after surgery, all patients had an intact capsular graft and no pulsatile vessels on US. Between 4 months and 10 months, US showed the construct intact laterally in all cases, a pulsatile vessel in the graft at the tuberosity (evidence of blood flow) in 4 of 5 cases, and a pulsatile vessel hypertrophied in 2 cases (Figures 6A, 6B).

Figure 6.
After 1 year, all pulsatile vessels were gone. Between 25 months and 36 months, 5 patients had an intact graft construct. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents during the postoperative period. One had an intact graft laterally, and the other had a ruptured midsubstance. In both cases, MRI was ordered.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Before surgery, 4 patients had Goutallier17 stage 4 rotator cuff muscle degeneration, 2 had stage 3 degeneration, and 2 had stage 2 degeneration. Throughout the follow-up period, US was as effective as MRI in determining graft integrity, graft thickness, and greater tuberosity fixation. Therefore, the SCRs were assessed primarily with US. MRI was ordered only if a failure was suspected or if the patient had some form of trauma. A total of 7 MRIs were ordered for 5 of the 8 patients in the study. The graft was intact in 4 of the 5 (Figures 7A-7C) and ruptured in the fifth.

Figure 7.
One patient fell just after surgery. The graft was intact, but the infraspinatus was torn. As this patient was doing well, there was no need for treatment. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. One was found to have a detached glenoid-sided graft, but refused treatment because symptoms were tolerable (this patient had been improving before the accident). The other patient, who had an MRI-confirmed rupture of the graft midsubstance, was considering revision SCR or RTSA.

Discussion

Mihata and colleagues10 published 2-year data for their reconstructive procedure with fascia lata autograft. In a modification of their procedure, Dr. Hirahara used dermal allograft to recreate the superior capsule.11 The results of the present 2-year study mirror the clinical outcomes reported by Mihata and colleagues10 and confirm that SCR improves functional outcomes and increases AHD regardless of graft type used.

The outcomes of the SCR patients in our study were significantly better than the outcomes of the historical control patients, who underwent repair of massive RCTs. Although there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ ASES scores, the control patients had significantly higher postoperative VAS pain scores. We think that, as more patients undergo SCR and the population sample increases, we will see a significant difference in ASES scores as well (our SCR patients already showed a trend toward improved ASES scores).

Compared with RTSA, SCR has fewer risks and fewer complications and does not limit further surgical options.8,9,18 The 9 patients who had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up in our study had 4 complications. Six months after surgery, 1 patient fell and tore the infraspinatus and subscapularis muscles. Outcomes continued to improve, and no issues were reported, despite a decrease in AHD, from 8 mm immediately after surgery to 4.6 mm 2 years after surgery.

Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. In 1 case, the accident occurred about 2 months after surgery. This patient also sustained a possible injury in a fall after receiving general anesthesia for a dental procedure. After having done very well the preceding months, the patient now reported increasing pain and dysfunction. MRI showed loss of glenoid fixation. Improved ASES and VAS pain scores were maintained throughout the follow-up period. AHD was increased at 13 months and mildly decreased at 2 years. Glenoid fixation was obtained with 2 anchors and a double surgeon knot. When possible, however, it is best to add an anchor and double-row fixation, as 3 anchors and a double-row construct are biomechanically stronger.19-24

The other motor vehicle accident occurred about 23 months after surgery. Two months later, a graft rupture was found on US and MRI, but the patient was maintaining full range of motion, AHD, and improved strength. The 1.5-mm graft in this patient was thinner than the 3.5-mm grafts in the rest of the study group. This was the only patient who developed a graft rupture rather than loss of fixation.

If only patients with graft thickness >3.0 mm are included in the data analysis, mean ASES score rises to 89.76, and mean VAS pain score drops to 0. Therefore, we argue against using a graft thinner than 3.5 mm. Our excellent study results indicate that larger grafts are unnecessary. Mihata and colleagues10 used fascia lata grafts of 6 mm to 8 mm. Ultimate load to failure is significantly higher for dermal allograft than for fascia lata graft.25 In SCR, the stronger dermal allograft withstands applied forces and repeated deformations and has excellent clinical outcomes.

Only 1 patient had a failure that required RTSA. VAS pain scores were lower and ASES scores were improved the first year after surgery, but then function deteriorated. The patient said there was no specific precipitating incident. Computed tomography arthrogram, ordered to assess the construct, showed anterior and superior subluxation of the humeral head, even with an intact subscapularis tendon—an indication of underlying instability, which most likely caused the failure. Eighteen months after surgery, the patient was able to undergo RTSA. On further evaluation of this patient’s procedure, it was determined that the graft needed better fixation anteriorly.

Mihata and colleagues10,12,14 indicated that AMC was unnecessary, and our procedure did not require it. However, data in our prospective evaluation began showing improved outcomes with AMC. As dermal allograft is more elastic than fascia lata autograft,25 we concluded that graft tensioning is key to the success of this procedure. Graft tension depends on many factors, including exact measurement of the distances between the anchors to punch holes in the graft, arm position to set the relationship between the anchor distances, and AMC and PMC. We recommend placing the arm in neutral rotation, neutral flexion, and abduction with the patient at rest, based on the size of the patient’s latissimus dorsi. Too much abduction causes overtensioning, and excess rotation or flexion-extension changes the distance between the glenoid and the greater tuberosity asymmetrically, from anterior to posterior. With the arm in neutral position, distances between anchors are accurately measured, and these measurements are used to determine graft size.

Graft tension is also needed to control the amount of elasticity allowed by the graft and thereby maintain stability, as shown by the Poisson ratio, the ratio of transverse contraction to longitudinal extension on a material in the presence of a stretching force. As applied to SCR, it is the ratio of mediolateral elasticity to anteroposterior deformation or constraint. If the graft is appropriately secured in the anteroposterior direction by way of ACM and PMC, elongation in the medial-lateral direction will be limited—reducing the elasticity of the graft, improving overall stability, and ultimately producing better clinical outcomes. This issue was discussed by Burkhart and colleagues26 with respect to the “rotator cable complex,” which now might be best described as the “rotator-capsule cable complex.” In our study, this phenomenon was evident in the finding that patients who had AMC performed did significantly better than patients who did not have AMC performed. The ability of dermal allograft to deform in these dimensions without failure while allowing excellent range of motion makes dermal allograft an exceptional choice for grafting during SCR. Mihata25 also found dermal allograft had a clear advantage in providing better range of motion, whereas fascia lata autograft resulted in a stiffer construct. 

Dermal allograft can also incorporate into the body and transform into host tissue. The literature has described musculoskeletal US as an effective diagnostic and interventional tool.27-31 We used it to evaluate graft size, patency, and viability. As can be seen on US, the native rotator cuff does not have any pulsatile vessels and is fed by capillary flow. Dermal allograft has native vasculature built into the tissue. After 4 months to 8 months, presence of pulsatile vessels within the graft at the greater tuberosity indicates clear revascularization and incorporation of the tissue (Figure 6B). Disappearance of pulsatile vessels on US after 1 year indicates transformation to a stabilizing structure analogous to capsule or ligament with capillary flow. US also showed graft hypertrophy after 2 years, supporting a finding of integration and growth.

Conclusion

In the past, patients with irreparable massive RCTs had few good surgical management options, RTSA being the most definitive. SCR is technically challenging and requires use of specific implantation methods but can provide patients with outstanding relief. Our clinical data showed that technically well executed SCR effectively restores the superior restraints in the glenohumeral joint and thereby increases function and decreases pain in patients with irreparable massive RCTs, even after 2 years.

Take-Home Points

  • The SCR is a viable treatment option for massive, irreparable RCTs.
  • Arm position and exact measurement between anchors will help ensure proper graft tensioning.
  • Anterior and posterior tension and margin convergence are critical to stabilizing the graft.
  • Acromial-humeral distance, ASES, and VAS scores are improved and maintained over long-term follow-up.
  • The dermal allograft should be 3.0 mm or thicker.

Conventional treatments for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) have ranged from nonoperative care to débridement and biceps tenotomy,1,2 partial cuff repair,3,4 bridging patch grafts,5 tendon transfers,6,7 and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA).8,9 Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), originally described by Mihata and colleagues,10 has been developed as an alternative to these interventions. Dr. Hirahara modified the technique to use dermal allograft instead of fascia lata autograft.10,11

Biomechanical analysis has confirmed the integral role of the superior capsule in shoulder function.10,12-14 In the presence of a massive RCT, the humeral head migrates superiorly, causing significant pain and functional deficits, such as pseudoparalysis. It is theorized that reestablishing this important stabilizer—centering the humeral head in the glenoid and allowing the larger muscles to move the arm about a proper fulcrum—improves function and decreases pain.

Using ultrasonography (US), radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), clinical outcome scores, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, we prospectively evaluated minimum 2-year clinical outcomes of performing SCR with dermal allograft for irreparable RCTs.

Methods

Except where noted otherwise, all products mentioned in this section were made by Arthrex.

Surgical Technique

The surgical technique used here was described by Hirahara and Adams.11 ArthroFlex dermal allograft was attached to the greater tuberosity and the glenoid, creating a superior restraint that replaced the anatomical superior capsule (Figures 1A, 1B). Some cases included biceps tenotomy, subscapularis repair, or infraspinatus repair.

Figure 1.
Mean number of anchors used was 6.13 (range, 4-8). A SpeedBridge construct, which was used for the greater tuberosity, had 2 medial anchors with FiberWire and FiberTape attached. The medial and lateral anchors typically used were 4.75-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLocks; in 1 case, significant bone defects were found after removal of previous anchors, and 6.5-mm corkscrew anchors were medially augmented with QuickSet cement. A double pulley using the FiberWire eyelet sutures from the medial row anchors was fixated into the anterior anchor in the lateral row.

Medial fixation was obtained with a PASTA (partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion) bridge-type construct15 that consisted of two 3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak anchors (placed medially on the glenoid rim, medial to the labrum) and a 3.5-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. In some cases, a significant amount of tissue was present medially, and the third anchor was not used; instead, a double surgeon knot was used to fixate the double pulley medially.

Posterior margin convergence (PMC) was performed in all cases. Anterior margin convergence (AMC) was performed in only 3 cases.

Clinical Evaluation

All patients who underwent SCR were followed prospectively, and all signed an informed consent form. Between 2014 and the time of this study, 9 patients had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Before surgery, all patients received a diagnosis of full-thickness RCT with decreased acromial-humeral distance (AHD). One patient had RTSA 18 months after surgery, did not reach the 2-year follow-up, and was excluded from the data analysis. Patients were clinically evaluated on the 100-point American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder index and on a 10-point VAS for pain—before surgery, monthly for the first 6 months after surgery, then every 6 months until 2 years after surgery, and yearly thereafter. These patients were compared with Dr. Hirahara’s historical control patients, who had undergone repair of massive RCTs. Mean graft size was calculated and reported. Cases were separated and analyzed on the basis of whether AMC was performed. Student t tests were used to determine statistical differences between study patients’ preoperative and postoperative scores, between study and historical control patients, and between patients who had AMC performed and those who did not (P < .05).

Imaging

For all SCR patients, preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained in 2 planes: anterior-posterior with arm in neutral rotation, and scapular Y. On anteroposterior radiographs, AHD was measured from the most proximal aspect of the humeral head in a vertical line to the most inferior portion of the acromion (Figures 2A, 2B).

Figure 2.
Student t tests were used to identify statistical differences (P < .05) between preoperative and postoperative groups for radiographs obtained immediately after surgery and most recent radiographs at time of study (minimum 24 months after surgery). US, performed by either Dr. Hirahara or Dr. Panero in the same clinic with the same machine (X-Porte; FujiFilm SonoSite), was used to assess patients 1 month after surgery, between 4 months and 8 months after surgery, and 1 year and 2 years after surgery. MRI was ordered if there was any concern about the reconstruction.

Results

The Table provides an overview of the study results. Eight patients (6 men, 2 women) met the final inclusion criteria for postoperative ASES and VAS data analysis.

Table.
Mean age at time of surgery was 61.33 years (range, 47-78 years). Of the 8 surgeries, 7 were performed on the dominant arm. Mean number of previous rotator cuff surgeries was 1.50 (SD, 0.93; range, 0-3). Mean follow-up was 32.38 months (range, 25-39 months). For 1 patient, who lived out of state, a postoperative radiograph, a 2-year ASES score, and a 2-year VAS pain score were obtained, but postoperative US could not be arranged.

Figure 3.
From before surgery to 2 years after surgery, mean ASES score improved significantly (P < .00002), from 41.75 (SD, 12.71; range, 25-58) to 86.50 (SD, 12.66; range, 63-100) (Figure 3), and mean VAS pain score decreased significantly (P < .00002), from 6.25 (SD, 1.56; range, 4-8.5) to 0.38 (SD, 1.06; range, 0-3) (Figure 4). 

Figure 4.
The historical control patients’ mean (SD) postoperative VAS pain score, 3.00 (3.37), was significantly (P < .05) higher than that of the study patients, 0.38 (1.06). However, there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ mean (SD) ASES scores: historical control patients, 70.71 (29.09), and study patients, 86.50 (12.66).

AHD was measured on a standard anteroposterior radiograph in neutral rotation. The Hamada grading scale16 was used to classify the massive RCTs before and after surgery. Before surgery, 4 were grade 4A, 1 grade 3, 2 grade 2, and 1 grade 1; immediately after surgery, all were grade 1 (AHD, ≥6 mm). Two years after surgery, 1 patient had an AHD of 4.6 mm after a failure caused by a fall. Mean (SD) preoperative AHD was 4.50 (2.25) mm (range, 1.7-7.9 mm). Radiographs obtained immediately (mean, 1.22 months; range, 1 day-2.73 months) after surgery showed AHD was significantly (P < .0008) increased (mean, 8.48 mm; SD, 1.25 mm; range, 6.0-10.0 mm) (Figure 5).

Figure 5.
The case of the out-of-state patient with only an immediate postoperative (day after surgery) radiograph was included only in the immediate postoperative AHD data. As of this writing, radiographs were most recently obtained at a mean (SD) follow-up of 27.24 (4.37) months (range, 24.03-36.57 months). Mean (SD) postoperative AHD was 7.70 (2.08) mm (range, 4.6-11.0 mm), which was significantly (P < .05) larger than the preoperative AHD. There was no significant difference between the immediate postoperative and the 2-year postoperative AHD measurements (Figure 5).

Mean graft size was 2.9 mm medial × 3.6 mm lateral × 5.4 mm anterior × 5.4 mm posterior. Three patients had AMC performed. There was a significant (P < .05) difference in ASES scores between patients who had AMC performed (93) and those who did not (77).

Ultrasonography

Two weeks to 2 months after surgery, all patients had an intact capsular graft and no pulsatile vessels on US. Between 4 months and 10 months, US showed the construct intact laterally in all cases, a pulsatile vessel in the graft at the tuberosity (evidence of blood flow) in 4 of 5 cases, and a pulsatile vessel hypertrophied in 2 cases (Figures 6A, 6B).

Figure 6.
After 1 year, all pulsatile vessels were gone. Between 25 months and 36 months, 5 patients had an intact graft construct. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents during the postoperative period. One had an intact graft laterally, and the other had a ruptured midsubstance. In both cases, MRI was ordered.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Before surgery, 4 patients had Goutallier17 stage 4 rotator cuff muscle degeneration, 2 had stage 3 degeneration, and 2 had stage 2 degeneration. Throughout the follow-up period, US was as effective as MRI in determining graft integrity, graft thickness, and greater tuberosity fixation. Therefore, the SCRs were assessed primarily with US. MRI was ordered only if a failure was suspected or if the patient had some form of trauma. A total of 7 MRIs were ordered for 5 of the 8 patients in the study. The graft was intact in 4 of the 5 (Figures 7A-7C) and ruptured in the fifth.

Figure 7.
One patient fell just after surgery. The graft was intact, but the infraspinatus was torn. As this patient was doing well, there was no need for treatment. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. One was found to have a detached glenoid-sided graft, but refused treatment because symptoms were tolerable (this patient had been improving before the accident). The other patient, who had an MRI-confirmed rupture of the graft midsubstance, was considering revision SCR or RTSA.

Discussion

Mihata and colleagues10 published 2-year data for their reconstructive procedure with fascia lata autograft. In a modification of their procedure, Dr. Hirahara used dermal allograft to recreate the superior capsule.11 The results of the present 2-year study mirror the clinical outcomes reported by Mihata and colleagues10 and confirm that SCR improves functional outcomes and increases AHD regardless of graft type used.

The outcomes of the SCR patients in our study were significantly better than the outcomes of the historical control patients, who underwent repair of massive RCTs. Although there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ ASES scores, the control patients had significantly higher postoperative VAS pain scores. We think that, as more patients undergo SCR and the population sample increases, we will see a significant difference in ASES scores as well (our SCR patients already showed a trend toward improved ASES scores).

Compared with RTSA, SCR has fewer risks and fewer complications and does not limit further surgical options.8,9,18 The 9 patients who had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up in our study had 4 complications. Six months after surgery, 1 patient fell and tore the infraspinatus and subscapularis muscles. Outcomes continued to improve, and no issues were reported, despite a decrease in AHD, from 8 mm immediately after surgery to 4.6 mm 2 years after surgery.

Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. In 1 case, the accident occurred about 2 months after surgery. This patient also sustained a possible injury in a fall after receiving general anesthesia for a dental procedure. After having done very well the preceding months, the patient now reported increasing pain and dysfunction. MRI showed loss of glenoid fixation. Improved ASES and VAS pain scores were maintained throughout the follow-up period. AHD was increased at 13 months and mildly decreased at 2 years. Glenoid fixation was obtained with 2 anchors and a double surgeon knot. When possible, however, it is best to add an anchor and double-row fixation, as 3 anchors and a double-row construct are biomechanically stronger.19-24

The other motor vehicle accident occurred about 23 months after surgery. Two months later, a graft rupture was found on US and MRI, but the patient was maintaining full range of motion, AHD, and improved strength. The 1.5-mm graft in this patient was thinner than the 3.5-mm grafts in the rest of the study group. This was the only patient who developed a graft rupture rather than loss of fixation.

