LayerRx Mapping ID
417
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Featured Buckets Admin
Medscape Lead Concept
64500

Diabetes, Previous Joint Pain, and Overall Physical Health Predict Arthritis Pain

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Diabetes, Previous Joint Pain, and Overall Physical Health Predict Arthritis Pain

LAS VEGAS—Diabetes and previous joint pain, along with a patient’s overall physical health status, may predict arthritis pain with nearly 100% accuracy, according to new research presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

In this study, researchers created an algorithm, based on data from the 2011-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, to determine factors and patterns that contribute to pain for a national representative sample of 5,721 American adults with arthritis. The sample’s mean age was 60.14 years and the average household income was $52,275. The study authors looked at more than 1,000 variables pertaining to demographics, medical claims, laboratory tests, patient-reported outcomes, employment history, health insurance, medical expenditures, and socio-behavioral characteristics. Patient health status was determined through use of the SF-12 Health Component Survey.

Patients were asked whether or not their pain limited normal work. Responses were divided into a “no effect” group, for those who responded “not at all” or “a little bit;” and an “effect” group for respondents who stated that they experienced pain “moderately,” “quite a bit,” or “extremely.”

The study found that specific combinations of physical health, mental health, and general health status, as well as diabetes, previous joint pain, and a patient’s education level, predicted pain for individuals diagnosed with arthritis, with physical health status the greatest predictor of pain that limited work. The research did not find a link between arthritis pain and a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m² (the threshold for obesity). One of the several algorithms that the researchers developed is able to predict pain at an accuracy rate of 98.6%.

“Our results indicate that physical health along with a number of conditions can significantly distinguish individuals with and without pain,” said Man Hung, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations at the University of Utah School of Medicine. “The algorithms generated in the study offer new insights into pain and should help in the development of cost-effective care management programs for those experiencing arthritis.”

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
AAOS, AJO, BMI, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Man Hung, arthritis
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

LAS VEGAS—Diabetes and previous joint pain, along with a patient’s overall physical health status, may predict arthritis pain with nearly 100% accuracy, according to new research presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

In this study, researchers created an algorithm, based on data from the 2011-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, to determine factors and patterns that contribute to pain for a national representative sample of 5,721 American adults with arthritis. The sample’s mean age was 60.14 years and the average household income was $52,275. The study authors looked at more than 1,000 variables pertaining to demographics, medical claims, laboratory tests, patient-reported outcomes, employment history, health insurance, medical expenditures, and socio-behavioral characteristics. Patient health status was determined through use of the SF-12 Health Component Survey.

Patients were asked whether or not their pain limited normal work. Responses were divided into a “no effect” group, for those who responded “not at all” or “a little bit;” and an “effect” group for respondents who stated that they experienced pain “moderately,” “quite a bit,” or “extremely.”

The study found that specific combinations of physical health, mental health, and general health status, as well as diabetes, previous joint pain, and a patient’s education level, predicted pain for individuals diagnosed with arthritis, with physical health status the greatest predictor of pain that limited work. The research did not find a link between arthritis pain and a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m² (the threshold for obesity). One of the several algorithms that the researchers developed is able to predict pain at an accuracy rate of 98.6%.

“Our results indicate that physical health along with a number of conditions can significantly distinguish individuals with and without pain,” said Man Hung, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations at the University of Utah School of Medicine. “The algorithms generated in the study offer new insights into pain and should help in the development of cost-effective care management programs for those experiencing arthritis.”

LAS VEGAS—Diabetes and previous joint pain, along with a patient’s overall physical health status, may predict arthritis pain with nearly 100% accuracy, according to new research presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

In this study, researchers created an algorithm, based on data from the 2011-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, to determine factors and patterns that contribute to pain for a national representative sample of 5,721 American adults with arthritis. The sample’s mean age was 60.14 years and the average household income was $52,275. The study authors looked at more than 1,000 variables pertaining to demographics, medical claims, laboratory tests, patient-reported outcomes, employment history, health insurance, medical expenditures, and socio-behavioral characteristics. Patient health status was determined through use of the SF-12 Health Component Survey.

Patients were asked whether or not their pain limited normal work. Responses were divided into a “no effect” group, for those who responded “not at all” or “a little bit;” and an “effect” group for respondents who stated that they experienced pain “moderately,” “quite a bit,” or “extremely.”

The study found that specific combinations of physical health, mental health, and general health status, as well as diabetes, previous joint pain, and a patient’s education level, predicted pain for individuals diagnosed with arthritis, with physical health status the greatest predictor of pain that limited work. The research did not find a link between arthritis pain and a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m² (the threshold for obesity). One of the several algorithms that the researchers developed is able to predict pain at an accuracy rate of 98.6%.

“Our results indicate that physical health along with a number of conditions can significantly distinguish individuals with and without pain,” said Man Hung, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations at the University of Utah School of Medicine. “The algorithms generated in the study offer new insights into pain and should help in the development of cost-effective care management programs for those experiencing arthritis.”

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Diabetes, Previous Joint Pain, and Overall Physical Health Predict Arthritis Pain
Display Headline
Diabetes, Previous Joint Pain, and Overall Physical Health Predict Arthritis Pain
Legacy Keywords
AAOS, AJO, BMI, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Man Hung, arthritis
Legacy Keywords
AAOS, AJO, BMI, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Man Hung, arthritis
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Nearly Half of Patients Have Delirium Before and After Hip Fracture Surgery, Diminishing Outcomes and Increasing Health Care Costs

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Nearly Half of Patients Have Delirium Before and After Hip Fracture Surgery, Diminishing Outcomes and Increasing Health Care Costs

LAS VEGAS─Nearly 50% of hip fracture patients, age 65 years and older, had delirium before, during, and after surgery, resulting in significantly longer hospital stays and higher costs for care, according to data presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). Delirium was associated with 7.4 additional hospital days and approximately $8,000 more in hospital costs.

Approximately 300,000 Americans are hospitalized with hip fractures each year. The risk is particularly high in post-menopausal women who face an increased risk for osteoporosis. Delirium is common among older hip fracture patients, and multiple studies have found that patients with postoperative delirium are more likely to have complications, including infections, and less likely to return to their pre-injury level of function. Delirium patients also are more frequently placed in nursing homes following surgery and have an increased rate of mortality.

In this study, researchers at the University of Toronto sought to determine the economic implications of perioperative delirium in older orthopedic patients by reviewing hip fracture records between January 2011 and December 2012. A total of 242 hip fracture patients with a mean age of 82 years (ages 65 to 103 years) were studied. Demographic, clinical, surgical, and adverse events data were analyzed. Perioperative delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).

The study found that 116 patients (48%) experienced delirium during hospital admission. The patients with delirium were significantly older (mean age 85 years), and were more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (1 represents a completely healthy fit patient, and 5 represents a patient not expected to live beyond 24 hours without surgery). After controlling for these differences, perioperative delirium was associated with 7.4 additional hospital days and $8,282 ($8,649 in US dollars) in additional hospital costs (1.5 times the cost of patients who did not experience delirium).

There were no differences in mean time between triage or admission and surgery, length of surgery, or anesthesia type between groups. A significantly greater proportion of patients who experienced perioperative delirium required long-term and/or skilled care facility admission following their hospital stay than did those who did not experience delirium (8% versus 0%).

“Older patients are at high risk of developing delirium during hospitalization for a hip fracture, which is associated with worse outcomes,” said orthopedic surgeon and lead study author Michael G. Zywiel, MD. “Our work demonstrates that delirium also markedly increases the cost of elderly patient care while in the hospital. Given the high number of patients hospitalized every year with a hip fracture, there is a real need to develop and fund improved interventions to prevent in-hospital delirium in these patients.

“Our research suggests that reducing the rate of delirium would simultaneously increase the quality of care while decreasing costs, presenting hospitals, surgeons, and other stakeholders with promising opportunities to improve the value of hip fracture care,” said Dr. Zywiel.

The AAOS’s new clinical practice guideline, “Management of Hip Fractures in the Elderly,” makes a series of recommendations to reduce delirium in older hip fracture patients. They include:

• Preoperative regional analgesia to reduce pain.

• Hip fracture surgery within 48 hours of hospital admission.

• Intensive physical therapy following hospital discharge to improve functional outcomes.

• An osteoporosis evaluation, as well as vitamin D and calcium supplements, for patients following a hip fracture.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
AJO, Hip Fracture, Surgery, Health Care, AAOS, Michael G. Zywiel
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

LAS VEGAS─Nearly 50% of hip fracture patients, age 65 years and older, had delirium before, during, and after surgery, resulting in significantly longer hospital stays and higher costs for care, according to data presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). Delirium was associated with 7.4 additional hospital days and approximately $8,000 more in hospital costs.

Approximately 300,000 Americans are hospitalized with hip fractures each year. The risk is particularly high in post-menopausal women who face an increased risk for osteoporosis. Delirium is common among older hip fracture patients, and multiple studies have found that patients with postoperative delirium are more likely to have complications, including infections, and less likely to return to their pre-injury level of function. Delirium patients also are more frequently placed in nursing homes following surgery and have an increased rate of mortality.

In this study, researchers at the University of Toronto sought to determine the economic implications of perioperative delirium in older orthopedic patients by reviewing hip fracture records between January 2011 and December 2012. A total of 242 hip fracture patients with a mean age of 82 years (ages 65 to 103 years) were studied. Demographic, clinical, surgical, and adverse events data were analyzed. Perioperative delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).

The study found that 116 patients (48%) experienced delirium during hospital admission. The patients with delirium were significantly older (mean age 85 years), and were more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (1 represents a completely healthy fit patient, and 5 represents a patient not expected to live beyond 24 hours without surgery). After controlling for these differences, perioperative delirium was associated with 7.4 additional hospital days and $8,282 ($8,649 in US dollars) in additional hospital costs (1.5 times the cost of patients who did not experience delirium).