If only patients with graft thickness >3.0 mm are included in the data analysis, mean ASES score rises to 89.76, and mean VAS pain score drops to 0. Therefore, we argue against using a graft thinner than 3.5 mm. Our excellent study results indicate that larger grafts are unnecessary. Mihata and colleagues10 used fascia lata grafts of 6 mm to 8 mm. Ultimate load to failure is significantly higher for dermal allograft than for fascia lata graft.25 In SCR, the stronger dermal allograft withstands applied forces and repeated deformations and has excellent clinical outcomes.

Only 1 patient had a failure that required RTSA. VAS pain scores were lower and ASES scores were improved the first year after surgery, but then function deteriorated. The patient said there was no specific precipitating incident. Computed tomography arthrogram, ordered to assess the construct, showed anterior and superior subluxation of the humeral head, even with an intact subscapularis tendon—an indication of underlying instability, which most likely caused the failure. Eighteen months after surgery, the patient was able to undergo RTSA. On further evaluation of this patient’s procedure, it was determined that the graft needed better fixation anteriorly.

Mihata and colleagues10,12,14 indicated that AMC was unnecessary, and our procedure did not require it. However, data in our prospective evaluation began showing improved outcomes with AMC. As dermal allograft is more elastic than fascia lata autograft,25 we concluded that graft tensioning is key to the success of this procedure. Graft tension depends on many factors, including exact measurement of the distances between the anchors to punch holes in the graft, arm position to set the relationship between the anchor distances, and AMC and PMC. We recommend placing the arm in neutral rotation, neutral flexion, and abduction with the patient at rest, based on the size of the patient’s latissimus dorsi. Too much abduction causes overtensioning, and excess rotation or flexion-extension changes the distance between the glenoid and the greater tuberosity asymmetrically, from anterior to posterior. With the arm in neutral position, distances between anchors are accurately measured, and these measurements are used to determine graft size.

Graft tension is also needed to control the amount of elasticity allowed by the graft and thereby maintain stability, as shown by the Poisson ratio, the ratio of transverse contraction to longitudinal extension on a material in the presence of a stretching force. As applied to SCR, it is the ratio of mediolateral elasticity to anteroposterior deformation or constraint. If the graft is appropriately secured in the anteroposterior direction by way of ACM and PMC, elongation in the medial-lateral direction will be limited—reducing the elasticity of the graft, improving overall stability, and ultimately producing better clinical outcomes. This issue was discussed by Burkhart and colleagues26 with respect to the “rotator cable complex,” which now might be best described as the “rotator-capsule cable complex.” In our study, this phenomenon was evident in the finding that patients who had AMC performed did significantly better than patients who did not have AMC performed. The ability of dermal allograft to deform in these dimensions without failure while allowing excellent range of motion makes dermal allograft an exceptional choice for grafting during SCR. Mihata25 also found dermal allograft had a clear advantage in providing better range of motion, whereas fascia lata autograft resulted in a stiffer construct. 

Dermal allograft can also incorporate into the body and transform into host tissue. The literature has described musculoskeletal US as an effective diagnostic and interventional tool.27-31 We used it to evaluate graft size, patency, and viability. As can be seen on US, the native rotator cuff does not have any pulsatile vessels and is fed by capillary flow. Dermal allograft has native vasculature built into the tissue. After 4 months to 8 months, presence of pulsatile vessels within the graft at the greater tuberosity indicates clear revascularization and incorporation of the tissue (Figure 6B). Disappearance of pulsatile vessels on US after 1 year indicates transformation to a stabilizing structure analogous to capsule or ligament with capillary flow. US also showed graft hypertrophy after 2 years, supporting a finding of integration and growth.

Conclusion

In the past, patients with irreparable massive RCTs had few good surgical management options, RTSA being the most definitive. SCR is technically challenging and requires use of specific implantation methods but can provide patients with outstanding relief. Our clinical data showed that technically well executed SCR effectively restores the superior restraints in the glenohumeral joint and thereby increases function and decreases pain in patients with irreparable massive RCTs, even after 2 years.

References

1 Lee BG, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Results of arthroscopic decompression and tuberoplasty for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(10):1341-1350.

2. Liem D, Lengers N, Dedy N, Poetzl W, Steinbeck J, Marquardt B. Arthroscopic debridement of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(7):743-748.

3. Kim SJ, Lee IS, Kim SH, Lee WY, Chun YM. Arthroscopic partial repair of irreparable large to massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(6):761-768.

4. Wellmann M, Lichtenberg S, da Silva G, Magosch P, Habermeyer P. Results of arthroscopic partial repair of large retracted rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(8):1275-1282.

5. Mori D, Funakoshi N, Yamashita F. Arthroscopic surgery of irreparable large or massive rotator cuff tears with low-grade fatty degeneration of the infraspinatus: patch autograft procedure versus partial repair procedure. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(12):1911-1921.

6. Gavriilidis I, Kircher J, Mogasch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Pectoralis major transfer for the treatment of irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):689-694.

7. Grimberg J, Kany J, Valenti P, Amaravathi R, Ramalingam AT. Arthroscopic-assisted latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for irreparable posterosuperior cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):599-607.

8. Bedi A, Dines J, Warren RF, Dines DM. Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(9):1894-1908.

9. Ek ET, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1199-1208.

10. Mihata T, Lee TQ, Watanabe C, et al. Clinical results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):459-470.

11. Hirahara AM, Adams CR. Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction for treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(6):e637-e641.

12. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Kahn T, Goldberg I, Neo M, Lee TQ. Biomechanical role of capsular continuity in superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable tears of the supraspinatus tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1423-1430.

13. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Ishihara Y, et al. Biomechanical analysis of articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tear and repair. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(2):439-446.

14. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Pirolo JM, Kinoshita M, Lee TQ. Superior capsule reconstruction to restore superior stability in irreparable rotator cuff tears: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2248-2255.

15. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions [published online ahead of print September 18, 2017]. Arthrosc Tech. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.022.

16. Hamada K, Yamanaka K, Uchiyama Y, Mikasa T, Mikasa M. A radiographic classification of massive rotator cuff tear arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2452-2460.

17. Oh JH, Kim SH, Choi JA, Kim Y, Oh CH. Reliability of the grading system for fatty degeneration of rotator cuff muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1558-1564.

18. Boileau P, Sinnerton RJ, Chuinard C, Walch G. Arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(5):562-575.

19. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJ. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526.

20. Baums MH, Spahn G, Steckel H, Fischer A, Schultz W, Klinger HM. Comparative evaluation of the tendon–bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(12):1466-1472.

21. Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):1035-1042.

22. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.

23. Pauly S, Fiebig D, Kieser B, Albrecht B, Schill A, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of four double-row speed-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques with or without medial or lateral row enhancement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(12):2090-2097.

24. Pauly S, Kieser B, Schill A, Gerhardt C, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of 4 double-row suture-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques using different medial-row configurations. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(10):1281-1288.

25. Mihata T. Superior capsule reconstruction using human dermal allograft: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Presentation at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; March 1-5, 2016; Orlando, FL.

26. Burkhart SS, Esch JC, Jolson RS. The rotator crescent and rotator cable: an anatomic description of the shoulder’s “suspension bridge.” Arthroscopy. 1993;9(6):611-616.

27. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460. 

28. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157.

29. Hirahara AM, Mackay G, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided InternalBrace of the medial collateral ligament. Arthrosc Tech. Accepted for publication.

30. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.

31. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238. 

References

1 Lee BG, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Results of arthroscopic decompression and tuberoplasty for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(10):1341-1350.

2. Liem D, Lengers N, Dedy N, Poetzl W, Steinbeck J, Marquardt B. Arthroscopic debridement of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(7):743-748.

3. Kim SJ, Lee IS, Kim SH, Lee WY, Chun YM. Arthroscopic partial repair of irreparable large to massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(6):761-768.

4. Wellmann M, Lichtenberg S, da Silva G, Magosch P, Habermeyer P. Results of arthroscopic partial repair of large retracted rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(8):1275-1282.

5. Mori D, Funakoshi N, Yamashita F. Arthroscopic surgery of irreparable large or massive rotator cuff tears with low-grade fatty degeneration of the infraspinatus: patch autograft procedure versus partial repair procedure. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(12):1911-1921.

6. Gavriilidis I, Kircher J, Mogasch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Pectoralis major transfer for the treatment of irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):689-694.

7. Grimberg J, Kany J, Valenti P, Amaravathi R, Ramalingam AT. Arthroscopic-assisted latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for irreparable posterosuperior cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):599-607.

8. Bedi A, Dines J, Warren RF, Dines DM. Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(9):1894-1908.

9. Ek ET, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1199-1208.

10. Mihata T, Lee TQ, Watanabe C, et al. Clinical results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):459-470.

11. Hirahara AM, Adams CR. Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction for treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(6):e637-e641.

12. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Kahn T, Goldberg I, Neo M, Lee TQ. Biomechanical role of capsular continuity in superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable tears of the supraspinatus tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1423-1430.

13. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Ishihara Y, et al. Biomechanical analysis of articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tear and repair. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(2):439-446.

14. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Pirolo JM, Kinoshita M, Lee TQ. Superior capsule reconstruction to restore superior stability in irreparable rotator cuff tears: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2248-2255.

15. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions [published online ahead of print September 18, 2017]. Arthrosc Tech. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.022.

16. Hamada K, Yamanaka K, Uchiyama Y, Mikasa T, Mikasa M. A radiographic classification of massive rotator cuff tear arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2452-2460.

17. Oh JH, Kim SH, Choi JA, Kim Y, Oh CH. Reliability of the grading system for fatty degeneration of rotator cuff muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1558-1564.

18. Boileau P, Sinnerton RJ, Chuinard C, Walch G. Arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(5):562-575.

19. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJ. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526.

20. Baums MH, Spahn G, Steckel H, Fischer A, Schultz W, Klinger HM. Comparative evaluation of the tendon–bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(12):1466-1472.

21. Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):1035-1042.

22. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.

23. Pauly S, Fiebig D, Kieser B, Albrecht B, Schill A, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of four double-row speed-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques with or without medial or lateral row enhancement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(12):2090-2097.

24. Pauly S, Kieser B, Schill A, Gerhardt C, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of 4 double-row suture-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques using different medial-row configurations. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(10):1281-1288.

25. Mihata T. Superior capsule reconstruction using human dermal allograft: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Presentation at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; March 1-5, 2016; Orlando, FL.

26. Burkhart SS, Esch JC, Jolson RS. The rotator crescent and rotator cable: an anatomic description of the shoulder’s “suspension bridge.” Arthroscopy. 1993;9(6):611-616.

27. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460. 

28. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157.

29. Hirahara AM, Mackay G, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided InternalBrace of the medial collateral ligament. Arthrosc Tech. Accepted for publication.

30. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.

31. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238. 

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(6)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(6)
Page Number
266-272, 278
Page Number
266-272, 278
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article PDF Media

Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Repair of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament: Surgical Technique and Outcomes

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:22
Display Headline
Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Repair of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament: Surgical Technique and Outcomes

Take-Home Points

  • Use ultrasound to identify integrity and location of MPFL tear.
  • Anatomic repair allows native tissue to reintegrate into bone.
  • Repairs done early can prevent complications of recurrent instability.
  • Repair maintains biological and proprioceptive qualities of tissue.
  • 10Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair is quick and effective.

The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the primary passive restraint to lateral patellar excursion1-5 and helps control patellar tilt and rotation.6,7 More than 90% of lateral patellar dislocations cause the MPFL to rupture, and roughly 90% of these detachments involve the femoral insertion.4 Ensuing patellar instability often results from MPFL insufficiency. It has been suggested that re-creating the anatomy and functionality of this ligament is of utmost importance in restoring normal patellar biomechanics.1-5,7,8

Anatomical risk factors for recurrent patellar instability include patella alta, increased tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, trochlear dysplasia, and torsional abnormalities.1-4,6 A medial reefing technique with a lateral tissue release traditionally was used to restore proper kinematics, but was shown to have associated postoperative issues.9

Figure 1.
In recent years, ligamentous reconstruction has become the gold standard for surgical intervention.6-8 The precise location of the MPFL attachments, particularly at the femoral insertion, has been the subject of a great deal of debate.
Figure 2.
McCarthy and colleagues10 suggested that the anatomical location at the femur is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, but they noted that determining this location during surgery is difficult. Use of fluoroscopy has become the gold standard for identifying proper tunnel placement for reconstruction.10,11
Figure 3.
However, the inability of fluoroscopy to consistently identify the anatomical MPFL attachments has proved to be a shortcoming of this technique.11,12In this article, we present a novel technique for percutaneous repair of patella- or femur-side MPFL tears. It is performed with ultrasound guidance, which allows accurate identification of anatomy before and after surgery (Figures 1-3).
Table 1.
Ultrasound has several advantages over other techniques and has not been described in other published works on MPFL procedures (Table 1).

Methods

Patient Demographics

Dr. Hirahara developed this technique in 2013 and performed it 11 times between 2013 and 2016. Of the 11 patients, 1 was excluded from our retrospective analysis because of trochlear dysplasia, now considered a relative contraindication. Of the remaining 10 patients, 5 (50%) had the repair performed on the right knee. Eight patients (80%) were female. Mean (SD) age was 17.21 (3.53) years. One patient had concurrent femur- and patella-side detachments; otherwise, 6 (60%) of 10 repairs were performed exclusively at the patella. We grade patellar instability according to amount of glide based on patellar width and quadrants. Normal lateral displacement was usually 1 to 2 quadrants of lateral glide relative to the contralateral side. Before surgery, 6 (60%) of the 10 patients presented with lateral glide of 3 quadrants, and 3 (30%) presented with lateral glide of 4 quadrants. All had patellar instability apprehension on physical examination.

Surgical Indications

Before surgery, MPFL integrity is determined by ultrasound evaluation. Repair is considered if the MPFL has a femur- or patella-side tear and is of adequate quantity and quality, and if there are minimal or no arthritic changes (Table 2).

Table 2.
As the MPFL is the main constraint to lateral patellar displacement, patients continue to have excessive patellar instability if left insufficient.

Surgical Technique

The patient is brought to the operating room and placed supine. Patellar stability of the affected knee is assessed and compared with that of the contralateral side with patellar glide. The knee is prepared and draped in usual sterile fashion. With the knee flexed at 90º, a tourniquet is inflated. Diagnostic arthroscopy is performed with standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals, and, if necessary, arthroscopic procedures are performed.

Femoral Attachment Repair

With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify the tear at the femoral attachment (watch part 1 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the femoral insertion, typically just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle (Figure 4).10

Figure 4.
A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision through the tissue and down to the attachment. The area is débrided and abraded. A drill is used to create an appropriate socket, and a 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed into the attachment site. A suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass the sutures through the leading edge of the torn MPFL in horizontal mattress fashion and tie it to the anchor, completing the repair. Lateral glide and range of motion (ROM) are tested to ensure adequate tensioning, and ultrasound can be used to corroborate proper anchor placement.

 

 

Patellar Attachment Repair

With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify where the MPFL is detached from the patella (watch part 2 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the detachment site (Figure 5). A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision down to the patella.

Figure 5.
The area is débrided and abraded. A drill is used to create a socket. A 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak) is then placed into the socket. A suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion) is used to pass the suture through the leading edge of the torn MPFL and create a horizontal mattress suture. The attached wire with loop (FiberSnare; Arthrex) is then used to pass the suture back through the knotless anchor to create a knotless construct. The sutures are pulled and tightened, completing the repair. Lateral-glide and ROM testing and ultrasound evaluation are performed to ensure appropriate tensioning and anchor placement. If necessary, another anchor may be used with the patellar attachment, as its site is broader than the femoral attachment site.

In this description, we showcase knotless and knotted techniques for each repair site. Either method is appropriate for the 2 repair sites. Owing to the superficial nature of the attachment sites—they may have very little fat, particularly at the patella—knot stacks are more prominent, can be felt after surgery, and have the potential to irritate surrounding tissues. Therefore, we prefer knotless fixation for both sites.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation after MPFL repair is much like rehabilitation after quadriceps tendon repair. The patient is locked in a brace in full extension when up and moving. Early weight-bearing and minimal use of assistive devices (crutches) are allowed because, when the leg is in full extension, there is no tension at the repair sites. Rehabilitation begins within 1 week, and normal daily function is quickly attained. The protocol emphasizes pain-free motion and suitable patellar mobility, and allows the immobilizing brace to be unlocked for exercise and sitting. During the first 4 weeks, quadriceps activation is limited; progression to full ROM occurs by 4 to 6 weeks. During the strengthening phase, loading the knee in early flexion should be avoided. Return to heavy lifting, physical activity, and sports is delayed until after 6 months in order to allow the construct to mature and integrate. Once the patient has satisfied all the strength, ROM, and functional outcome measurements, a brace is no longer required during sports and normal activity.

Results

Mean tourniquet time for each procedure, which includes diagnostic arthroscopy and ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair, was 26.9 minutes.

Table 3.
After surgery, all patients had equivalent lateral patellar glides on the operated and contralateral knees (Table 3), complete resolution of pain and perceived instability, and full ROM, and they were able to return to their sports and usual activities. There were no complications, and no secondary surgeries required.