There were no differences in mean time between triage or admission and surgery, length of surgery, or anesthesia type between groups. A significantly greater proportion of patients who experienced perioperative delirium required long-term and/or skilled care facility admission following their hospital stay than did those who did not experience delirium (8% versus 0%).

“Older patients are at high risk of developing delirium during hospitalization for a hip fracture, which is associated with worse outcomes,” said orthopedic surgeon and lead study author Michael G. Zywiel, MD. “Our work demonstrates that delirium also markedly increases the cost of elderly patient care while in the hospital. Given the high number of patients hospitalized every year with a hip fracture, there is a real need to develop and fund improved interventions to prevent in-hospital delirium in these patients.

“Our research suggests that reducing the rate of delirium would simultaneously increase the quality of care while decreasing costs, presenting hospitals, surgeons, and other stakeholders with promising opportunities to improve the value of hip fracture care,” said Dr. Zywiel.

The AAOS’s new clinical practice guideline, “Management of Hip Fractures in the Elderly,” makes a series of recommendations to reduce delirium in older hip fracture patients. They include:

• Preoperative regional analgesia to reduce pain.

• Hip fracture surgery within 48 hours of hospital admission.

• Intensive physical therapy following hospital discharge to improve functional outcomes.

• An osteoporosis evaluation, as well as vitamin D and calcium supplements, for patients following a hip fracture.

LAS VEGAS─Nearly 50% of hip fracture patients, age 65 years and older, had delirium before, during, and after surgery, resulting in significantly longer hospital stays and higher costs for care, according to data presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). Delirium was associated with 7.4 additional hospital days and approximately $8,000 more in hospital costs.

Approximately 300,000 Americans are hospitalized with hip fractures each year. The risk is particularly high in post-menopausal women who face an increased risk for osteoporosis. Delirium is common among older hip fracture patients, and multiple studies have found that patients with postoperative delirium are more likely to have complications, including infections, and less likely to return to their pre-injury level of function. Delirium patients also are more frequently placed in nursing homes following surgery and have an increased rate of mortality.

In this study, researchers at the University of Toronto sought to determine the economic implications of perioperative delirium in older orthopedic patients by reviewing hip fracture records between January 2011 and December 2012. A total of 242 hip fracture patients with a mean age of 82 years (ages 65 to 103 years) were studied. Demographic, clinical, surgical, and adverse events data were analyzed. Perioperative delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).

The study found that 116 patients (48%) experienced delirium during hospital admission. The patients with delirium were significantly older (mean age 85 years), and were more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (1 represents a completely healthy fit patient, and 5 represents a patient not expected to live beyond 24 hours without surgery). After controlling for these differences, perioperative delirium was associated with 7.4 additional hospital days and $8,282 ($8,649 in US dollars) in additional hospital costs (1.5 times the cost of patients who did not experience delirium).

There were no differences in mean time between triage or admission and surgery, length of surgery, or anesthesia type between groups. A significantly greater proportion of patients who experienced perioperative delirium required long-term and/or skilled care facility admission following their hospital stay than did those who did not experience delirium (8% versus 0%).

“Older patients are at high risk of developing delirium during hospitalization for a hip fracture, which is associated with worse outcomes,” said orthopedic surgeon and lead study author Michael G. Zywiel, MD. “Our work demonstrates that delirium also markedly increases the cost of elderly patient care while in the hospital. Given the high number of patients hospitalized every year with a hip fracture, there is a real need to develop and fund improved interventions to prevent in-hospital delirium in these patients.

“Our research suggests that reducing the rate of delirium would simultaneously increase the quality of care while decreasing costs, presenting hospitals, surgeons, and other stakeholders with promising opportunities to improve the value of hip fracture care,” said Dr. Zywiel.

The AAOS’s new clinical practice guideline, “Management of Hip Fractures in the Elderly,” makes a series of recommendations to reduce delirium in older hip fracture patients. They include:

• Preoperative regional analgesia to reduce pain.

• Hip fracture surgery within 48 hours of hospital admission.

• Intensive physical therapy following hospital discharge to improve functional outcomes.

• An osteoporosis evaluation, as well as vitamin D and calcium supplements, for patients following a hip fracture.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Nearly Half of Patients Have Delirium Before and After Hip Fracture Surgery, Diminishing Outcomes and Increasing Health Care Costs
Display Headline
Nearly Half of Patients Have Delirium Before and After Hip Fracture Surgery, Diminishing Outcomes and Increasing Health Care Costs
Legacy Keywords
AJO, Hip Fracture, Surgery, Health Care, AAOS, Michael G. Zywiel
Legacy Keywords
AJO, Hip Fracture, Surgery, Health Care, AAOS, Michael G. Zywiel
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Spinal Surgery Diminishes Low Back Pain, Improves Sexual Function

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Spinal Surgery Diminishes Low Back Pain, Improves Sexual Function

LAS VEGAS—Chronic low back pain can limit everyday activities, including sex. New research presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) found that 70% of patients consider sexual activity “relevant” to their quality of life, and patients who receive surgical treatment for spinal degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and spinal stenosis (SS) were twice as likely to report no pain during sex.

“Our current research sheds light on the effect that spinal surgery has on a patient’s sex life and begins to describe the impact spinal disease has on this very important aspect of life,” said senior study author Shane Burch, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco.

Researchers reviewed data from the Spine Patients Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) of 1,235 patients diagnosed with DS or SS. Patient responses to the question, “In the past week, how has pain affected your sex life?” were used to determine sex-life relevance. Patients selecting the options, “unable to answer” or “does not apply to me,” were placed in the sex-life non-relevant (NR) group. Patients selecting other options were placed into the sex-life relevant (SLR) group. The mean age of patients in the NR and SLR groups were 68 years and 63 years, respectively. Seventy percent of patients were in the SLR group.

There was a higher association of being in the NR group for patients who were female or unmarried, or had a coexisting joint problem or hypertension. At baseline, 40% of SLR patients reported having some level of pain related to sex.

The study included 825 patients, 449 with SS and 376 with DS. A total of 294 patients received nonoperative treatment, and 531 received surgical treatment. The nonoperative patients were more likely to report pain related to sex at all follow-up time frames (from 41% compared to 20%). The percentages remained constant during annual visits at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years after surgery. Prior studies found that 41% of physicians routinely question patients with lumbar disc herniation about sexual problems.

“Our current research has two important findings,” said Dr. Horst. “The first is that sexual activity and sexual function is an important consideration for patients with degenerative spine conditions. The study also shows that sexual function is a more relevant consideration for patients who are married, younger, and male. The second important finding of our study is that patients with degenerative conditions of the spine treated with surgery reported less pain with their sex life compared to patients treated without surgery. This finding lasted throughout the four years of follow-up.”

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
AJO, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, degenerative spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, pain, sex, SPORT
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

LAS VEGAS—Chronic low back pain can limit everyday activities, including sex. New research presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) found that 70% of patients consider sexual activity “relevant” to their quality of life, and patients who receive surgical treatment for spinal degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and spinal stenosis (SS) were twice as likely to report no pain during sex.

“Our current research sheds light on the effect that spinal surgery has on a patient’s sex life and begins to describe the impact spinal disease has on this very important aspect of life,” said senior study author Shane Burch, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco.

Researchers reviewed data from the Spine Patients Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) of 1,235 patients diagnosed with DS or SS. Patient responses to the question, “In the past week, how has pain affected your sex life?” were used to determine sex-life relevance. Patients selecting the options, “unable to answer” or “does not apply to me,” were placed in the sex-life non-relevant (NR) group. Patients selecting other options were placed into the sex-life relevant (SLR) group. The mean age of patients in the NR and SLR groups were 68 years and 63 years, respectively. Seventy percent of patients were in the SLR group.

There was a higher association of being in the NR group for patients who were female or unmarried, or had a coexisting joint problem or hypertension. At baseline, 40% of SLR patients reported having some level of pain related to sex.

The study included 825 patients, 449 with SS and 376 with DS. A total of 294 patients received nonoperative treatment, and 531 received surgical treatment. The nonoperative patients were more likely to report pain related to sex at all follow-up time frames (from 41% compared to 20%). The percentages remained constant during annual visits at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years after surgery. Prior studies found that 41% of physicians routinely question patients with lumbar disc herniation about sexual problems.

“Our current research has two important findings,” said Dr. Horst. “The first is that sexual activity and sexual function is an important consideration for patients with degenerative spine conditions. The study also shows that sexual function is a more relevant consideration for patients who are married, younger, and male. The second important finding of our study is that patients with degenerative conditions of the spine treated with surgery reported less pain with their sex life compared to patients treated without surgery. This finding lasted throughout the four years of follow-up.”

LAS VEGAS—Chronic low back pain can limit everyday activities, including sex. New research presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) found that 70% of patients consider sexual activity “relevant” to their quality of life, and patients who receive surgical treatment for spinal degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and spinal stenosis (SS) were twice as likely to report no pain during sex.

“Our current research sheds light on the effect that spinal surgery has on a patient’s sex life and begins to describe the impact spinal disease has on this very important aspect of life,” said senior study author Shane Burch, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco.

Researchers reviewed data from the Spine Patients Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) of 1,235 patients diagnosed with DS or SS. Patient responses to the question, “In the past week, how has pain affected your sex life?” were used to determine sex-life relevance. Patients selecting the options, “unable to answer” or “does not apply to me,” were placed in the sex-life non-relevant (NR) group. Patients selecting other options were placed into the sex-life relevant (SLR) group. The mean age of patients in the NR and SLR groups were 68 years and 63 years, respectively. Seventy percent of patients were in the SLR group.

There was a higher association of being in the NR group for patients who were female or unmarried, or had a coexisting joint problem or hypertension. At baseline, 40% of SLR patients reported having some level of pain related to sex.

The study included 825 patients, 449 with SS and 376 with DS. A total of 294 patients received nonoperative treatment, and 531 received surgical treatment. The nonoperative patients were more likely to report pain related to sex at all follow-up time frames (from 41% compared to 20%). The percentages remained constant during annual visits at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years after surgery. Prior studies found that 41% of physicians routinely question patients with lumbar disc herniation about sexual problems.