Discussion

Conservative management typically is recommended for acute patellar dislocations. In the event of failed conservative management or chronic patellar instability, surgical intervention is indicated. Studies have found that conservative management has recurrent-dislocation rates of 35% at 3-year follow-up and 73% at 6-year follow-up, and recurrent dislocations significantly increase patients’ risk of developing chondral and bony damage.13 MPFL repair is designed to restore proper patellar tracking and kinematics while maintaining the anatomical tissue. Lateral patellar dislocations often cause the MPFL to rupture; tears are reported in more than 90% of incidents.4 The significant rate indicates that, even after a single patellar dislocation, the MPFL should be evaluated. The MPFL contributes 50% to 60% of the medial stabilizing force during patellar tracking1,7,14 and is the primary restraint to lateral patellar excursion and excessive patellar tilt and rotation.1-5 Its absence plays a key role in recurrent lateral patellar instability. With this structure being so important, proper identification and intervention are vital. Studies have established that redislocation rates are significantly higher for nonoperatively (vs operatively) treated primary patellar dislocations.13 Simple and accurate percutaneous repair of the MPFL should be performed early to avoid the long-term complications of recurrent instability that could damage the cartilage and bone of the patella and trochlea.

The primary advantage of this technique is its novel use of musculoskeletal ultrasound to accurately identify anatomy and pathology and the placement of anatomical repairs. Accurate preoperative and intraoperative assessment of MPFL anatomy is vital to the success of a procedure. Descriptions of MPFL anatomy suggest discrepancies in the exact locations of the femoral and patellar attachments.2,5,7,10,12,15,16 Tanaka5 noted that, even within paired knees, there was “marked variability” in the MPFL insertions. McCarthy and colleagues10 contended the femoral attachment of the MPFL is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, the landmark addressed in this technique. Steensen and colleagues16 described this attachment site as being statistically the “single most important point affecting isometry” of the MPFL. Sallay and colleagues4 asserted that an overwhelming majority of MPFL tears (87%) occur at the adductor tubercle. The variable distribution of tear locations and the importance of re-creating patient anatomy further highlight the need for individualized treatment, which is afforded by ultrasound. Fluoroscopy has been inadequate in identifying MPFL anatomy; this modality is difficult, cumbersome, inaccurate, and inconsistent.11,12 Conversely, ultrasound provides real-time visualization of anatomy and allows for precise identification of MPFL attachments and accurate placement of suture anchors for repair during surgery (Figures 3, 4).

For femur-side and patella-side tears, repairs can and should be performed. For midsubstance tears, however, repair is not feasible, and reconstruction is appropriate. MPFL repair is superior to reconstruction in several ways. Repair is a simple percutaneous procedure that had a mean tourniquet time of 26.9 minutes in this study. For tissue that is quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, repair allows the structure to reintegrate into bone without total reconstruction. In the event of multiple tears, the percutaneous procedure allows for repair of each attachment. As the MPFL sits between the second and third tissue layers of the medial knee, reconstruction can be difficult and invasive and require establishment of a between-layers plane, which can disrupt adjacent tissue.4,7,17 Repair also maintains native tissue and its neurovascular and proprioceptive properties.

Reconstruction of the MPFL has become the gold-standard treatment for recurrent lateral patellar instability but has limitations and complications.3,7,12,17 Reconstruction techniques use either surface anatomy palpation (requiring large incisions) or fluoroscopy to identify tunnel placement locations, and accurate placement has often been difficult and inconsistent. Our repair technique has several advantages over reconstruction. It does not burn any bridges; it allows for subsequent reconstruction. It does not require a graft and, using small suture anchors instead of large sockets and anchors, involves less bone loss. It also allows for early repair of tears—patients can return to activities, sports, and work quicker—and avoids the risk of chondral and bony damage with recurrent dislocations. According to our review of the MPFL repairs performed by Dr. Hirahara starting in 2013, the procedure is quick and successful and has outstanding outcomes.

Another treatment option for recurrent lateral patellar instability combines reefing of the medial patellofemoral tissues with a lateral release. This combination has had several postoperative complications and is no longer indicated.9 TT transfer and trochleoplasty procedures have been developed to address different aspects of patellar instability, increased TT-TG distance, and dysplastic trochlea (Table 2). Both types of procedures are highly invasive and difficult to perform, requiring technical expertise. They are best used when warranted by the anatomy, but this is uncommon. The technique we have presented allows for easy and reliable repair of dislocations in the absence of associated pathology that would require larger, more complex surgery. The ease of use and accuracy of musculoskeletal ultrasound make this technique superior to others.

 

 

Conclusion

The MPFL is a vital static stabilizer of the patella and as such should be evaluated in the setting of patellar injury. The novel preoperative and intraoperative use of musculoskeletal ultrasound described in this article allows for easy real-time identification of the MPFL and simple and accurate percutaneous repair of torn structures. Nonoperative treatments of acute patellar dislocations have higher rates of recurrent dislocations, which put patella and trochlea at risk for bony and chondral damage. Given appropriate tear location and tissue quality, repairs should be considered early and before reconstruction. To our knowledge, a reliable, easily reproducible MPFL repair was not described until now. We have reported on use of such a technique and on its promising patient outcomes, which should be considered when addressing MPFL injuries.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

References

1. Desio SM, Burks RT, Bachus KN. Soft tissue restraints to lateral patellar translation in the human knee. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):59-65.

2. Nomura E, Inoue M, Osada N. Anatomical analysis of the medial patellofemoral ligament of the knee, especially the femoral attachment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(7):510-515.

3. Petri M, Ettinger M, Stuebig T, et al. Current concepts for patellar dislocation. Arch Trauma Res. 2015;4(3):e29301.

4. Sallay PI, Poggi J, Speer KP, Garrett WE. Acute dislocation of the patella. A correlative pathoanatomic study. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(1):52-60.

5. Tanaka MJ. Variability in the patellar attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(8):1667-1670.

6. Philippot R, Boyer B, Testa R, Farizon F, Moyen B. The role of the medial ligamentous structures on patellar tracking during knee flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(2):331-336.

7. Philippot R, Chouteau J, Wegrzyn J, Testa R, Fessy MH, Moyen B. Medial patellofemoral ligament anatomy: implications for its surgical reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(5):475-479.

8. Ahmad CS, Stein BE, Matuz D, Henry JH. Immediate surgical repair of the medial patellar stabilizers for acute patellar dislocation. A review of eight cases. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(6):804-810.

9. Song GY, Hong L, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li Y, Feng H. Iatrogenic medial patellar instability following lateral retinacular release of the knee joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(9):2825-2830.

10. McCarthy M, Ridley TJ, Bollier M, Wolf B, Albright J, Amendola A. Femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Iowa Orthop J. 2013;33:58-63.

11. Redfern J, Kamath G, Burks R. Anatomical confirmation of the use of radiographic landmarks in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):293-297.

12. Barnett AJ, Howells NR, Burston BJ, Ansari A, Clark D, Eldridge JD. Radiographic landmarks for tunnel placement in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(12):2380-2384.

13. Regalado G, Lintula H, Kokki H, Kröger H, Väätäinen U, Eskelinen M. Six-year outcome after non-surgical versus surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation in adolescents: a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(1):6-11.

14. Sandmeier RH, Burks RT, Bachus KN, Billings A. The effect of reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament on patellar tracking. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(3):345-349.

15. Baldwin JL. The anatomy of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2355-2361.

16. Steensen RN, Dopirak RM, McDonald WG 3rd. The anatomy and isometry of the medial patellofemoral ligament: implications for reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(6):1509-1513.

17. Godin JA, Karas V, Visgauss JD, Garrett WE. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using a femoral loop button fixation technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(5):e601-e607.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex and is a medical advisor to Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
152-157
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex and is a medical advisor to Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex and is a medical advisor to Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Take-Home Points

  • Use ultrasound to identify integrity and location of MPFL tear.
  • Anatomic repair allows native tissue to reintegrate into bone.
  • Repairs done early can prevent complications of recurrent instability.
  • Repair maintains biological and proprioceptive qualities of tissue.
  • 10Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair is quick and effective.

The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the primary passive restraint to lateral patellar excursion1-5 and helps control patellar tilt and rotation.6,7 More than 90% of lateral patellar dislocations cause the MPFL to rupture, and roughly 90% of these detachments involve the femoral insertion.4 Ensuing patellar instability often results from MPFL insufficiency. It has been suggested that re-creating the anatomy and functionality of this ligament is of utmost importance in restoring normal patellar biomechanics.1-5,7,8

Anatomical risk factors for recurrent patellar instability include patella alta, increased tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, trochlear dysplasia, and torsional abnormalities.1-4,6 A medial reefing technique with a lateral tissue release traditionally was used to restore proper kinematics, but was shown to have associated postoperative issues.9

Figure 1.
In recent years, ligamentous reconstruction has become the gold standard for surgical intervention.6-8 The precise location of the MPFL attachments, particularly at the femoral insertion, has been the subject of a great deal of debate.
Figure 2.
McCarthy and colleagues10 suggested that the anatomical location at the femur is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, but they noted that determining this location during surgery is difficult. Use of fluoroscopy has become the gold standard for identifying proper tunnel placement for reconstruction.10,11
Figure 3.
However, the inability of fluoroscopy to consistently identify the anatomical MPFL attachments has proved to be a shortcoming of this technique.11,12In this article, we present a novel technique for percutaneous repair of patella- or femur-side MPFL tears. It is performed with ultrasound guidance, which allows accurate identification of anatomy before and after surgery (Figures 1-3).
Table 1.
Ultrasound has several advantages over other techniques and has not been described in other published works on MPFL procedures (Table 1).

Methods

Patient Demographics

Dr. Hirahara developed this technique in 2013 and performed it 11 times between 2013 and 2016. Of the 11 patients, 1 was excluded from our retrospective analysis because of trochlear dysplasia, now considered a relative contraindication. Of the remaining 10 patients, 5 (50%) had the repair performed on the right knee. Eight patients (80%) were female. Mean (SD) age was 17.21 (3.53) years. One patient had concurrent femur- and patella-side detachments; otherwise, 6 (60%) of 10 repairs were performed exclusively at the patella. We grade patellar instability according to amount of glide based on patellar width and quadrants. Normal lateral displacement was usually 1 to 2 quadrants of lateral glide relative to the contralateral side. Before surgery, 6 (60%) of the 10 patients presented with lateral glide of 3 quadrants, and 3 (30%) presented with lateral glide of 4 quadrants. All had patellar instability apprehension on physical examination.

Surgical Indications

Before surgery, MPFL integrity is determined by ultrasound evaluation. Repair is considered if the MPFL has a femur- or patella-side tear and is of adequate quantity and quality, and if there are minimal or no arthritic changes (Table 2).

Table 2.
As the MPFL is the main constraint to lateral patellar displacement, patients continue to have excessive patellar instability if left insufficient.

Surgical Technique

The patient is brought to the operating room and placed supine. Patellar stability of the affected knee is assessed and compared with that of the contralateral side with patellar glide. The knee is prepared and draped in usual sterile fashion. With the knee flexed at 90º, a tourniquet is inflated. Diagnostic arthroscopy is performed with standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals, and, if necessary, arthroscopic procedures are performed.

Femoral Attachment Repair

With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify the tear at the femoral attachment (watch part 1 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the femoral insertion, typically just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle (Figure 4).10

Figure 4.
A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision through the tissue and down to the attachment. The area is débrided and abraded. A drill is used to create an appropriate socket, and a 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed into the attachment site. A suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass the sutures through the leading edge of the torn MPFL in horizontal mattress fashion and tie it to the anchor, completing the repair. Lateral glide and range of motion (ROM) are tested to ensure adequate tensioning, and ultrasound can be used to corroborate proper anchor placement.

 

 

Patellar Attachment Repair

With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify where the MPFL is detached from the patella (watch part 2 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the detachment site (Figure 5). A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision down to the patella.

Figure 5.
The area is débrided and abraded. A drill is used to create a socket. A 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak) is then placed into the socket. A suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion) is used to pass the suture through the leading edge of the torn MPFL and create a horizontal mattress suture. The attached wire with loop (FiberSnare; Arthrex) is then used to pass the suture back through the knotless anchor to create a knotless construct. The sutures are pulled and tightened, completing the repair. Lateral-glide and ROM testing and ultrasound evaluation are performed to ensure appropriate tensioning and anchor placement. If necessary, another anchor may be used with the patellar attachment, as its site is broader than the femoral attachment site.

In this description, we showcase knotless and knotted techniques for each repair site. Either method is appropriate for the 2 repair sites. Owing to the superficial nature of the attachment sites—they may have very little fat, particularly at the patella—knot stacks are more prominent, can be felt after surgery, and have the potential to irritate surrounding tissues. Therefore, we prefer knotless fixation for both sites.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation after MPFL repair is much like rehabilitation after quadriceps tendon repair. The patient is locked in a brace in full extension when up and moving. Early weight-bearing and minimal use of assistive devices (crutches) are allowed because, when the leg is in full extension, there is no tension at the repair sites. Rehabilitation begins within 1 week, and normal daily function is quickly attained. The protocol emphasizes pain-free motion and suitable patellar mobility, and allows the immobilizing brace to be unlocked for exercise and sitting. During the first 4 weeks, quadriceps activation is limited; progression to full ROM occurs by 4 to 6 weeks. During the strengthening phase, loading the knee in early flexion should be avoided. Return to heavy lifting, physical activity, and sports is delayed until after 6 months in order to allow the construct to mature and integrate. Once the patient has satisfied all the strength, ROM, and functional outcome measurements, a brace is no longer required during sports and normal activity.

Results

Mean tourniquet time for each procedure, which includes diagnostic arthroscopy and ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair, was 26.9 minutes.

Table 3.
After surgery, all patients had equivalent lateral patellar glides on the operated and contralateral knees (Table 3), complete resolution of pain and perceived instability, and full ROM, and they were able to return to their sports and usual activities. There were no complications, and no secondary surgeries required.

Discussion

Conservative management typically is recommended for acute patellar dislocations. In the event of failed conservative management or chronic patellar instability, surgical intervention is indicated. Studies have found that conservative management has recurrent-dislocation rates of 35% at 3-year follow-up and 73% at 6-year follow-up, and recurrent dislocations significantly increase patients’ risk of developing chondral and bony damage.13 MPFL repair is designed to restore proper patellar tracking and kinematics while maintaining the anatomical tissue. Lateral patellar dislocations often cause the MPFL to rupture; tears are reported in more than 90% of incidents.4 The significant rate indicates that, even after a single patellar dislocation, the MPFL should be evaluated. The MPFL contributes 50% to 60% of the medial stabilizing force during patellar tracking1,7,14 and is the primary restraint to lateral patellar excursion and excessive patellar tilt and rotation.1-5 Its absence plays a key role in recurrent lateral patellar instability. With this structure being so important, proper identification and intervention are vital. Studies have established that redislocation rates are significantly higher for nonoperatively (vs operatively) treated primary patellar dislocations.13 Simple and accurate percutaneous repair of the MPFL should be performed early to avoid the long-term complications of recurrent instability that could damage the cartilage and bone of the patella and trochlea.

The primary advantage of this technique is its novel use of musculoskeletal ultrasound to accurately identify anatomy and pathology and the placement of anatomical repairs. Accurate preoperative and intraoperative assessment of MPFL anatomy is vital to the success of a procedure. Descriptions of MPFL anatomy suggest discrepancies in the exact locations of the femoral and patellar attachments.2,5,7,10,12,15,16 Tanaka5 noted that, even within paired knees, there was “marked variability” in the MPFL insertions. McCarthy and colleagues10 contended the femoral attachment of the MPFL is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, the landmark addressed in this technique. Steensen and colleagues16 described this attachment site as being statistically the “single most important point affecting isometry” of the MPFL. Sallay and colleagues4 asserted that an overwhelming majority of MPFL tears (87%) occur at the adductor tubercle. The variable distribution of tear locations and the importance of re-creating patient anatomy further highlight the need for individualized treatment, which is afforded by ultrasound. Fluoroscopy has been inadequate in identifying MPFL anatomy; this modality is difficult, cumbersome, inaccurate, and inconsistent.11,12 Conversely, ultrasound provides real-time visualization of anatomy and allows for precise identification of MPFL attachments and accurate placement of suture anchors for repair during surgery (Figures 3, 4).

For femur-side and patella-side tears, repairs can and should be performed. For midsubstance tears, however, repair is not feasible, and reconstruction is appropriate. MPFL repair is superior to reconstruction in several ways. Repair is a simple percutaneous procedure that had a mean tourniquet time of 26.9 minutes in this study. For tissue that is quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, repair allows the structure to reintegrate into bone without total reconstruction. In the event of multiple tears, the percutaneous procedure allows for repair of each attachment. As the MPFL sits between the second and third tissue layers of the medial knee, reconstruction can be difficult and invasive and require establishment of a between-layers plane, which can disrupt adjacent tissue.4,7,17 Repair also maintains native tissue and its neurovascular and proprioceptive properties.

Reconstruction of the MPFL has become the gold-standard treatment for recurrent lateral patellar instability but has limitations and complications.3,7,12,17 Reconstruction techniques use either surface anatomy palpation (requiring large incisions) or fluoroscopy to identify tunnel placement locations, and accurate placement has often been difficult and inconsistent. Our repair technique has several advantages over reconstruction. It does not burn any bridges; it allows for subsequent reconstruction. It does not require a graft and, using small suture anchors instead of large sockets and anchors, involves less bone loss. It also allows for early repair of tears—patients can return to activities, sports, and work quicker—and avoids the risk of chondral and bony damage with recurrent dislocations. According to our review of the MPFL repairs performed by Dr. Hirahara starting in 2013, the procedure is quick and successful and has outstanding outcomes.

Another treatment option for recurrent lateral patellar instability combines reefing of the medial patellofemoral tissues with a lateral release. This combination has had several postoperative complications and is no longer indicated.9 TT transfer and trochleoplasty procedures have been developed to address different aspects of patellar instability, increased TT-TG distance, and dysplastic trochlea (Table 2). Both types of procedures are highly invasive and difficult to perform, requiring technical expertise. They are best used when warranted by the anatomy, but this is uncommon. The technique we have presented allows for easy and reliable repair of dislocations in the absence of associated pathology that would require larger, more complex surgery. The ease of use and accuracy of musculoskeletal ultrasound make this technique superior to others.