“Our current research has two important findings,” said Dr. Horst. “The first is that sexual activity and sexual function is an important consideration for patients with degenerative spine conditions. The study also shows that sexual function is a more relevant consideration for patients who are married, younger, and male. The second important finding of our study is that patients with degenerative conditions of the spine treated with surgery reported less pain with their sex life compared to patients treated without surgery. This finding lasted throughout the four years of follow-up.”

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Spinal Surgery Diminishes Low Back Pain, Improves Sexual Function
Display Headline
Spinal Surgery Diminishes Low Back Pain, Improves Sexual Function
Legacy Keywords
AJO, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, degenerative spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, pain, sex, SPORT
Legacy Keywords
AJO, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, degenerative spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, pain, sex, SPORT
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

The Value of National and Hospital Registries

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
The Value of National and Hospital Registries

Following Dr. Sarmiento’s commentary, “Orthopedic Registries: Second Thoughts,” we agree that it is important and appropriate to question the value of any new additions to the orthopedic field, and registries are no exception. We thank Dr. Sarmiento for his comments on the viability of registries and the need for continued critical evaluation. Before joint registries, however, we had to rely on small-cohort analyses to assess outcomes and complications. Now, national and hospital registries, specifically joint registries, may be an invaluable source of information for orthopedic surgeons, patients, health care administrators, regulators, and implant suppliers.1,2

Contrary to Dr. Sarmiento’s belief that registry data results are likely to have been reported in the literature, it is difficult to refute the value of recent years’ registry data in helping surgeons shape their practice. For example, according to Lewallen and Etkin,3 the National Joint Registry of England and Wales information has provided orthopedic surgeons with crucial findings regarding the outcomes of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Using the England and Wales registry data from more than 400,000 primary total hip arthroplasties, Smith and colleagues4 noted that metal-on-metal stemmed articulations led to poor implant survival, particularly in young women with large-diameter heads, and indicated these articulations should not be used. Australian registry data on metal-on-metal devices and reports of failure rates up to 11%5 led one manufacturer to recall its implants.6 In addition, the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register evaluated survival rates and reasons for revision for 7 types of cemented primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between 1994 and 2009.7 Data on more than 17,000 primary TKAs allowed Plate and colleagues8 to confidently determine that aseptic loosening was related to certain TKA designs. Using registry information, they identified patients at risk for dislocation in total hip arthroplasty and concluded that large-diameter femoral head articulations could reduce dislocation rates.

Obtaining such large cohorts of patients in individual studies is not only difficult but highly unlikely. Unlike registry data, these studies are often impractical in evaluating factors of low incidence, such as revision rates, as it is often difficult to find significant differences in small populations.9 Furthermore, these controlled trials homogenize patients—using exclusion and inclusion criteria to eliminate potential confounders—and thus poorly represent the heterogeneity of a typical hospital’s patient population.10 Although the literature may indeed have alluded to such complications, only a database as extensive as a registry can allow us to fully comprehend the outcomes of particular implants and devices.

Dr. Sarmiento points to the AO Swiss Fracture Registry as being of little benefit and raises the concern that the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) may follow with the same results. However, realizing a registry’s benefits may take time and the gradual accumulation of data. Supporting this, Hübschle and colleagues11 recently used AO Swiss Fracture Registry data to validate use of balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures and concluded that the technique is safe and effective in reducing pain—thus possibly providing the federal office with the evidence needed for reimbursement for this intervention. Therefore, this registry is now providing useful information.

We can never truly know the veracity of participating surgeons, but it is naïve to assume that this issue arises only vis-à-vis registries. If we were to debate the ethical and professional standards of colleagues in our field, such questions could extend to all studies performed, even peer-reviewed studies. Therefore, we do not think this is reason to exclude the patient data and outcomes found in registries. We must emphasize that ultimately registry data are often most useful in highlighting trends and determining triggers for further study rather than in arriving at conclusions.1 In particular, registry data may be used in cohort studies that evaluate the risk factors for and incidence of certain outcomes. Focused higher-level interventional studies can then follow the trends observed.1 However, registry data are also valuable on their own, when higher-level, randomized controlled trials may be impractical or unethical.12

Dr. Sarmiento refers to corrupt relationships between companies and orthopedists as “representing a widespread loss of professionalism in our ranks.” Despite a US Justice Department investigation into these relationships, only a few doctors were found to have had inappropriate relationships.13 In addition, the investigation and prosecution of companies led to an agreement requiring federal monitoring and new corporate compliance procedures, which should ensure stricter adherence to regulations.14 We do not believe this should undermine the value of registries and the work that has been contributed by thousands of surgeons hoping to improve the field of orthopedics. In addition, concerns about the influence of well-known individuals may be better directed at individual institution–based research, particularly as these specific authors also often have conflicts of interest that may skew the presentation of results. The strength of registry data is in providing collective data and large samples from a multitude of surgeons rather than from just high-volume surgeons, and therefore registry data provide a better overall picture of patients and their procedures.15 Furthermore, trends observed in national registries in countries such as New Zealand16 may aid in effectively reducing the revision rate, possibly up to 10%.17 If a US national joint registry is marginally as effective, then we may see considerable savings for our health care services.17,18

 

 

We wholeheartedly agree that a yearly review of registries may be constructive. Dr. Sarmiento suggests an annual publication summarizing peer-reviewed articles and the opportunity for orthopedists to decide for themselves what treatments to choose based on reports from independent investigators. Although this sounds feasible, it would be difficult to decide which articles should be selected as pertinent for this type of publication. Any selection would be biased, and not all studies with high-level evidence are necessarily important or relevant. Therefore, selecting what is most appropriate to cite is not without its difficulties. We appreciate that there are problems in standardizing data reporting among registries. However, to improve interregistry collaboration, the US Food and Drug Administration is sponsoring the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR) to facilitate data presentation.19 ICOR aims to increase cooperation, standardize analyses, and improve reporting, which will only strengthen the data available to us. Such efforts will ultimately enhance coordination and international collaboration among registries.15 In addition, incorporating patient-reported outcomes into our national registry will aid in quantifying arthroplasty outcomes from the patient’s perspective and will continue to improve total joint arthroplasties.20

Overall, this debate is useful and highly relevant in highlighting potential issues with registries. Although registries are not without their flaws, like all aspects of orthopedics they are ever evolving, and they must be continually modified and improved. However, disregard for the potential value of AJRR, which has benefits for orthopedists and patients alike, is premature. Once again, we thank Dr. Sarmiento for starting this discussion, which will allow us to continue to evaluate and improve our registries.

References

1.    Konan S, Haddad FS. Joint registries: a Ptolemaic model of data interpretation? Bone Joint J Br. 2013;95(12):1585-1586.

2.    Banerjee S, Cafri G, Isaacs AJ, et al. A distributed health data network analysis of survival outcomes: the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries perspective. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(suppl 1):7-11.

3.    Lewallen DG, Etkin CD. The need for a national total joint registry. Orthop Nurs. 2013;32(1):4-5.

4.    Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW; National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet. 2012;379(9822):1199-1204.

5.    de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2287-2293.

6.    Hug KT, Watters TS, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The withdrawn ASR™ THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years? Clin Orthop. 2013;471(2):430-438.

7.    Gøthesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin L, et al. Survival rates and causes of revision in cemented primary total knee replacement: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994–2009. Bone Joint J Br. 2013;95(5):636-642.

8.    Plate JF, Seyler TM, Stroh DA, Issa K, Akbar M, Mont MA. Risk of dislocation using large- vs. small-diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:553.

9.    Daruwalla ZJ, Wong KL, Pillay KR, Leong KM, Murphy DP. Does ageing Singapore need an electronic database of hip fracture patients? The value and role of a national joint registry and an electronic database of intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures. Singapore Med J. 2014;55(5):287-288.

10.  Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Fevang BT, et al. A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(10):1328-1335.

11.  Hübschle L, Borgström F, Olafsson G, et al. Real-life results of balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures from the SWISSspine registry. Spine J. 2014;14(9):2063-2077.

12.  Ahn H, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM, Schemitsch EH. The use of hospital registries in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 3):68-72.

13.    Youngstrom N. Swept up in major medical device case, physician pays $650,000 to settle kickback charges. AIS Health Business Daily. May 3, 2010.

14.  Five companies in hip and knee replacement industry avoid prosecution by agreeing to compliance rules and monitoring [press release]. US Department of Justice website.  http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/pdffiles/Older/hips0927.rel.pdf. Published September 27, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2015.

15.  Namba RS, Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Robertsson O, Graves SE. The role of registry data in the evaluation of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(suppl 3):48-50.

16.  Insull PJ, Cobbett H, Frampton CM, Munro JT. The use of a lipped acetabular liner decreases the rate of revision for instability after total hip replacement: a study using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. Bone Joint J Br. 2014;96(7):884-888.

17.  Rankin EA. AJRR: becoming a national US joint registry. Orthopedics. 2013;36(3):175-176.

18.  American Joint Replacement Registry website. https://teamwork.aaos.org/ajrr/SitePages/About%20Us.aspx. Accessed February 19, 2015.

19.  International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries website. http://www.icor-initiative.org. Accessed February 19, 2015.