 

 

Conclusion

The MPFL is a vital static stabilizer of the patella and as such should be evaluated in the setting of patellar injury. The novel preoperative and intraoperative use of musculoskeletal ultrasound described in this article allows for easy real-time identification of the MPFL and simple and accurate percutaneous repair of torn structures. Nonoperative treatments of acute patellar dislocations have higher rates of recurrent dislocations, which put patella and trochlea at risk for bony and chondral damage. Given appropriate tear location and tissue quality, repairs should be considered early and before reconstruction. To our knowledge, a reliable, easily reproducible MPFL repair was not described until now. We have reported on use of such a technique and on its promising patient outcomes, which should be considered when addressing MPFL injuries.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

  • Use ultrasound to identify integrity and location of MPFL tear.
  • Anatomic repair allows native tissue to reintegrate into bone.
  • Repairs done early can prevent complications of recurrent instability.
  • Repair maintains biological and proprioceptive qualities of tissue.
  • 10Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair is quick and effective.

The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the primary passive restraint to lateral patellar excursion1-5 and helps control patellar tilt and rotation.6,7 More than 90% of lateral patellar dislocations cause the MPFL to rupture, and roughly 90% of these detachments involve the femoral insertion.4 Ensuing patellar instability often results from MPFL insufficiency. It has been suggested that re-creating the anatomy and functionality of this ligament is of utmost importance in restoring normal patellar biomechanics.1-5,7,8

Anatomical risk factors for recurrent patellar instability include patella alta, increased tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, trochlear dysplasia, and torsional abnormalities.1-4,6 A medial reefing technique with a lateral tissue release traditionally was used to restore proper kinematics, but was shown to have associated postoperative issues.9

Figure 1.
In recent years, ligamentous reconstruction has become the gold standard for surgical intervention.6-8 The precise location of the MPFL attachments, particularly at the femoral insertion, has been the subject of a great deal of debate.
Figure 2.
McCarthy and colleagues10 suggested that the anatomical location at the femur is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, but they noted that determining this location during surgery is difficult. Use of fluoroscopy has become the gold standard for identifying proper tunnel placement for reconstruction.10,11
Figure 3.
However, the inability of fluoroscopy to consistently identify the anatomical MPFL attachments has proved to be a shortcoming of this technique.11,12In this article, we present a novel technique for percutaneous repair of patella- or femur-side MPFL tears. It is performed with ultrasound guidance, which allows accurate identification of anatomy before and after surgery (Figures 1-3).
Table 1.
Ultrasound has several advantages over other techniques and has not been described in other published works on MPFL procedures (Table 1).

Methods

Patient Demographics

Dr. Hirahara developed this technique in 2013 and performed it 11 times between 2013 and 2016. Of the 11 patients, 1 was excluded from our retrospective analysis because of trochlear dysplasia, now considered a relative contraindication. Of the remaining 10 patients, 5 (50%) had the repair performed on the right knee. Eight patients (80%) were female. Mean (SD) age was 17.21 (3.53) years. One patient had concurrent femur- and patella-side detachments; otherwise, 6 (60%) of 10 repairs were performed exclusively at the patella. We grade patellar instability according to amount of glide based on patellar width and quadrants. Normal lateral displacement was usually 1 to 2 quadrants of lateral glide relative to the contralateral side. Before surgery, 6 (60%) of the 10 patients presented with lateral glide of 3 quadrants, and 3 (30%) presented with lateral glide of 4 quadrants. All had patellar instability apprehension on physical examination.

Surgical Indications

Before surgery, MPFL integrity is determined by ultrasound evaluation. Repair is considered if the MPFL has a femur- or patella-side tear and is of adequate quantity and quality, and if there are minimal or no arthritic changes (Table 2).

Table 2.
As the MPFL is the main constraint to lateral patellar displacement, patients continue to have excessive patellar instability if left insufficient.

Surgical Technique

The patient is brought to the operating room and placed supine. Patellar stability of the affected knee is assessed and compared with that of the contralateral side with patellar glide. The knee is prepared and draped in usual sterile fashion. With the knee flexed at 90º, a tourniquet is inflated. Diagnostic arthroscopy is performed with standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals, and, if necessary, arthroscopic procedures are performed.

Femoral Attachment Repair

With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify the tear at the femoral attachment (watch part 1 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the femoral insertion, typically just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle (Figure 4).10

Figure 4.
A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision through the tissue and down to the attachment. The area is débrided and abraded. A drill is used to create an appropriate socket, and a 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed into the attachment site. A suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass the sutures through the leading edge of the torn MPFL in horizontal mattress fashion and tie it to the anchor, completing the repair. Lateral glide and range of motion (ROM) are tested to ensure adequate tensioning, and ultrasound can be used to corroborate proper anchor placement.

 

 

Patellar Attachment Repair

With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify where the MPFL is detached from the patella (watch part 2 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the detachment site (Figure 5). A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision down to the patella.

Figure 5.
The area is débrided and abraded. A drill is used to create a socket. A 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak) is then placed into the socket. A suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion) is used to pass the suture through the leading edge of the torn MPFL and create a horizontal mattress suture. The attached wire with loop (FiberSnare; Arthrex) is then used to pass the suture back through the knotless anchor to create a knotless construct. The sutures are pulled and tightened, completing the repair. Lateral-glide and ROM testing and ultrasound evaluation are performed to ensure appropriate tensioning and anchor placement. If necessary, another anchor may be used with the patellar attachment, as its site is broader than the femoral attachment site.

In this description, we showcase knotless and knotted techniques for each repair site. Either method is appropriate for the 2 repair sites. Owing to the superficial nature of the attachment sites—they may have very little fat, particularly at the patella—knot stacks are more prominent, can be felt after surgery, and have the potential to irritate surrounding tissues. Therefore, we prefer knotless fixation for both sites.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation after MPFL repair is much like rehabilitation after quadriceps tendon repair. The patient is locked in a brace in full extension when up and moving. Early weight-bearing and minimal use of assistive devices (crutches) are allowed because, when the leg is in full extension, there is no tension at the repair sites. Rehabilitation begins within 1 week, and normal daily function is quickly attained. The protocol emphasizes pain-free motion and suitable patellar mobility, and allows the immobilizing brace to be unlocked for exercise and sitting. During the first 4 weeks, quadriceps activation is limited; progression to full ROM occurs by 4 to 6 weeks. During the strengthening phase, loading the knee in early flexion should be avoided. Return to heavy lifting, physical activity, and sports is delayed until after 6 months in order to allow the construct to mature and integrate. Once the patient has satisfied all the strength, ROM, and functional outcome measurements, a brace is no longer required during sports and normal activity.

Results

Mean tourniquet time for each procedure, which includes diagnostic arthroscopy and ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair, was 26.9 minutes.

Table 3.
After surgery, all patients had equivalent lateral patellar glides on the operated and contralateral knees (Table 3), complete resolution of pain and perceived instability, and full ROM, and they were able to return to their sports and usual activities. There were no complications, and no secondary surgeries required.

Discussion

Conservative management typically is recommended for acute patellar dislocations. In the event of failed conservative management or chronic patellar instability, surgical intervention is indicated. Studies have found that conservative management has recurrent-dislocation rates of 35% at 3-year follow-up and 73% at 6-year follow-up, and recurrent dislocations significantly increase patients’ risk of developing chondral and bony damage.13 MPFL repair is designed to restore proper patellar tracking and kinematics while maintaining the anatomical tissue. Lateral patellar dislocations often cause the MPFL to rupture; tears are reported in more than 90% of incidents.4 The significant rate indicates that, even after a single patellar dislocation, the MPFL should be evaluated. The MPFL contributes 50% to 60% of the medial stabilizing force during patellar tracking1,7,14 and is the primary restraint to lateral patellar excursion and excessive patellar tilt and rotation.1-5 Its absence plays a key role in recurrent lateral patellar instability. With this structure being so important, proper identification and intervention are vital. Studies have established that redislocation rates are significantly higher for nonoperatively (vs operatively) treated primary patellar dislocations.13 Simple and accurate percutaneous repair of the MPFL should be performed early to avoid the long-term complications of recurrent instability that could damage the cartilage and bone of the patella and trochlea.

The primary advantage of this technique is its novel use of musculoskeletal ultrasound to accurately identify anatomy and pathology and the placement of anatomical repairs. Accurate preoperative and intraoperative assessment of MPFL anatomy is vital to the success of a procedure. Descriptions of MPFL anatomy suggest discrepancies in the exact locations of the femoral and patellar attachments.2,5,7,10,12,15,16 Tanaka5 noted that, even within paired knees, there was “marked variability” in the MPFL insertions. McCarthy and colleagues10 contended the femoral attachment of the MPFL is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, the landmark addressed in this technique. Steensen and colleagues16 described this attachment site as being statistically the “single most important point affecting isometry” of the MPFL. Sallay and colleagues4 asserted that an overwhelming majority of MPFL tears (87%) occur at the adductor tubercle. The variable distribution of tear locations and the importance of re-creating patient anatomy further highlight the need for individualized treatment, which is afforded by ultrasound. Fluoroscopy has been inadequate in identifying MPFL anatomy; this modality is difficult, cumbersome, inaccurate, and inconsistent.11,12 Conversely, ultrasound provides real-time visualization of anatomy and allows for precise identification of MPFL attachments and accurate placement of suture anchors for repair during surgery (Figures 3, 4).

For femur-side and patella-side tears, repairs can and should be performed. For midsubstance tears, however, repair is not feasible, and reconstruction is appropriate. MPFL repair is superior to reconstruction in several ways. Repair is a simple percutaneous procedure that had a mean tourniquet time of 26.9 minutes in this study. For tissue that is quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, repair allows the structure to reintegrate into bone without total reconstruction. In the event of multiple tears, the percutaneous procedure allows for repair of each attachment. As the MPFL sits between the second and third tissue layers of the medial knee, reconstruction can be difficult and invasive and require establishment of a between-layers plane, which can disrupt adjacent tissue.4,7,17 Repair also maintains native tissue and its neurovascular and proprioceptive properties.

Reconstruction of the MPFL has become the gold-standard treatment for recurrent lateral patellar instability but has limitations and complications.3,7,12,17 Reconstruction techniques use either surface anatomy palpation (requiring large incisions) or fluoroscopy to identify tunnel placement locations, and accurate placement has often been difficult and inconsistent. Our repair technique has several advantages over reconstruction. It does not burn any bridges; it allows for subsequent reconstruction. It does not require a graft and, using small suture anchors instead of large sockets and anchors, involves less bone loss. It also allows for early repair of tears—patients can return to activities, sports, and work quicker—and avoids the risk of chondral and bony damage with recurrent dislocations. According to our review of the MPFL repairs performed by Dr. Hirahara starting in 2013, the procedure is quick and successful and has outstanding outcomes.

Another treatment option for recurrent lateral patellar instability combines reefing of the medial patellofemoral tissues with a lateral release. This combination has had several postoperative complications and is no longer indicated.9 TT transfer and trochleoplasty procedures have been developed to address different aspects of patellar instability, increased TT-TG distance, and dysplastic trochlea (Table 2). Both types of procedures are highly invasive and difficult to perform, requiring technical expertise. They are best used when warranted by the anatomy, but this is uncommon. The technique we have presented allows for easy and reliable repair of dislocations in the absence of associated pathology that would require larger, more complex surgery. The ease of use and accuracy of musculoskeletal ultrasound make this technique superior to others.

 

 

Conclusion

The MPFL is a vital static stabilizer of the patella and as such should be evaluated in the setting of patellar injury. The novel preoperative and intraoperative use of musculoskeletal ultrasound described in this article allows for easy real-time identification of the MPFL and simple and accurate percutaneous repair of torn structures. Nonoperative treatments of acute patellar dislocations have higher rates of recurrent dislocations, which put patella and trochlea at risk for bony and chondral damage. Given appropriate tear location and tissue quality, repairs should be considered early and before reconstruction. To our knowledge, a reliable, easily reproducible MPFL repair was not described until now. We have reported on use of such a technique and on its promising patient outcomes, which should be considered when addressing MPFL injuries.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

References

1. Desio SM, Burks RT, Bachus KN. Soft tissue restraints to lateral patellar translation in the human knee. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):59-65.

2. Nomura E, Inoue M, Osada N. Anatomical analysis of the medial patellofemoral ligament of the knee, especially the femoral attachment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(7):510-515.

3. Petri M, Ettinger M, Stuebig T, et al. Current concepts for patellar dislocation. Arch Trauma Res. 2015;4(3):e29301.

4. Sallay PI, Poggi J, Speer KP, Garrett WE. Acute dislocation of the patella. A correlative pathoanatomic study. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(1):52-60.

5. Tanaka MJ. Variability in the patellar attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(8):1667-1670.

6. Philippot R, Boyer B, Testa R, Farizon F, Moyen B. The role of the medial ligamentous structures on patellar tracking during knee flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(2):331-336.

7. Philippot R, Chouteau J, Wegrzyn J, Testa R, Fessy MH, Moyen B. Medial patellofemoral ligament anatomy: implications for its surgical reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(5):475-479.

8. Ahmad CS, Stein BE, Matuz D, Henry JH. Immediate surgical repair of the medial patellar stabilizers for acute patellar dislocation. A review of eight cases. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(6):804-810.

9. Song GY, Hong L, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li Y, Feng H. Iatrogenic medial patellar instability following lateral retinacular release of the knee joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(9):2825-2830.

10. McCarthy M, Ridley TJ, Bollier M, Wolf B, Albright J, Amendola A. Femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Iowa Orthop J. 2013;33:58-63.

11. Redfern J, Kamath G, Burks R. Anatomical confirmation of the use of radiographic landmarks in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):293-297.

12. Barnett AJ, Howells NR, Burston BJ, Ansari A, Clark D, Eldridge JD. Radiographic landmarks for tunnel placement in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(12):2380-2384.

13. Regalado G, Lintula H, Kokki H, Kröger H, Väätäinen U, Eskelinen M. Six-year outcome after non-surgical versus surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation in adolescents: a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(1):6-11.

14. Sandmeier RH, Burks RT, Bachus KN, Billings A. The effect of reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament on patellar tracking. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(3):345-349.

15. Baldwin JL. The anatomy of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2355-2361.

16. Steensen RN, Dopirak RM, McDonald WG 3rd. The anatomy and isometry of the medial patellofemoral ligament: implications for reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(6):1509-1513.

17. Godin JA, Karas V, Visgauss JD, Garrett WE. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using a femoral loop button fixation technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(5):e601-e607.

References

1. Desio SM, Burks RT, Bachus KN. Soft tissue restraints to lateral patellar translation in the human knee. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):59-65.

2. Nomura E, Inoue M, Osada N. Anatomical analysis of the medial patellofemoral ligament of the knee, especially the femoral attachment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(7):510-515.

3. Petri M, Ettinger M, Stuebig T, et al. Current concepts for patellar dislocation. Arch Trauma Res. 2015;4(3):e29301.

4. Sallay PI, Poggi J, Speer KP, Garrett WE. Acute dislocation of the patella. A correlative pathoanatomic study. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(1):52-60.

5. Tanaka MJ. Variability in the patellar attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(8):1667-1670.

6. Philippot R, Boyer B, Testa R, Farizon F, Moyen B. The role of the medial ligamentous structures on patellar tracking during knee flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(2):331-336.

7. Philippot R, Chouteau J, Wegrzyn J, Testa R, Fessy MH, Moyen B. Medial patellofemoral ligament anatomy: implications for its surgical reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(5):475-479.

8. Ahmad CS, Stein BE, Matuz D, Henry JH. Immediate surgical repair of the medial patellar stabilizers for acute patellar dislocation. A review of eight cases. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(6):804-810.

9. Song GY, Hong L, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li Y, Feng H. Iatrogenic medial patellar instability following lateral retinacular release of the knee joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(9):2825-2830.

10. McCarthy M, Ridley TJ, Bollier M, Wolf B, Albright J, Amendola A. Femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Iowa Orthop J. 2013;33:58-63.

11. Redfern J, Kamath G, Burks R. Anatomical confirmation of the use of radiographic landmarks in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):293-297.

12. Barnett AJ, Howells NR, Burston BJ, Ansari A, Clark D, Eldridge JD. Radiographic landmarks for tunnel placement in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(12):2380-2384.

13. Regalado G, Lintula H, Kokki H, Kröger H, Väätäinen U, Eskelinen M. Six-year outcome after non-surgical versus surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation in adolescents: a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(1):6-11.

14. Sandmeier RH, Burks RT, Bachus KN, Billings A. The effect of reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament on patellar tracking. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(3):345-349.

15. Baldwin JL. The anatomy of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2355-2361.

16. Steensen RN, Dopirak RM, McDonald WG 3rd. The anatomy and isometry of the medial patellofemoral ligament: implications for reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(6):1509-1513.

17. Godin JA, Karas V, Visgauss JD, Garrett WE. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using a femoral loop button fixation technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(5):e601-e607.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(3)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(3)
Page Number
152-157
Page Number
152-157
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Repair of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament: Surgical Technique and Outcomes
Display Headline
Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Repair of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament: Surgical Technique and Outcomes
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Repair

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:22
Display Headline
Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Repair

 

Video, Part 1. Femoral Attachment

1. Ultrasound is used to identify femoral and patellar attachments of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL).

2. MPFL is followed from patella to its attachment near adductor tubercle.

3. In-plane ultrasound guidance is used to place needle anterior and distal to tubercle.

4. Percutaneous incision is made down to needle tip. Spear is placed at needle tip for anatomical placement of socket.

5. Socket is drilled.

6. 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed.

7. Leading edge of torn MPFL is identified.

8. Suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass sutures through leading edge of torn MPFL to create horizontal mattress.

9. Sutures are tied.

10. Repair is complete.

 

Video, Part 2. Patellar Attachment

1. Ultrasound is used to scan patella to identify ideal or exact location of tear. In-plane ultrasound guidance is used to place spinal needle at desired socket location.

2. After spinal needle is positioned, in-line percutaneous incision is made, and needle is palpated at patella.

3. Spear is then placed at spinal needle tip for anatomical positioning of socket.

4. Socket is drilled.

5. 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed in socket.

6. Leading edge of torn medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is identified.

7. Suture passer (Labral Past Pass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass suture from anchor in horizontal mattress fashion through leading edge of torn MPFL.

8. Wire with loop (FiberSnare; Arthrex) is used as part of knotless technology to pull suture back through anchor to create knotless fixation.

9. Suture is pulled for appropriate tensioning of tissue.

10. Ultrasound is used to visualize construct to confirm that MPFL tissue abuts anchor and that repair is complete.

 

 

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Video, Part 1. Femoral Attachment

1. Ultrasound is used to identify femoral and patellar attachments of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL).

2. MPFL is followed from patella to its attachment near adductor tubercle.

3. In-plane ultrasound guidance is used to place needle anterior and distal to tubercle.

4. Percutaneous incision is made down to needle tip. Spear is placed at needle tip for anatomical placement of socket.

5. Socket is drilled.

6. 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed.

7. Leading edge of torn MPFL is identified.

8. Suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass sutures through leading edge of torn MPFL to create horizontal mattress.

9. Sutures are tied.

10. Repair is complete.

 

Video, Part 2. Patellar Attachment

1. Ultrasound is used to scan patella to identify ideal or exact location of tear. In-plane ultrasound guidance is used to place spinal needle at desired socket location.

2. After spinal needle is positioned, in-line percutaneous incision is made, and needle is palpated at patella.

3. Spear is then placed at spinal needle tip for anatomical positioning of socket.

4. Socket is drilled.

5. 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed in socket.

6. Leading edge of torn medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is identified.

7. Suture passer (Labral Past Pass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass suture from anchor in horizontal mattress fashion through leading edge of torn MPFL.

8. Wire with loop (FiberSnare; Arthrex) is used as part of knotless technology to pull suture back through anchor to create knotless fixation.

9. Suture is pulled for appropriate tensioning of tissue.

10. Ultrasound is used to visualize construct to confirm that MPFL tissue abuts anchor and that repair is complete.

 

 

 

Video, Part 1. Femoral Attachment

1. Ultrasound is used to identify femoral and patellar attachments of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL).

2. MPFL is followed from patella to its attachment near adductor tubercle.

3. In-plane ultrasound guidance is used to place needle anterior and distal to tubercle.

4. Percutaneous incision is made down to needle tip. Spear is placed at needle tip for anatomical placement of socket.

5. Socket is drilled.

6. 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed.

7. Leading edge of torn MPFL is identified.

8. Suture passer (Labral FastPass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass sutures through leading edge of torn MPFL to create horizontal mattress.

9. Sutures are tied.

10. Repair is complete.

 

Video, Part 2. Patellar Attachment

1. Ultrasound is used to scan patella to identify ideal or exact location of tear. In-plane ultrasound guidance is used to place spinal needle at desired socket location.

2. After spinal needle is positioned, in-line percutaneous incision is made, and needle is palpated at patella.

3. Spear is then placed at spinal needle tip for anatomical positioning of socket.

4. Socket is drilled.

5. 3.0-mm suture anchor (BioComposite Knotless SutureTak; Arthrex) is placed in socket.

6. Leading edge of torn medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is identified.

7. Suture passer (Labral Past Pass Scorpion; Arthrex) is used to pass suture from anchor in horizontal mattress fashion through leading edge of torn MPFL.

8. Wire with loop (FiberSnare; Arthrex) is used as part of knotless technology to pull suture back through anchor to create knotless fixation.

9. Suture is pulled for appropriate tensioning of tissue.

10. Ultrasound is used to visualize construct to confirm that MPFL tissue abuts anchor and that repair is complete.

 

 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Repair
Display Headline
Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Repair
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

High-Resolution Wireless Ultrasound

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:22
Display Headline
High-Resolution Wireless Ultrasound

Arthrex Synergy MSK Ultrasound by Clarius(http://www.synergy-ultrasound.com/)

Arthrex Synergy MSK Ultrasound by Clarius is a new wireless ultrasound scanner that can connect to any iOS or Android device through a secure WiFi Direct connection. The scanner sets up the connection to an app on the device. Ultrasound and wireless technology have been around for decades, but combinations thereof have produced poor results. The main challenge has been to create and wirelessly transmit high-quality images without latency to a display while maintaining a reasonably sized transducer. Handheld ultrasound transducers scan effectively and process the scanned information in compact form. Recent advances in image processing and proprietary imaging algorithms now allow creation of high-resolution images comparable to those produced by most midrange or high-range machines costing $30,000 to $50,000. This new unit costs about $12,000. Ultrasound use has increased over the past decade. Numerous studies have found improved accuracy, efficacy, and outcomes of injections, and reduced pain, with ultrasound-guided injections over blind injections, and cost savings over magnetic resonance imaging.1-12

Three scanners are capable of targeting different tissue types and depths. We prefer the Synergy MSK Linear Ultrasound by Clarius, a linear transducer that can evaluate tissue to depths of 7 cm and use frequencies from 4 MHz to 13 MHz. Its battery holds a standby charge for 7 days and can be actively used for 45 minutes. The unit has a magnesium shell; with the battery removed, the unit can be completely immersed in liquid without being damaged, which allows for easy cleaning and, potentially, sterilization with a soak solution. Color Doppler (for blood-flow assessment) and proprietary advanced needle visualization technology will be available in June.

The app is simply controlled with typical smart-device gestures. Depth control requires a finger swipe, and zoom takes a pinch. Other controls, such as optimal gain and frequency settings, are automated. Images and videos can be stored on the device and uploaded either to the Clarius Cloud or to a PACS (picture archiving and communication system) device. New features will allow the device to use a Synergy arthroscopy tower (Arthrex) as its display for surgeons and anesthesiologists in the surgical suite.

This technology finally allows ultrasound to be used in the operating room without the hassles of cumbersome machines and the potential contamination by the sleeves covering the cord that connects the transducer and the base unit (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
In addition, image viewing is easier with wireless technology, which works with all displays, including the same large 4K monitors used for arthroscopy. The current ultrasound systems’ fixed small screens, most less than 10 inches in size, need no longer be used.

Recent studies have demonstrated new ultrasound-guided surgical techniques for biceps tenodesis,4 anterolateral ligament reconstruction,13 medial patellofemoral ligament repair or reconstruction,14 and medial collateral ligament internal bracing.4

This small device can also be easily used on sports fields, as it can be carried in a pocket with a smart phone or tablet. With its 10- to 15-second start-up, it is readily available and allows for immediate evaluation of a player. No longer does a player need to be taken off the field for a radiograph. The same advantage of portability means the unit is appropriate for emergency department physicians and staff.
Figure 2.
The simplicity of the device allows personnel to quickly assess patients and obtain central or peripheral intravenous access and nerve blocks without having to locate an ultrasound machine in a large, busy facility (Figure 2).

Surgical pearl: Overall, ultrasound is an imaging technology that has improved the accuracy and efficacy of injections. Wireless capability, portability, and versatility with high-resolution images improve this modality further and extend our reach into surgical, office, hospital, and sports settings. The ease, convenience, and reasonable price of high-resolution wireless ultrasound make it an attractive tool for physicians, nursing staff, athletic trainers, and physical therapists.

References

1. Eustace JA, Brophy DP, Gibney RP, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.

2. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.

3. Henkus HE, Cobben LP, Coerkamp EG, Nelissen RG, van Arkel ER. The accuracy of subacromial injections: a prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.

4. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.

5. Kang MN, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas DA, Blacksin MF. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: a comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 suppl):61S-66S.

6. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.

7. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238.

8. Partington PF, Broome GH. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.

9. Rutten MJ, Maresch BJ, Jager GJ, de Waal Malefijt MC. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.

10. Sethi PM, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: a cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.

11. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.

12. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: an arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(8):887-891.

13. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460.

14. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of the medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. In press.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex and is a medical advisor to Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
109-110
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex and is a medical advisor to Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives consultant, royalty, and research support from Arthrex and is a medical advisor to Clarius Mobile Health. Mr. Andersen reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Arthrex Synergy MSK Ultrasound by Clarius(http://www.synergy-ultrasound.com/)

Arthrex Synergy MSK Ultrasound by Clarius is a new wireless ultrasound scanner that can connect to any iOS or Android device through a secure WiFi Direct connection. The scanner sets up the connection to an app on the device. Ultrasound and wireless technology have been around for decades, but combinations thereof have produced poor results. The main challenge has been to create and wirelessly transmit high-quality images without latency to a display while maintaining a reasonably sized transducer. Handheld ultrasound transducers scan effectively and process the scanned information in compact form. Recent advances in image processing and proprietary imaging algorithms now allow creation of high-resolution images comparable to those produced by most midrange or high-range machines costing $30,000 to $50,000. This new unit costs about $12,000. Ultrasound use has increased over the past decade. Numerous studies have found improved accuracy, efficacy, and outcomes of injections, and reduced pain, with ultrasound-guided injections over blind injections, and cost savings over magnetic resonance imaging.1-12

Three scanners are capable of targeting different tissue types and depths. We prefer the Synergy MSK Linear Ultrasound by Clarius, a linear transducer that can evaluate tissue to depths of 7 cm and use frequencies from 4 MHz to 13 MHz. Its battery holds a standby charge for 7 days and can be actively used for 45 minutes. The unit has a magnesium shell; with the battery removed, the unit can be completely immersed in liquid without being damaged, which allows for easy cleaning and, potentially, sterilization with a soak solution. Color Doppler (for blood-flow assessment) and proprietary advanced needle visualization technology will be available in June.

The app is simply controlled with typical smart-device gestures. Depth control requires a finger swipe, and zoom takes a pinch. Other controls, such as optimal gain and frequency settings, are automated. Images and videos can be stored on the device and uploaded either to the Clarius Cloud or to a PACS (picture archiving and communication system) device. New features will allow the device to use a Synergy arthroscopy tower (Arthrex) as its display for surgeons and anesthesiologists in the surgical suite.

This technology finally allows ultrasound to be used in the operating room without the hassles of cumbersome machines and the potential contamination by the sleeves covering the cord that connects the transducer and the base unit (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
In addition, image viewing is easier with wireless technology, which works with all displays, including the same large 4K monitors used for arthroscopy. The current ultrasound systems’ fixed small screens, most less than 10 inches in size, need no longer be used.

Recent studies have demonstrated new ultrasound-guided surgical techniques for biceps tenodesis,4 anterolateral ligament reconstruction,13 medial patellofemoral ligament repair or reconstruction,14 and medial collateral ligament internal bracing.4

This small device can also be easily used on sports fields, as it can be carried in a pocket with a smart phone or tablet. With its 10- to 15-second start-up, it is readily available and allows for immediate evaluation of a player. No longer does a player need to be taken off the field for a radiograph. The same advantage of portability means the unit is appropriate for emergency department physicians and staff.
Figure 2.
The simplicity of the device allows personnel to quickly assess patients and obtain central or peripheral intravenous access and nerve blocks without having to locate an ultrasound machine in a large, busy facility (Figure 2).

Surgical pearl: Overall, ultrasound is an imaging technology that has improved the accuracy and efficacy of injections. Wireless capability, portability, and versatility with high-resolution images improve this modality further and extend our reach into surgical, office, hospital, and sports settings. The ease, convenience, and reasonable price of high-resolution wireless ultrasound make it an attractive tool for physicians, nursing staff, athletic trainers, and physical therapists.

Arthrex Synergy MSK Ultrasound by Clarius(http://www.synergy-ultrasound.com/)

Arthrex Synergy MSK Ultrasound by Clarius is a new wireless ultrasound scanner that can connect to any iOS or Android device through a secure WiFi Direct connection. The scanner sets up the connection to an app on the device. Ultrasound and wireless technology have been around for decades, but combinations thereof have produced poor results. The main challenge has been to create and wirelessly transmit high-quality images without latency to a display while maintaining a reasonably sized transducer. Handheld ultrasound transducers scan effectively and process the scanned information in compact form. Recent advances in image processing and proprietary imaging algorithms now allow creation of high-resolution images comparable to those produced by most midrange or high-range machines costing $30,000 to $50,000. This new unit costs about $12,000. Ultrasound use has increased over the past decade. Numerous studies have found improved accuracy, efficacy, and outcomes of injections, and reduced pain, with ultrasound-guided injections over blind injections, and cost savings over magnetic resonance imaging.1-12

Three scanners are capable of targeting different tissue types and depths. We prefer the Synergy MSK Linear Ultrasound by Clarius, a linear transducer that can evaluate tissue to depths of 7 cm and use frequencies from 4 MHz to 13 MHz. Its battery holds a standby charge for 7 days and can be actively used for 45 minutes. The unit has a magnesium shell; with the battery removed, the unit can be completely immersed in liquid without being damaged, which allows for easy cleaning and, potentially, sterilization with a soak solution. Color Doppler (for blood-flow assessment) and proprietary advanced needle visualization technology will be available in June.

The app is simply controlled with typical smart-device gestures. Depth control requires a finger swipe, and zoom takes a pinch. Other controls, such as optimal gain and frequency settings, are automated. Images and videos can be stored on the device and uploaded either to the Clarius Cloud or to a PACS (picture archiving and communication system) device. New features will allow the device to use a Synergy arthroscopy tower (Arthrex) as its display for surgeons and anesthesiologists in the surgical suite.

This technology finally allows ultrasound to be used in the operating room without the hassles of cumbersome machines and the potential contamination by the sleeves covering the cord that connects the transducer and the base unit (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
In addition, image viewing is easier with wireless technology, which works with all displays, including the same large 4K monitors used for arthroscopy. The current ultrasound systems’ fixed small screens, most less than 10 inches in size, need no longer be used.

Recent studies have demonstrated new ultrasound-guided surgical techniques for biceps tenodesis,4 anterolateral ligament reconstruction,13 medial patellofemoral ligament repair or reconstruction,14 and medial collateral ligament internal bracing.4

This small device can also be easily used on sports fields, as it can be carried in a pocket with a smart phone or tablet. With its 10- to 15-second start-up, it is readily available and allows for immediate evaluation of a player. No longer does a player need to be taken off the field for a radiograph. The same advantage of portability means the unit is appropriate for emergency department physicians and staff.
Figure 2.
The simplicity of the device allows personnel to quickly assess patients and obtain central or peripheral intravenous access and nerve blocks without having to locate an ultrasound machine in a large, busy facility (Figure 2).

Surgical pearl: Overall, ultrasound is an imaging technology that has improved the accuracy and efficacy of injections. Wireless capability, portability, and versatility with high-resolution images improve this modality further and extend our reach into surgical, office, hospital, and sports settings. The ease, convenience, and reasonable price of high-resolution wireless ultrasound make it an attractive tool for physicians, nursing staff, athletic trainers, and physical therapists.

References

1. Eustace JA, Brophy DP, Gibney RP, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.

2. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.

3. Henkus HE, Cobben LP, Coerkamp EG, Nelissen RG, van Arkel ER. The accuracy of subacromial injections: a prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.

4. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.

5. Kang MN, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas DA, Blacksin MF. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: a comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 suppl):61S-66S.

6. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.

7. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238.

8. Partington PF, Broome GH. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.

9. Rutten MJ, Maresch BJ, Jager GJ, de Waal Malefijt MC. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.

10. Sethi PM, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: a cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.

11. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.

12. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: an arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(8):887-891.

13. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460.

14. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of the medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. In press.

References

1. Eustace JA, Brophy DP, Gibney RP, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.

2. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.

3. Henkus HE, Cobben LP, Coerkamp EG, Nelissen RG, van Arkel ER. The accuracy of subacromial injections: a prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.

4. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.

5. Kang MN, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas DA, Blacksin MF. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: a comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 suppl):61S-66S.

6. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.

7. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238.

8. Partington PF, Broome GH. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.

9. Rutten MJ, Maresch BJ, Jager GJ, de Waal Malefijt MC. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.

10. Sethi PM, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: a cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.

11. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.

12. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: an arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(8):887-891.

13. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460.

14. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of the medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. In press.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(2)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(2)
Page Number
109-110
Page Number
109-110
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
High-Resolution Wireless Ultrasound
Display Headline
High-Resolution Wireless Ultrasound
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

A Guide to Ultrasound of the Shoulder, Part 3: Interventional and Procedural Uses

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:24
Display Headline
A Guide to Ultrasound of the Shoulder, Part 3: Interventional and Procedural Uses

Ultrasound has classically been marketed and used as a diagnostic tool. Radiologists, emergency physicians, and sports physicians used ultrasound units to rapidly and appropriately diagnose numerous injuries and disorders, in a timely and cost effective manner. Part 11 and Part 22 of this series showed how to use ultrasound in the shoulder for diagnosis and how to code and get reimbursed for its use.Ultrasound can also be used to help guide procedures and interventions performed to treat patients. Currently, more physicians are beginning to recognize the utility of this modality as an aid to interventional procedures.

First-generation procedures use ultrasound to improve accuracy of joint, bursal, tendon, and muscular injections.3 Recent studies have shown a significant improvement in accuracy, outcomes, and patient satisfaction using ultrasound guidance for injections.3-12 Within the limitation of using a needle, second-generation procedures—hydrodissection of peripherally entrapped nerves, capsular distention, mechanical disruption of neovascularization, and needle fenestration or barbotage in chronic tendinopathy—try to simulate surgical objectives while minimizing tissue burden and other complications of surgery.3 More advanced procedures include needle fenestration/release of the carpal ligament in carpal tunnel syndrome and A1 pulley needle release in the setting of trigger finger.3 Innovative third-generation procedures involve the use of surgical tools such as hook blades under ultrasound guidance to perform surgical procedures. Surgeons are now improving already established percutaneous, arthroscopic, and open surgical procedures with ultrasound assistance.3 Aside from better guidance, reducing cost and improving surgeon comfort may be additional benefits of ultrasound assisted surgery.