20.   Franklin PD, Harrold L, Ayers DC. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries: challenges and opportunities. Clin Orthop. 2013;471(11):3482-3488.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael A. Mont, MD, Randa K. Elmallah, MD, and Jeffrey J. Cherian, DO

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
160-162
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, point, counterpoint, opinion, value, national, hospital, registry, registries, AJRR, american joint replacement registry, joint, sarmiento, mont, elmallah, cherian, orthopedics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael A. Mont, MD, Randa K. Elmallah, MD, and Jeffrey J. Cherian, DO

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Michael A. Mont, MD, Randa K. Elmallah, MD, and Jeffrey J. Cherian, DO

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Following Dr. Sarmiento’s commentary, “Orthopedic Registries: Second Thoughts,” we agree that it is important and appropriate to question the value of any new additions to the orthopedic field, and registries are no exception. We thank Dr. Sarmiento for his comments on the viability of registries and the need for continued critical evaluation. Before joint registries, however, we had to rely on small-cohort analyses to assess outcomes and complications. Now, national and hospital registries, specifically joint registries, may be an invaluable source of information for orthopedic surgeons, patients, health care administrators, regulators, and implant suppliers.1,2

Contrary to Dr. Sarmiento’s belief that registry data results are likely to have been reported in the literature, it is difficult to refute the value of recent years’ registry data in helping surgeons shape their practice. For example, according to Lewallen and Etkin,3 the National Joint Registry of England and Wales information has provided orthopedic surgeons with crucial findings regarding the outcomes of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Using the England and Wales registry data from more than 400,000 primary total hip arthroplasties, Smith and colleagues4 noted that metal-on-metal stemmed articulations led to poor implant survival, particularly in young women with large-diameter heads, and indicated these articulations should not be used. Australian registry data on metal-on-metal devices and reports of failure rates up to 11%5 led one manufacturer to recall its implants.6 In addition, the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register evaluated survival rates and reasons for revision for 7 types of cemented primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between 1994 and 2009.7 Data on more than 17,000 primary TKAs allowed Plate and colleagues8 to confidently determine that aseptic loosening was related to certain TKA designs. Using registry information, they identified patients at risk for dislocation in total hip arthroplasty and concluded that large-diameter femoral head articulations could reduce dislocation rates.

Obtaining such large cohorts of patients in individual studies is not only difficult but highly unlikely. Unlike registry data, these studies are often impractical in evaluating factors of low incidence, such as revision rates, as it is often difficult to find significant differences in small populations.9 Furthermore, these controlled trials homogenize patients—using exclusion and inclusion criteria to eliminate potential confounders—and thus poorly represent the heterogeneity of a typical hospital’s patient population.10 Although the literature may indeed have alluded to such complications, only a database as extensive as a registry can allow us to fully comprehend the outcomes of particular implants and devices.

Dr. Sarmiento points to the AO Swiss Fracture Registry as being of little benefit and raises the concern that the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) may follow with the same results. However, realizing a registry’s benefits may take time and the gradual accumulation of data. Supporting this, Hübschle and colleagues11 recently used AO Swiss Fracture Registry data to validate use of balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures and concluded that the technique is safe and effective in reducing pain—thus possibly providing the federal office with the evidence needed for reimbursement for this intervention. Therefore, this registry is now providing useful information.

We can never truly know the veracity of participating surgeons, but it is naïve to assume that this issue arises only vis-à-vis registries. If we were to debate the ethical and professional standards of colleagues in our field, such questions could extend to all studies performed, even peer-reviewed studies. Therefore, we do not think this is reason to exclude the patient data and outcomes found in registries. We must emphasize that ultimately registry data are often most useful in highlighting trends and determining triggers for further study rather than in arriving at conclusions.1 In particular, registry data may be used in cohort studies that evaluate the risk factors for and incidence of certain outcomes. Focused higher-level interventional studies can then follow the trends observed.1 However, registry data are also valuable on their own, when higher-level, randomized controlled trials may be impractical or unethical.12

Dr. Sarmiento refers to corrupt relationships between companies and orthopedists as “representing a widespread loss of professionalism in our ranks.” Despite a US Justice Department investigation into these relationships, only a few doctors were found to have had inappropriate relationships.13 In addition, the investigation and prosecution of companies led to an agreement requiring federal monitoring and new corporate compliance procedures, which should ensure stricter adherence to regulations.14 We do not believe this should undermine the value of registries and the work that has been contributed by thousands of surgeons hoping to improve the field of orthopedics. In addition, concerns about the influence of well-known individuals may be better directed at individual institution–based research, particularly as these specific authors also often have conflicts of interest that may skew the presentation of results. The strength of registry data is in providing collective data and large samples from a multitude of surgeons rather than from just high-volume surgeons, and therefore registry data provide a better overall picture of patients and their procedures.15 Furthermore, trends observed in national registries in countries such as New Zealand16 may aid in effectively reducing the revision rate, possibly up to 10%.17 If a US national joint registry is marginally as effective, then we may see considerable savings for our health care services.17,18

 

 

We wholeheartedly agree that a yearly review of registries may be constructive. Dr. Sarmiento suggests an annual publication summarizing peer-reviewed articles and the opportunity for orthopedists to decide for themselves what treatments to choose based on reports from independent investigators. Although this sounds feasible, it would be difficult to decide which articles should be selected as pertinent for this type of publication. Any selection would be biased, and not all studies with high-level evidence are necessarily important or relevant. Therefore, selecting what is most appropriate to cite is not without its difficulties. We appreciate that there are problems in standardizing data reporting among registries. However, to improve interregistry collaboration, the US Food and Drug Administration is sponsoring the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR) to facilitate data presentation.19 ICOR aims to increase cooperation, standardize analyses, and improve reporting, which will only strengthen the data available to us. Such efforts will ultimately enhance coordination and international collaboration among registries.15 In addition, incorporating patient-reported outcomes into our national registry will aid in quantifying arthroplasty outcomes from the patient’s perspective and will continue to improve total joint arthroplasties.20

Overall, this debate is useful and highly relevant in highlighting potential issues with registries. Although registries are not without their flaws, like all aspects of orthopedics they are ever evolving, and they must be continually modified and improved. However, disregard for the potential value of AJRR, which has benefits for orthopedists and patients alike, is premature. Once again, we thank Dr. Sarmiento for starting this discussion, which will allow us to continue to evaluate and improve our registries.