Image-Guided Treatment Options

Prior to image guidance, palpation of surface anatomy helped physicians determine the anatomic placement of injections, incisions, or portals. Joints and bursas that do not have any inflammation or fluid can sometimes be difficult to identify or locate by palpation alone. Palpation-guided joint injections often miss their target and cause significant pain when the therapeutic agent is injected into a muscle, tendon, ligament, fat, or other tissue. Ultrasound-guided injections have proven to be more accurate and have better patient satisfaction when compared to blind injections.3-12

X-ray fluoroscopy has been the primary option for surgeons to assist in surgery. This is a natural modality for orthopedic surgeons; their primary use is for bone to help with fracture reduction and fixation as the bone, instrumentation, and fixation methods are usually radio-opaque. With the advancement in technology, many orthopedic surgeons are regularly using radiolucent fixation devices and working with soft tissue as opposed to bone. Fixation of tendons, ligaments, and muscles would be done using a large incision, palpation of the anatomy, then fixation or repair. Many surgeons began looking for ways to minimize the incisions. Turning to fluoroscopy, a traditional and well-used modality, was a natural progression. Guides and methods were developed to isolate insertions and drill placements. However, fluoroscopy is limited by its difficulty in changing planes and the large equipment required. Also, it is limited in its ability to image soft tissue.

Computed tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are far better at imaging soft tissue but cannot be taken for use into the office or surgical suite. These modalities are also far more expensive and take up significant space.

CT scans have significant radiation exposure, and MRIs prohibit the use of metal objects around them. Overall, ultrasound has far more advantages over the other modalities as an adjunct for procedures (Table).

Ultrasound Procedural Basics

Appropriate use of ultrasound still remains highly technician-dependent. Unlike other imaging modalities, ultrasound requires a higher skill level by the physician to implement the use of ultrasound and identification of pathology to treat these disease processes. However, this is no different from the use of arthroscopy or fluoroscopy to treat patients. Training is required, as well as an understanding of the ultrasound machine, anatomy, and sono-anatomy—identification of anatomy and pathology as shown by the ultrasound machine.2

In ultrasound, the long axis refers to looking at a structure along its length, as in longitudinal. The short axis refers to evaluating a structure in cross-section, transverse, or along its shortest length. “In plane” refers to performing a procedure where the needle or object being used enters the ultrasound field along the plane of the transducer, allowing visualization of the majority of the needle as it crosses tissue planes. “Out of plane” has the needle entering perpendicular to the plane of the transducer, showing the needle on the monitor as a bright, hyperechoic dot. Some studies have suggested that novice ultrasonographers should start in a long axis view and use the in plane technique when injecting, as doing so may decrease time to identify the target and improve mean imaging quality during needle advancement.13

Anisotropy is the property of being directionally dependent. The ultrasound beam needs to be perpendicular to the structure being imaged to give the optimal image. When the beam hits a longitudinal structure like a needle at an angle <90°, the linear structure might reflect most of the beam away from the transducer. So when using a needle to localize or inject a specific area, maintaining the probe as close to perpendicular as possible with the needle will give a better image. New technology exists to better visualize needles even at high acuity angles by using a multi-beam processing algorithm, which can significantly aid the physician without the need for specialized needles.

Despite better technology, advance planning is key to a successful procedure. Positioning the patient and ultrasound machine in a manner that is comfortable and makes the desired target accessible while being able to visualize the ultrasound monitor comes first. Identifying the target, mapping the needle trajectory using depth markings, and scanning for nerves, vessels, and other structures that may be damaged along the needle path comes next. Using the in plane ultrasound technique with color Doppler and the nerve contrast setting can ensure that the physician has placed the therapeutic agent to the proper location while avoiding any nerves, arteries, or veins. Marking the borders of the ultrasound probe and needle entry site can be helpful to return to the same area after sterile preparation is done. As in any procedure, sterile technique is paramount. Sterile technique considerations may include using sterile gloves and a probe cover with sterile gel, cleaning the area thoroughly, planning the needle entry point 3 cm to 5 cm away from the probe, and maintaining a dry and gel-free needle entry.14-15 The probe should be sterilized between patients to avoid cross-contamination; note that certain solutions like alcohol or ethyl chloride can damage the transducer.14-15 However, simple injections do not require such stringent standards when simple sterile technique is observed by cleaning and then never touching the cleaned area again except with the needle to avoid contamination. Also, ethyl chloride has been found to not contaminate a sterile site and can be used safely to anesthetize the skin.

 

 

Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Many injectable therapeutic options exist as interventions. Cortisone, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stem cells/bone marrow concentrate (BMC), amniotic fluid, prolotherapy, and saline are now commonly used.16-17 A meta-analysis of the literature assessing the accuracy of ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections vs a landmark-guided injection was done in 2015.18 It showed that for the acromioclavicular joint, accuracy was 93.6% vs 68.2% (P < .0001), based on single studies. The accuracy of ultrasound vs a landmark-guided injection was 65% vs 70% for the subacromial space (P > .05); 86.7% vs 26.7% for the biceps tendon sheath (P < .05); and 92.5% vs 72.5% for the glenohumeral joint (P = .025).18 

With cortisone, injecting into muscle, ligament, or tendons could potentially harm the tissue or cause worsening of the disease process.19-20 With the advent of orthobiologics, injecting into these structures is now desirable, instead of a potential complication.19-20 Ultrasound has become even more important to the accurate delivery of these therapies to the disease locations. Multiple studies using leukocyte-poor PRP for osteoarthritis show significant differences in pain scores.21-23 Peerbooms and colleagues24,25 also showed that PRP reduced pain and increased function compared to cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 1- and 2-year double-blind randomized controlled trials. Centeno and colleagues26 performed a prospective, multi-site registry study on 102 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis and/or rotator cuff tears that were injected with bone marrow concentrate. There was a statistically significant improvement in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores from 36.1 to 17.1 (P < .001) and numeric pain scores improved from 4.3 to 2.4 (P < .001).

By being able to see the pathology, like a hypoechoic region in a tendon, ligament, or muscle, the physician can reliably place the therapeutic agent into the precise location. Also, adjacent para-tendon or para-ligament injections allow for in-season athletes to get some relief from symptoms while allowing to return to play quickly; injections into muscle, ligament, or tendon can damage the structure and require days or weeks of rest, while para-tendon and para-ligament injections are far less painful.

Second-generation techniques have provided patients with great options that can help avoid surgery. Calcific tendonitis appears brightly hyperechoic on ultrasound and is easily identified. The physician can attempt to break up the calcium by fenestration or barbotage of the calcium. The same can be accomplished by injecting the density with PRP or stem cells. If the calcium is soft or “toothpaste-like,” the negative pressure will make it easy to aspirate it into the syringe. A 2-year, longitudinal prospective study of 121 patients demonstrated that visual analog score (VAS) pain scores and size of calcium significantly decreased with ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage; 89% of patients were pain-free at 1-year follow-up.27 Moreover, a randomized controlled trial of 48 patients comparing needle lavage vs subacromial steroid injection showed statistically significant radiographic and clinically better outcomes with the needle lavage group at the 1-year mark.28

The Tenex procedure is a novel technique that uses ultrasonic energy to fenestrate diseased tendon tissue. It also can be used to break up calcific deposits. After the Tenex probe is guided to the diseased tendon/calcium, the TX-1 tip oscillates at the speed of sound, fenestrating/cutting through the tendon or calcium while lavaging the tendon with saline. Multiple prospective, noncontrolled studies done in common extensor, patellar, and rotator cuff tendinopathy have demonstrated good to excellent improvements in pain scores with the Tenex procedure.29-31

Ultrasound is extremely useful in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.32 The posterior glenohumeral capsule can be distended using a large volume (60 cc) of saline to loosen adhesions in preparation for manipulation. Because the manipulation can be an extremely painful procedure, ultrasound can be used to perform an inter-scalene block for regional anesthesia prior to the procedure. In 2014, Park and colleagues33 performed a randomized prospective trial that showed that capsular distension followed by manipulation was more effective than cortisone injection alone for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.Ultrasound guidance was found to be just as efficacious as fluoroscopy in a randomized controlled trial in 2014; the authors noted that ultrasound does not expose the patient or clinician to radiation and can be done in office.34

Currently, techniques to perform ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomies of the long head of the biceps tendon using hook blades are being studied.35

Ultrasound-Assisted Surgery

Ultrasound has been a boon to surgeons who perform minimally invasive procedures. It is far less cumbersome than classic fluoroscopy. Fluoroscopy requires the use of heavy lead aprons by the surgeons. Combining this with the impervious gowns and hot lights, the surgeons’ comfort level is severely sacrificed. When having to do many long surgeries in a row, this situation can take a toll on the surgeons’ endurance and strength. Improving the comfort of the surgeon is not the primary goal of surgery, but can significantly help our ability to do a better job.

 

 

Ultrasound allows the surgeon to localize any superficial foreign objects, especially with radiolucent objects like fragments of glass. Small glass fragments or pieces of wood have always been extremely difficult to remove. X-rays cannot localize these objects, so getting a proper orientation is difficult. MRI and CT scans easily identify these types of foreign objects, but cannot be used intraoperatively (Figure 1A). Often, these objects cannot be felt and therefore require a large dissection. The objects may encapsulate and be easily confused with other soft tissues.

These objects often take large incisions and wide dissections to find and remove. With ultrasound, the objects can be localized in real time while in surgery (Figure 1B). Using a sterile probe cover, the surgeon can take advantage of the multi-planar nature of ultrasound. Since the probe can be manipulated in any direction and angle, the only limitations to finding objects are the user, the object density, the location depth, and if the object is behind a hard structure, such as bone. The foreign body can then be removed under ultrasound guidance (Figure 1C).Being able to identify specific structures in surgery allows the surgeon to be more accurate when performing certain procedures. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis is a common shoulder procedure that can be done many different ways. When using the “below the groove/supra-pec” position, the incisions become more variable and difficult to place. If the surgeon is too high/low or medial/lateral, the localization of the drill position will be very difficult, which will result in having to angle the drill to compensate for poorly placed portals, and finding the biceps becomes very challenging.

By using the ultrasound intraoperatively, the surgeon can identify the exact position of the biceps tendon (medial/lateral) and where it lies just below the groove and above the pectoralis major (superior/inferior) (Figure 2A).
This allows the surgeon to mark the appropriate placement of the portals by the position of the transducer (Figure 2B). When entering with the arthroscope to perform the procedure, the surgeon will “fall” right onto the biceps tendon at the exact level needed to perform the tenodesis. This is not just more accurate, but safer, as it will not endanger any nerves or vessels.

Reconstruction of ligaments is another ideal use of ultrasound. Surface anatomy cannot always tell the exact location of a ligament or tendon insertion. The best example of this is the anterolateral ligament (ALL). Identification of the lateral epicondyle of the femur and anatomic insertion of the ALL can be difficult in some patients. Ultrasound can be used to identify the origin and insertion of the ALL during surgery under sterile conditions (see page 418). A spinal needle can be placed under direct vision with an in-plane ultrasound guidance over the bony insertion (Figure 3A). A percutaneous incision is made.
The spinal needle is replaced with a guide wire and drilled into place (Figure 3B). A cannulated drill of appropriate size is used to create the socket or tunnel. In the case of the ALL, a 5.0-mm diameter reamer is used to a depth of 22 mm at both the origin and insertion. A 4.5-mm semitendinosus graft is prepared with a collagen-coated FiberTape (Arthrex) attached to a 5.5 BioComposite Vented SwiveLock (Arthrex). It is attached proximally, buried under the iliotibial band (ITB) and then attached distally with the knee in 40° of flexion with a second 5.5 BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. The FiberTape is used as an internal brace to allow for early motion and weight-bearing.

This technique is also used by the senior author (AMH) to repair, reconstruct, or internally brace the medial collateral ligament, medial patellofemoral ligament, and lateral collateral ligament. This technique is ideally suited to superficial ligament and tendon reattachment, reconstruction, or internal bracing. The knee, ankle, and elbow superficial ligaments are especially amenable to this easy, percutaneous technique.

Conclusion

Ultrasound is quickly becoming a popular imaging modality due to its simplicity, portability, and cost efficiency. Its use as a diagnostic tool is widely known. As an adjunct for procedures and interventions, its advantages over larger, more expensive modalities such as fluoroscopy, CT, or MRI make it stand out. Ultrasound is not the perfect solution to all problems, but it is clearly a technology that is gaining traction. Ultrasound is another imaging modality and tool that physicians and surgeons can use to improve their patients’ treatment.

References

1. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 1: coding and reimbursement. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(3):176-182.

2. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016; 45(4):233-238.

3. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: Interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.

4. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.

5. Eustace J, Brophy D, Gibney R, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.

6. Partington P, Broome G. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: Hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.

7. Rutten M, Maresch B, Jager G, de Waal Malefijt M. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: Blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.

8. Kang M, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas D, Blacksin M. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: A comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 Suppl):61S-66S.

9. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: An arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;19(8):887-891.

10. Henkus HE, Cobben M, Coerkamp E, Nelissen R, van Arkel E. The accuracy of subacromial injections: A prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.

11. Sethi P, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: A cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.

12. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.

13. Speer M, McLennan N, Nixon C. Novice learner in-plane ultrasound imaging: which visualization technique? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38(4):350-352.

14. Marhofer P, Schebesta K, Marhofer D. [Hygiene aspects in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia]. Anaesthesist. 2016;65(7):492-498.

15. Sherman T, Ferguson J, Davis W, Russo M, Argintar E. Does the use of ultrasound affect contamination of musculoskeletal injection sites? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):351-357.

16. Bashir J, Panero AJ, Sherman AL. The emerging use of platelet-rich plasma in musculoskeletal medicine. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115(1):23-31.

17. Royall NA, Farrin E, Bahner DP, Stanislaw PA. Ultrasound-assisted musculoskeletal procedures: A practical overview of current literature. World J Orthop. 2011;2(7):57-66.

18. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Ashworth N. Ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections are more accurate and more effective than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(16):1042-1049.

19. Maman E, Yehuda C, Pritsch T, et al. Detrimental effect of repeated and single subacromial corticosteroid injections on the intact and injured rotator cuff: A biomechanical and imaging study in rats. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):177-182.

20. Gautam VK, Verma S, Batra S, Bhatnagar N, Arora S. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;23(1):1-5.

21. Patel S, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Marwaha N, Jain A. Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):356-364.

22. Cerza F, Carni S, Carcangiu A, et al. Comparison between hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma, intra-articular infiltration in the treatment of gonarthrosis. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2822-2827.

23. Spakova T, Rosocha J, Lacko M, Harvanova D, Gharaibeh A. Treatment of knee joint osteoarthritis with autologous platelet-rich plasma in comparison with hyaluronic acid. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(5):411-417.

24. Peerbooms JC, Sluimer J, Brujin DJ, Gosens T. Positive effects of an autologous platelet concentrate in lateral epicondylitis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial: platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection with a 1-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):255-262.

25. Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, den Oudsten BL. Ongoing positive effects of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(6):1200-1208.

26. Centeno CJ, Al-Sayegh H, Bashir J, Goodyear S, Freeman MD. A prospective multi-site registry study of a specific protocol of autologous bone marrow concentrate for the treatment of shoulder rotator cuff tears and osteoarthritis. J Pain Res. 2015;8:269-276.

27. Del Castillo-Gonzalez F, Ramos-Alvarez JJ, Rodriguez-Fabian G, Gonzalez-Perez J, Calderon-Montero J. Treatment of the calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff by ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage. Two years prospective study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2015;4(4):407-412.

28. De Witte PB, Selten JW, Navas A, et al. Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1665-1673.

29. Koh J, Mohan P, Morrey B, et al. Fasciotomy and surgical tenotomy for recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy: early clinical experience with a novel device for minimally invasive percutaneous microresection. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(3):636-644.

30. Elattrache N, Morrey B. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy as a treatment for chronic patellar tendinopathy–Jumper’s knee. Oper Tech Orthop. 2013;23(2):98-103

31. Patel MM. A novel treatment for refractory plantar fasciitis. Am J Orthop. 2015;444(3):107-110.

32. Harris G, Bou-Haidar P, Harris C. Adhesive capsulitis: Review of imaging and treatment. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57:633-643.

33. Park SW, Lee HS, Kim JH. The effectiveness of intensive mobilization techniques combined with capsular distention for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(11):1776-1770.

34. Bae JH, Park YS, Chang HJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of capsular distension for adhesive capsulitis: Fluoroscopy-guided anterior versus ultrasonography-guided posterolateral approach. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(3):360-368.

35. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Mohamed A, Beavis C, Obaid H. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomy of long head of the biceps tendon–A pilot cadaveric study. J Clin Ultrasound. 2015;43(6):361-366.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives support from Arthrex as a consultant, royalties, and research support. Dr. Panero reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
440-445
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives support from Arthrex as a consultant, royalties, and research support. Dr. Panero reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Hirahara reports that he receives support from Arthrex as a consultant, royalties, and research support. Dr. Panero reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Ultrasound has classically been marketed and used as a diagnostic tool. Radiologists, emergency physicians, and sports physicians used ultrasound units to rapidly and appropriately diagnose numerous injuries and disorders, in a timely and cost effective manner. Part 11 and Part 22 of this series showed how to use ultrasound in the shoulder for diagnosis and how to code and get reimbursed for its use.Ultrasound can also be used to help guide procedures and interventions performed to treat patients. Currently, more physicians are beginning to recognize the utility of this modality as an aid to interventional procedures.

First-generation procedures use ultrasound to improve accuracy of joint, bursal, tendon, and muscular injections.3 Recent studies have shown a significant improvement in accuracy, outcomes, and patient satisfaction using ultrasound guidance for injections.3-12 Within the limitation of using a needle, second-generation procedures—hydrodissection of peripherally entrapped nerves, capsular distention, mechanical disruption of neovascularization, and needle fenestration or barbotage in chronic tendinopathy—try to simulate surgical objectives while minimizing tissue burden and other complications of surgery.3 More advanced procedures include needle fenestration/release of the carpal ligament in carpal tunnel syndrome and A1 pulley needle release in the setting of trigger finger.3 Innovative third-generation procedures involve the use of surgical tools such as hook blades under ultrasound guidance to perform surgical procedures. Surgeons are now improving already established percutaneous, arthroscopic, and open surgical procedures with ultrasound assistance.3 Aside from better guidance, reducing cost and improving surgeon comfort may be additional benefits of ultrasound assisted surgery.

Image-Guided Treatment Options

Prior to image guidance, palpation of surface anatomy helped physicians determine the anatomic placement of injections, incisions, or portals. Joints and bursas that do not have any inflammation or fluid can sometimes be difficult to identify or locate by palpation alone. Palpation-guided joint injections often miss their target and cause significant pain when the therapeutic agent is injected into a muscle, tendon, ligament, fat, or other tissue. Ultrasound-guided injections have proven to be more accurate and have better patient satisfaction when compared to blind injections.3-12

X-ray fluoroscopy has been the primary option for surgeons to assist in surgery. This is a natural modality for orthopedic surgeons; their primary use is for bone to help with fracture reduction and fixation as the bone, instrumentation, and fixation methods are usually radio-opaque. With the advancement in technology, many orthopedic surgeons are regularly using radiolucent fixation devices and working with soft tissue as opposed to bone. Fixation of tendons, ligaments, and muscles would be done using a large incision, palpation of the anatomy, then fixation or repair. Many surgeons began looking for ways to minimize the incisions. Turning to fluoroscopy, a traditional and well-used modality, was a natural progression. Guides and methods were developed to isolate insertions and drill placements. However, fluoroscopy is limited by its difficulty in changing planes and the large equipment required. Also, it is limited in its ability to image soft tissue.

Computed tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are far better at imaging soft tissue but cannot be taken for use into the office or surgical suite. These modalities are also far more expensive and take up significant space.

CT scans have significant radiation exposure, and MRIs prohibit the use of metal objects around them. Overall, ultrasound has far more advantages over the other modalities as an adjunct for procedures (Table).

Ultrasound Procedural Basics

Appropriate use of ultrasound still remains highly technician-dependent. Unlike other imaging modalities, ultrasound requires a higher skill level by the physician to implement the use of ultrasound and identification of pathology to treat these disease processes. However, this is no different from the use of arthroscopy or fluoroscopy to treat patients. Training is required, as well as an understanding of the ultrasound machine, anatomy, and sono-anatomy—identification of anatomy and pathology as shown by the ultrasound machine.2

In ultrasound, the long axis refers to looking at a structure along its length, as in longitudinal. The short axis refers to evaluating a structure in cross-section, transverse, or along its shortest length. “In plane” refers to performing a procedure where the needle or object being used enters the ultrasound field along the plane of the transducer, allowing visualization of the majority of the needle as it crosses tissue planes. “Out of plane” has the needle entering perpendicular to the plane of the transducer, showing the needle on the monitor as a bright, hyperechoic dot. Some studies have suggested that novice ultrasonographers should start in a long axis view and use the in plane technique when injecting, as doing so may decrease time to identify the target and improve mean imaging quality during needle advancement.13

Anisotropy is the property of being directionally dependent. The ultrasound beam needs to be perpendicular to the structure being imaged to give the optimal image. When the beam hits a longitudinal structure like a needle at an angle <90°, the linear structure might reflect most of the beam away from the transducer. So when using a needle to localize or inject a specific area, maintaining the probe as close to perpendicular as possible with the needle will give a better image. New technology exists to better visualize needles even at high acuity angles by using a multi-beam processing algorithm, which can significantly aid the physician without the need for specialized needles.

Despite better technology, advance planning is key to a successful procedure. Positioning the patient and ultrasound machine in a manner that is comfortable and makes the desired target accessible while being able to visualize the ultrasound monitor comes first. Identifying the target, mapping the needle trajectory using depth markings, and scanning for nerves, vessels, and other structures that may be damaged along the needle path comes next. Using the in plane ultrasound technique with color Doppler and the nerve contrast setting can ensure that the physician has placed the therapeutic agent to the proper location while avoiding any nerves, arteries, or veins. Marking the borders of the ultrasound probe and needle entry site can be helpful to return to the same area after sterile preparation is done. As in any procedure, sterile technique is paramount. Sterile technique considerations may include using sterile gloves and a probe cover with sterile gel, cleaning the area thoroughly, planning the needle entry point 3 cm to 5 cm away from the probe, and maintaining a dry and gel-free needle entry.14-15 The probe should be sterilized between patients to avoid cross-contamination; note that certain solutions like alcohol or ethyl chloride can damage the transducer.14-15 However, simple injections do not require such stringent standards when simple sterile technique is observed by cleaning and then never touching the cleaned area again except with the needle to avoid contamination. Also, ethyl chloride has been found to not contaminate a sterile site and can be used safely to anesthetize the skin.

 

 

Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Many injectable therapeutic options exist as interventions. Cortisone, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stem cells/bone marrow concentrate (BMC), amniotic fluid, prolotherapy, and saline are now commonly used.16-17 A meta-analysis of the literature assessing the accuracy of ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections vs a landmark-guided injection was done in 2015.18 It showed that for the acromioclavicular joint, accuracy was 93.6% vs 68.2% (P < .0001), based on single studies. The accuracy of ultrasound vs a landmark-guided injection was 65% vs 70% for the subacromial space (P > .05); 86.7% vs 26.7% for the biceps tendon sheath (P < .05); and 92.5% vs 72.5% for the glenohumeral joint (P = .025).18 

With cortisone, injecting into muscle, ligament, or tendons could potentially harm the tissue or cause worsening of the disease process.19-20 With the advent of orthobiologics, injecting into these structures is now desirable, instead of a potential complication.19-20 Ultrasound has become even more important to the accurate delivery of these therapies to the disease locations. Multiple studies using leukocyte-poor PRP for osteoarthritis show significant differences in pain scores.21-23 Peerbooms and colleagues24,25 also showed that PRP reduced pain and increased function compared to cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 1- and 2-year double-blind randomized controlled trials. Centeno and colleagues26 performed a prospective, multi-site registry study on 102 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis and/or rotator cuff tears that were injected with bone marrow concentrate. There was a statistically significant improvement in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores from 36.1 to 17.1 (P < .001) and numeric pain scores improved from 4.3 to 2.4 (P < .001).

By being able to see the pathology, like a hypoechoic region in a tendon, ligament, or muscle, the physician can reliably place the therapeutic agent into the precise location. Also, adjacent para-tendon or para-ligament injections allow for in-season athletes to get some relief from symptoms while allowing to return to play quickly; injections into muscle, ligament, or tendon can damage the structure and require days or weeks of rest, while para-tendon and para-ligament injections are far less painful.

Second-generation techniques have provided patients with great options that can help avoid surgery. Calcific tendonitis appears brightly hyperechoic on ultrasound and is easily identified. The physician can attempt to break up the calcium by fenestration or barbotage of the calcium. The same can be accomplished by injecting the density with PRP or stem cells. If the calcium is soft or “toothpaste-like,” the negative pressure will make it easy to aspirate it into the syringe. A 2-year, longitudinal prospective study of 121 patients demonstrated that visual analog score (VAS) pain scores and size of calcium significantly decreased with ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage; 89% of patients were pain-free at 1-year follow-up.27 Moreover, a randomized controlled trial of 48 patients comparing needle lavage vs subacromial steroid injection showed statistically significant radiographic and clinically better outcomes with the needle lavage group at the 1-year mark.28

The Tenex procedure is a novel technique that uses ultrasonic energy to fenestrate diseased tendon tissue. It also can be used to break up calcific deposits. After the Tenex probe is guided to the diseased tendon/calcium, the TX-1 tip oscillates at the speed of sound, fenestrating/cutting through the tendon or calcium while lavaging the tendon with saline. Multiple prospective, noncontrolled studies done in common extensor, patellar, and rotator cuff tendinopathy have demonstrated good to excellent improvements in pain scores with the Tenex procedure.29-31

Ultrasound is extremely useful in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.32 The posterior glenohumeral capsule can be distended using a large volume (60 cc) of saline to loosen adhesions in preparation for manipulation. Because the manipulation can be an extremely painful procedure, ultrasound can be used to perform an inter-scalene block for regional anesthesia prior to the procedure. In 2014, Park and colleagues33 performed a randomized prospective trial that showed that capsular distension followed by manipulation was more effective than cortisone injection alone for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.Ultrasound guidance was found to be just as efficacious as fluoroscopy in a randomized controlled trial in 2014; the authors noted that ultrasound does not expose the patient or clinician to radiation and can be done in office.34

Currently, techniques to perform ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomies of the long head of the biceps tendon using hook blades are being studied.35

Ultrasound-Assisted Surgery

Ultrasound has been a boon to surgeons who perform minimally invasive procedures. It is far less cumbersome than classic fluoroscopy. Fluoroscopy requires the use of heavy lead aprons by the surgeons. Combining this with the impervious gowns and hot lights, the surgeons’ comfort level is severely sacrificed. When having to do many long surgeries in a row, this situation can take a toll on the surgeons’ endurance and strength. Improving the comfort of the surgeon is not the primary goal of surgery, but can significantly help our ability to do a better job.

 

 

Ultrasound allows the surgeon to localize any superficial foreign objects, especially with radiolucent objects like fragments of glass. Small glass fragments or pieces of wood have always been extremely difficult to remove. X-rays cannot localize these objects, so getting a proper orientation is difficult. MRI and CT scans easily identify these types of foreign objects, but cannot be used intraoperatively (Figure 1A). Often, these objects cannot be felt and therefore require a large dissection. The objects may encapsulate and be easily confused with other soft tissues.

These objects often take large incisions and wide dissections to find and remove. With ultrasound, the objects can be localized in real time while in surgery (Figure 1B). Using a sterile probe cover, the surgeon can take advantage of the multi-planar nature of ultrasound. Since the probe can be manipulated in any direction and angle, the only limitations to finding objects are the user, the object density, the location depth, and if the object is behind a hard structure, such as bone. The foreign body can then be removed under ultrasound guidance (Figure 1C).Being able to identify specific structures in surgery allows the surgeon to be more accurate when performing certain procedures. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis is a common shoulder procedure that can be done many different ways. When using the “below the groove/supra-pec” position, the incisions become more variable and difficult to place. If the surgeon is too high/low or medial/lateral, the localization of the drill position will be very difficult, which will result in having to angle the drill to compensate for poorly placed portals, and finding the biceps becomes very challenging.

By using the ultrasound intraoperatively, the surgeon can identify the exact position of the biceps tendon (medial/lateral) and where it lies just below the groove and above the pectoralis major (superior/inferior) (Figure 2A).
This allows the surgeon to mark the appropriate placement of the portals by the position of the transducer (Figure 2B). When entering with the arthroscope to perform the procedure, the surgeon will “fall” right onto the biceps tendon at the exact level needed to perform the tenodesis. This is not just more accurate, but safer, as it will not endanger any nerves or vessels.

Reconstruction of ligaments is another ideal use of ultrasound. Surface anatomy cannot always tell the exact location of a ligament or tendon insertion. The best example of this is the anterolateral ligament (ALL). Identification of the lateral epicondyle of the femur and anatomic insertion of the ALL can be difficult in some patients. Ultrasound can be used to identify the origin and insertion of the ALL during surgery under sterile conditions (see page 418). A spinal needle can be placed under direct vision with an in-plane ultrasound guidance over the bony insertion (Figure 3A). A percutaneous incision is made.
The spinal needle is replaced with a guide wire and drilled into place (Figure 3B). A cannulated drill of appropriate size is used to create the socket or tunnel. In the case of the ALL, a 5.0-mm diameter reamer is used to a depth of 22 mm at both the origin and insertion. A 4.5-mm semitendinosus graft is prepared with a collagen-coated FiberTape (Arthrex) attached to a 5.5 BioComposite Vented SwiveLock (Arthrex). It is attached proximally, buried under the iliotibial band (ITB) and then attached distally with the knee in 40° of flexion with a second 5.5 BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. The FiberTape is used as an internal brace to allow for early motion and weight-bearing.

This technique is also used by the senior author (AMH) to repair, reconstruct, or internally brace the medial collateral ligament, medial patellofemoral ligament, and lateral collateral ligament. This technique is ideally suited to superficial ligament and tendon reattachment, reconstruction, or internal bracing. The knee, ankle, and elbow superficial ligaments are especially amenable to this easy, percutaneous technique.

Conclusion

Ultrasound is quickly becoming a popular imaging modality due to its simplicity, portability, and cost efficiency. Its use as a diagnostic tool is widely known. As an adjunct for procedures and interventions, its advantages over larger, more expensive modalities such as fluoroscopy, CT, or MRI make it stand out. Ultrasound is not the perfect solution to all problems, but it is clearly a technology that is gaining traction. Ultrasound is another imaging modality and tool that physicians and surgeons can use to improve their patients’ treatment.

Ultrasound has classically been marketed and used as a diagnostic tool. Radiologists, emergency physicians, and sports physicians used ultrasound units to rapidly and appropriately diagnose numerous injuries and disorders, in a timely and cost effective manner. Part 11 and Part 22 of this series showed how to use ultrasound in the shoulder for diagnosis and how to code and get reimbursed for its use.Ultrasound can also be used to help guide procedures and interventions performed to treat patients. Currently, more physicians are beginning to recognize the utility of this modality as an aid to interventional procedures.

First-generation procedures use ultrasound to improve accuracy of joint, bursal, tendon, and muscular injections.3 Recent studies have shown a significant improvement in accuracy, outcomes, and patient satisfaction using ultrasound guidance for injections.3-12 Within the limitation of using a needle, second-generation procedures—hydrodissection of peripherally entrapped nerves, capsular distention, mechanical disruption of neovascularization, and needle fenestration or barbotage in chronic tendinopathy—try to simulate surgical objectives while minimizing tissue burden and other complications of surgery.3 More advanced procedures include needle fenestration/release of the carpal ligament in carpal tunnel syndrome and A1 pulley needle release in the setting of trigger finger.3 Innovative third-generation procedures involve the use of surgical tools such as hook blades under ultrasound guidance to perform surgical procedures. Surgeons are now improving already established percutaneous, arthroscopic, and open surgical procedures with ultrasound assistance.3 Aside from better guidance, reducing cost and improving surgeon comfort may be additional benefits of ultrasound assisted surgery.

Image-Guided Treatment Options

Prior to image guidance, palpation of surface anatomy helped physicians determine the anatomic placement of injections, incisions, or portals. Joints and bursas that do not have any inflammation or fluid can sometimes be difficult to identify or locate by palpation alone. Palpation-guided joint injections often miss their target and cause significant pain when the therapeutic agent is injected into a muscle, tendon, ligament, fat, or other tissue. Ultrasound-guided injections have proven to be more accurate and have better patient satisfaction when compared to blind injections.3-12

X-ray fluoroscopy has been the primary option for surgeons to assist in surgery. This is a natural modality for orthopedic surgeons; their primary use is for bone to help with fracture reduction and fixation as the bone, instrumentation, and fixation methods are usually radio-opaque. With the advancement in technology, many orthopedic surgeons are regularly using radiolucent fixation devices and working with soft tissue as opposed to bone. Fixation of tendons, ligaments, and muscles would be done using a large incision, palpation of the anatomy, then fixation or repair. Many surgeons began looking for ways to minimize the incisions. Turning to fluoroscopy, a traditional and well-used modality, was a natural progression. Guides and methods were developed to isolate insertions and drill placements. However, fluoroscopy is limited by its difficulty in changing planes and the large equipment required. Also, it is limited in its ability to image soft tissue.

Computed tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are far better at imaging soft tissue but cannot be taken for use into the office or surgical suite. These modalities are also far more expensive and take up significant space.

CT scans have significant radiation exposure, and MRIs prohibit the use of metal objects around them. Overall, ultrasound has far more advantages over the other modalities as an adjunct for procedures (Table).

Ultrasound Procedural Basics

Appropriate use of ultrasound still remains highly technician-dependent. Unlike other imaging modalities, ultrasound requires a higher skill level by the physician to implement the use of ultrasound and identification of pathology to treat these disease processes. However, this is no different from the use of arthroscopy or fluoroscopy to treat patients. Training is required, as well as an understanding of the ultrasound machine, anatomy, and sono-anatomy—identification of anatomy and pathology as shown by the ultrasound machine.2

In ultrasound, the long axis refers to looking at a structure along its length, as in longitudinal. The short axis refers to evaluating a structure in cross-section, transverse, or along its shortest length. “In plane” refers to performing a procedure where the needle or object being used enters the ultrasound field along the plane of the transducer, allowing visualization of the majority of the needle as it crosses tissue planes. “Out of plane” has the needle entering perpendicular to the plane of the transducer, showing the needle on the monitor as a bright, hyperechoic dot. Some studies have suggested that novice ultrasonographers should start in a long axis view and use the in plane technique when injecting, as doing so may decrease time to identify the target and improve mean imaging quality during needle advancement.13

Anisotropy is the property of being directionally dependent. The ultrasound beam needs to be perpendicular to the structure being imaged to give the optimal image. When the beam hits a longitudinal structure like a needle at an angle <90°, the linear structure might reflect most of the beam away from the transducer. So when using a needle to localize or inject a specific area, maintaining the probe as close to perpendicular as possible with the needle will give a better image. New technology exists to better visualize needles even at high acuity angles by using a multi-beam processing algorithm, which can significantly aid the physician without the need for specialized needles.

Despite better technology, advance planning is key to a successful procedure. Positioning the patient and ultrasound machine in a manner that is comfortable and makes the desired target accessible while being able to visualize the ultrasound monitor comes first. Identifying the target, mapping the needle trajectory using depth markings, and scanning for nerves, vessels, and other structures that may be damaged along the needle path comes next. Using the in plane ultrasound technique with color Doppler and the nerve contrast setting can ensure that the physician has placed the therapeutic agent to the proper location while avoiding any nerves, arteries, or veins. Marking the borders of the ultrasound probe and needle entry site can be helpful to return to the same area after sterile preparation is done. As in any procedure, sterile technique is paramount. Sterile technique considerations may include using sterile gloves and a probe cover with sterile gel, cleaning the area thoroughly, planning the needle entry point 3 cm to 5 cm away from the probe, and maintaining a dry and gel-free needle entry.14-15 The probe should be sterilized between patients to avoid cross-contamination; note that certain solutions like alcohol or ethyl chloride can damage the transducer.14-15 However, simple injections do not require such stringent standards when simple sterile technique is observed by cleaning and then never touching the cleaned area again except with the needle to avoid contamination. Also, ethyl chloride has been found to not contaminate a sterile site and can be used safely to anesthetize the skin.

 

 

Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Many injectable therapeutic options exist as interventions. Cortisone, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stem cells/bone marrow concentrate (BMC), amniotic fluid, prolotherapy, and saline are now commonly used.16-17 A meta-analysis of the literature assessing the accuracy of ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections vs a landmark-guided injection was done in 2015.18 It showed that for the acromioclavicular joint, accuracy was 93.6% vs 68.2% (P < .0001), based on single studies. The accuracy of ultrasound vs a landmark-guided injection was 65% vs 70% for the subacromial space (P > .05); 86.7% vs 26.7% for the biceps tendon sheath (P < .05); and 92.5% vs 72.5% for the glenohumeral joint (P = .025).18 

With cortisone, injecting into muscle, ligament, or tendons could potentially harm the tissue or cause worsening of the disease process.19-20 With the advent of orthobiologics, injecting into these structures is now desirable, instead of a potential complication.19-20 Ultrasound has become even more important to the accurate delivery of these therapies to the disease locations. Multiple studies using leukocyte-poor PRP for osteoarthritis show significant differences in pain scores.21-23 Peerbooms and colleagues24,25 also showed that PRP reduced pain and increased function compared to cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 1- and 2-year double-blind randomized controlled trials. Centeno and colleagues26 performed a prospective, multi-site registry study on 102 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis and/or rotator cuff tears that were injected with bone marrow concentrate. There was a statistically significant improvement in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores from 36.1 to 17.1 (P < .001) and numeric pain scores improved from 4.3 to 2.4 (P < .001).

By being able to see the pathology, like a hypoechoic region in a tendon, ligament, or muscle, the physician can reliably place the therapeutic agent into the precise location. Also, adjacent para-tendon or para-ligament injections allow for in-season athletes to get some relief from symptoms while allowing to return to play quickly; injections into muscle, ligament, or tendon can damage the structure and require days or weeks of rest, while para-tendon and para-ligament injections are far less painful.

Second-generation techniques have provided patients with great options that can help avoid surgery. Calcific tendonitis appears brightly hyperechoic on ultrasound and is easily identified. The physician can attempt to break up the calcium by fenestration or barbotage of the calcium. The same can be accomplished by injecting the density with PRP or stem cells. If the calcium is soft or “toothpaste-like,” the negative pressure will make it easy to aspirate it into the syringe. A 2-year, longitudinal prospective study of 121 patients demonstrated that visual analog score (VAS) pain scores and size of calcium significantly decreased with ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage; 89% of patients were pain-free at 1-year follow-up.27 Moreover, a randomized controlled trial of 48 patients comparing needle lavage vs subacromial steroid injection showed statistically significant radiographic and clinically better outcomes with the needle lavage group at the 1-year mark.28

The Tenex procedure is a novel technique that uses ultrasonic energy to fenestrate diseased tendon tissue. It also can be used to break up calcific deposits. After the Tenex probe is guided to the diseased tendon/calcium, the TX-1 tip oscillates at the speed of sound, fenestrating/cutting through the tendon or calcium while lavaging the tendon with saline. Multiple prospective, noncontrolled studies done in common extensor, patellar, and rotator cuff tendinopathy have demonstrated good to excellent improvements in pain scores with the Tenex procedure.29-31

Ultrasound is extremely useful in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.32 The posterior glenohumeral capsule can be distended using a large volume (60 cc) of saline to loosen adhesions in preparation for manipulation. Because the manipulation can be an extremely painful procedure, ultrasound can be used to perform an inter-scalene block for regional anesthesia prior to the procedure. In 2014, Park and colleagues33 performed a randomized prospective trial that showed that capsular distension followed by manipulation was more effective than cortisone injection alone for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.Ultrasound guidance was found to be just as efficacious as fluoroscopy in a randomized controlled trial in 2014; the authors noted that ultrasound does not expose the patient or clinician to radiation and can be done in office.34

Currently, techniques to perform ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomies of the long head of the biceps tendon using hook blades are being studied.35

Ultrasound-Assisted Surgery

Ultrasound has been a boon to surgeons who perform minimally invasive procedures. It is far less cumbersome than classic fluoroscopy. Fluoroscopy requires the use of heavy lead aprons by the surgeons. Combining this with the impervious gowns and hot lights, the surgeons’ comfort level is severely sacrificed. When having to do many long surgeries in a row, this situation can take a toll on the surgeons’ endurance and strength. Improving the comfort of the surgeon is not the primary goal of surgery, but can significantly help our ability to do a better job.

 

 

Ultrasound allows the surgeon to localize any superficial foreign objects, especially with radiolucent objects like fragments of glass. Small glass fragments or pieces of wood have always been extremely difficult to remove. X-rays cannot localize these objects, so getting a proper orientation is difficult. MRI and CT scans easily identify these types of foreign objects, but cannot be used intraoperatively (Figure 1A). Often, these objects cannot be felt and therefore require a large dissection. The objects may encapsulate and be easily confused with other soft tissues.

These objects often take large incisions and wide dissections to find and remove. With ultrasound, the objects can be localized in real time while in surgery (Figure 1B). Using a sterile probe cover, the surgeon can take advantage of the multi-planar nature of ultrasound. Since the probe can be manipulated in any direction and angle, the only limitations to finding objects are the user, the object density, the location depth, and if the object is behind a hard structure, such as bone. The foreign body can then be removed under ultrasound guidance (Figure 1C).Being able to identify specific structures in surgery allows the surgeon to be more accurate when performing certain procedures. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis is a common shoulder procedure that can be done many different ways. When using the “below the groove/supra-pec” position, the incisions become more variable and difficult to place. If the surgeon is too high/low or medial/lateral, the localization of the drill position will be very difficult, which will result in having to angle the drill to compensate for poorly placed portals, and finding the biceps becomes very challenging.

By using the ultrasound intraoperatively, the surgeon can identify the exact position of the biceps tendon (medial/lateral) and where it lies just below the groove and above the pectoralis major (superior/inferior) (Figure 2A).
This allows the surgeon to mark the appropriate placement of the portals by the position of the transducer (Figure 2B). When entering with the arthroscope to perform the procedure, the surgeon will “fall” right onto the biceps tendon at the exact level needed to perform the tenodesis. This is not just more accurate, but safer, as it will not endanger any nerves or vessels.

Reconstruction of ligaments is another ideal use of ultrasound. Surface anatomy cannot always tell the exact location of a ligament or tendon insertion. The best example of this is the anterolateral ligament (ALL). Identification of the lateral epicondyle of the femur and anatomic insertion of the ALL can be difficult in some patients. Ultrasound can be used to identify the origin and insertion of the ALL during surgery under sterile conditions (see page 418). A spinal needle can be placed under direct vision with an in-plane ultrasound guidance over the bony insertion (Figure 3A). A percutaneous incision is made.
The spinal needle is replaced with a guide wire and drilled into place (Figure 3B). A cannulated drill of appropriate size is used to create the socket or tunnel. In the case of the ALL, a 5.0-mm diameter reamer is used to a depth of 22 mm at both the origin and insertion. A 4.5-mm semitendinosus graft is prepared with a collagen-coated FiberTape (Arthrex) attached to a 5.5 BioComposite Vented SwiveLock (Arthrex). It is attached proximally, buried under the iliotibial band (ITB) and then attached distally with the knee in 40° of flexion with a second 5.5 BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. The FiberTape is used as an internal brace to allow for early motion and weight-bearing.

This technique is also used by the senior author (AMH) to repair, reconstruct, or internally brace the medial collateral ligament, medial patellofemoral ligament, and lateral collateral ligament. This technique is ideally suited to superficial ligament and tendon reattachment, reconstruction, or internal bracing. The knee, ankle, and elbow superficial ligaments are especially amenable to this easy, percutaneous technique.

Conclusion

Ultrasound is quickly becoming a popular imaging modality due to its simplicity, portability, and cost efficiency. Its use as a diagnostic tool is widely known. As an adjunct for procedures and interventions, its advantages over larger, more expensive modalities such as fluoroscopy, CT, or MRI make it stand out. Ultrasound is not the perfect solution to all problems, but it is clearly a technology that is gaining traction. Ultrasound is another imaging modality and tool that physicians and surgeons can use to improve their patients’ treatment.

References

1. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 1: coding and reimbursement. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(3):176-182.

2. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016; 45(4):233-238.

3. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: Interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.

4. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.

5. Eustace J, Brophy D, Gibney R, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.

6. Partington P, Broome G. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: Hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.

7. Rutten M, Maresch B, Jager G, de Waal Malefijt M. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: Blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.

8. Kang M, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas D, Blacksin M. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: A comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 Suppl):61S-66S.

9. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: An arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;19(8):887-891.

10. Henkus HE, Cobben M, Coerkamp E, Nelissen R, van Arkel E. The accuracy of subacromial injections: A prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.

11. Sethi P, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: A cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.

12. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.

13. Speer M, McLennan N, Nixon C. Novice learner in-plane ultrasound imaging: which visualization technique? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38(4):350-352.

14. Marhofer P, Schebesta K, Marhofer D. [Hygiene aspects in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia]. Anaesthesist. 2016;65(7):492-498.

15. Sherman T, Ferguson J, Davis W, Russo M, Argintar E. Does the use of ultrasound affect contamination of musculoskeletal injection sites? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):351-357.

16. Bashir J, Panero AJ, Sherman AL. The emerging use of platelet-rich plasma in musculoskeletal medicine. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115(1):23-31.

17. Royall NA, Farrin E, Bahner DP, Stanislaw PA. Ultrasound-assisted musculoskeletal procedures: A practical overview of current literature. World J Orthop. 2011;2(7):57-66.

18. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Ashworth N. Ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections are more accurate and more effective than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(16):1042-1049.

19. Maman E, Yehuda C, Pritsch T, et al. Detrimental effect of repeated and single subacromial corticosteroid injections on the intact and injured rotator cuff: A biomechanical and imaging study in rats. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):177-182.

20. Gautam VK, Verma S, Batra S, Bhatnagar N, Arora S. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;23(1):1-5.

21. Patel S, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Marwaha N, Jain A. Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):356-364.

22. Cerza F, Carni S, Carcangiu A, et al. Comparison between hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma, intra-articular infiltration in the treatment of gonarthrosis. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2822-2827.

23. Spakova T, Rosocha J, Lacko M, Harvanova D, Gharaibeh A. Treatment of knee joint osteoarthritis with autologous platelet-rich plasma in comparison with hyaluronic acid. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(5):411-417.

24. Peerbooms JC, Sluimer J, Brujin DJ, Gosens T. Positive effects of an autologous platelet concentrate in lateral epicondylitis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial: platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection with a 1-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):255-262.

25. Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, den Oudsten BL. Ongoing positive effects of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(6):1200-1208.

26. Centeno CJ, Al-Sayegh H, Bashir J, Goodyear S, Freeman MD. A prospective multi-site registry study of a specific protocol of autologous bone marrow concentrate for the treatment of shoulder rotator cuff tears and osteoarthritis. J Pain Res. 2015;8:269-276.

27. Del Castillo-Gonzalez F, Ramos-Alvarez JJ, Rodriguez-Fabian G, Gonzalez-Perez J, Calderon-Montero J. Treatment of the calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff by ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage. Two years prospective study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2015;4(4):407-412.

28. De Witte PB, Selten JW, Navas A, et al. Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1665-1673.

29. Koh J, Mohan P, Morrey B, et al. Fasciotomy and surgical tenotomy for recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy: early clinical experience with a novel device for minimally invasive percutaneous microresection. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(3):636-644.

30. Elattrache N, Morrey B. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy as a treatment for chronic patellar tendinopathy–Jumper’s knee. Oper Tech Orthop. 2013;23(2):98-103

31. Patel MM. A novel treatment for refractory plantar fasciitis. Am J Orthop. 2015;444(3):107-110.

32. Harris G, Bou-Haidar P, Harris C. Adhesive capsulitis: Review of imaging and treatment. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57:633-643.

33. Park SW, Lee HS, Kim JH. The effectiveness of intensive mobilization techniques combined with capsular distention for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(11):1776-1770.

34. Bae JH, Park YS, Chang HJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of capsular distension for adhesive capsulitis: Fluoroscopy-guided anterior versus ultrasonography-guided posterolateral approach. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(3):360-368.

35. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Mohamed A, Beavis C, Obaid H. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomy of long head of the biceps tendon–A pilot cadaveric study. J Clin Ultrasound. 2015;43(6):361-366.

References

1. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 1: coding and reimbursement. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(3):176-182.

2. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016; 45(4):233-238.

3. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: Interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.

4. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.

5. Eustace J, Brophy D, Gibney R, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.

6. Partington P, Broome G. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: Hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.

7. Rutten M, Maresch B, Jager G, de Waal Malefijt M. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: Blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.

8. Kang M, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas D, Blacksin M. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: A comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 Suppl):61S-66S.

9. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: An arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;19(8):887-891.

10. Henkus HE, Cobben M, Coerkamp E, Nelissen R, van Arkel E. The accuracy of subacromial injections: A prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.

11. Sethi P, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: A cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.

12. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.

13. Speer M, McLennan N, Nixon C. Novice learner in-plane ultrasound imaging: which visualization technique? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38(4):350-352.

14. Marhofer P, Schebesta K, Marhofer D. [Hygiene aspects in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia]. Anaesthesist. 2016;65(7):492-498.

15. Sherman T, Ferguson J, Davis W, Russo M, Argintar E. Does the use of ultrasound affect contamination of musculoskeletal injection sites? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):351-357.

16. Bashir J, Panero AJ, Sherman AL. The emerging use of platelet-rich plasma in musculoskeletal medicine. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115(1):23-31.

17. Royall NA, Farrin E, Bahner DP, Stanislaw PA. Ultrasound-assisted musculoskeletal procedures: A practical overview of current literature. World J Orthop. 2011;2(7):57-66.

18. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Ashworth N. Ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections are more accurate and more effective than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(16):1042-1049.

19. Maman E, Yehuda C, Pritsch T, et al. Detrimental effect of repeated and single subacromial corticosteroid injections on the intact and injured rotator cuff: A biomechanical and imaging study in rats. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):177-182.

20. Gautam VK, Verma S, Batra S, Bhatnagar N, Arora S. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;23(1):1-5.

21. Patel S, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Marwaha N, Jain A. Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):356-364.

22. Cerza F, Carni S, Carcangiu A, et al. Comparison between hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma, intra-articular infiltration in the treatment of gonarthrosis. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2822-2827.

23. Spakova T, Rosocha J, Lacko M, Harvanova D, Gharaibeh A. Treatment of knee joint osteoarthritis with autologous platelet-rich plasma in comparison with hyaluronic acid. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(5):411-417.

24. Peerbooms JC, Sluimer J, Brujin DJ, Gosens T. Positive effects of an autologous platelet concentrate in lateral epicondylitis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial: platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection with a 1-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):255-262.

25. Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, den Oudsten BL. Ongoing positive effects of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(6):1200-1208.

26. Centeno CJ, Al-Sayegh H, Bashir J, Goodyear S, Freeman MD. A prospective multi-site registry study of a specific protocol of autologous bone marrow concentrate for the treatment of shoulder rotator cuff tears and osteoarthritis. J Pain Res. 2015;8:269-276.

27. Del Castillo-Gonzalez F, Ramos-Alvarez JJ, Rodriguez-Fabian G, Gonzalez-Perez J, Calderon-Montero J. Treatment of the calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff by ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage. Two years prospective study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2015;4(4):407-412.

28. De Witte PB, Selten JW, Navas A, et al. Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1665-1673.

29. Koh J, Mohan P, Morrey B, et al. Fasciotomy and surgical tenotomy for recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy: early clinical experience with a novel device for minimally invasive percutaneous microresection. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(3):636-644.

30. Elattrache N, Morrey B. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy as a treatment for chronic patellar tendinopathy–Jumper’s knee. Oper Tech Orthop. 2013;23(2):98-103

31. Patel MM. A novel treatment for refractory plantar fasciitis. Am J Orthop. 2015;444(3):107-110.

32. Harris G, Bou-Haidar P, Harris C. Adhesive capsulitis: Review of imaging and treatment. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57:633-643.

33. Park SW, Lee HS, Kim JH. The effectiveness of intensive mobilization techniques combined with capsular distention for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(11):1776-1770.

34. Bae JH, Park YS, Chang HJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of capsular distension for adhesive capsulitis: Fluoroscopy-guided anterior versus ultrasonography-guided posterolateral approach. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(3):360-368.

35. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Mohamed A, Beavis C, Obaid H. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomy of long head of the biceps tendon–A pilot cadaveric study. J Clin Ultrasound. 2015;43(6):361-366.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(7)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(7)
Page Number
440-445
Page Number
440-445
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
A Guide to Ultrasound of the Shoulder, Part 3: Interventional and Procedural Uses
Display Headline
A Guide to Ultrasound of the Shoulder, Part 3: Interventional and Procedural Uses
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media