Following Dr. Sarmiento’s commentary, “Orthopedic Registries: Second Thoughts,” we agree that it is important and appropriate to question the value of any new additions to the orthopedic field, and registries are no exception. We thank Dr. Sarmiento for his comments on the viability of registries and the need for continued critical evaluation. Before joint registries, however, we had to rely on small-cohort analyses to assess outcomes and complications. Now, national and hospital registries, specifically joint registries, may be an invaluable source of information for orthopedic surgeons, patients, health care administrators, regulators, and implant suppliers.1,2

Contrary to Dr. Sarmiento’s belief that registry data results are likely to have been reported in the literature, it is difficult to refute the value of recent years’ registry data in helping surgeons shape their practice. For example, according to Lewallen and Etkin,3 the National Joint Registry of England and Wales information has provided orthopedic surgeons with crucial findings regarding the outcomes of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Using the England and Wales registry data from more than 400,000 primary total hip arthroplasties, Smith and colleagues4 noted that metal-on-metal stemmed articulations led to poor implant survival, particularly in young women with large-diameter heads, and indicated these articulations should not be used. Australian registry data on metal-on-metal devices and reports of failure rates up to 11%5 led one manufacturer to recall its implants.6 In addition, the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register evaluated survival rates and reasons for revision for 7 types of cemented primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between 1994 and 2009.7 Data on more than 17,000 primary TKAs allowed Plate and colleagues8 to confidently determine that aseptic loosening was related to certain TKA designs. Using registry information, they identified patients at risk for dislocation in total hip arthroplasty and concluded that large-diameter femoral head articulations could reduce dislocation rates.

Obtaining such large cohorts of patients in individual studies is not only difficult but highly unlikely. Unlike registry data, these studies are often impractical in evaluating factors of low incidence, such as revision rates, as it is often difficult to find significant differences in small populations.9 Furthermore, these controlled trials homogenize patients—using exclusion and inclusion criteria to eliminate potential confounders—and thus poorly represent the heterogeneity of a typical hospital’s patient population.10 Although the literature may indeed have alluded to such complications, only a database as extensive as a registry can allow us to fully comprehend the outcomes of particular implants and devices.

Dr. Sarmiento points to the AO Swiss Fracture Registry as being of little benefit and raises the concern that the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) may follow with the same results. However, realizing a registry’s benefits may take time and the gradual accumulation of data. Supporting this, Hübschle and colleagues11 recently used AO Swiss Fracture Registry data to validate use of balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures and concluded that the technique is safe and effective in reducing pain—thus possibly providing the federal office with the evidence needed for reimbursement for this intervention. Therefore, this registry is now providing useful information.

We can never truly know the veracity of participating surgeons, but it is naïve to assume that this issue arises only vis-à-vis registries. If we were to debate the ethical and professional standards of colleagues in our field, such questions could extend to all studies performed, even peer-reviewed studies. Therefore, we do not think this is reason to exclude the patient data and outcomes found in registries. We must emphasize that ultimately registry data are often most useful in highlighting trends and determining triggers for further study rather than in arriving at conclusions.1 In particular, registry data may be used in cohort studies that evaluate the risk factors for and incidence of certain outcomes. Focused higher-level interventional studies can then follow the trends observed.1 However, registry data are also valuable on their own, when higher-level, randomized controlled trials may be impractical or unethical.12

Dr. Sarmiento refers to corrupt relationships between companies and orthopedists as “representing a widespread loss of professionalism in our ranks.” Despite a US Justice Department investigation into these relationships, only a few doctors were found to have had inappropriate relationships.13 In addition, the investigation and prosecution of companies led to an agreement requiring federal monitoring and new corporate compliance procedures, which should ensure stricter adherence to regulations.14 We do not believe this should undermine the value of registries and the work that has been contributed by thousands of surgeons hoping to improve the field of orthopedics. In addition, concerns about the influence of well-known individuals may be better directed at individual institution–based research, particularly as these specific authors also often have conflicts of interest that may skew the presentation of results. The strength of registry data is in providing collective data and large samples from a multitude of surgeons rather than from just high-volume surgeons, and therefore registry data provide a better overall picture of patients and their procedures.15 Furthermore, trends observed in national registries in countries such as New Zealand16 may aid in effectively reducing the revision rate, possibly up to 10%.17 If a US national joint registry is marginally as effective, then we may see considerable savings for our health care services.17,18

 

 

We wholeheartedly agree that a yearly review of registries may be constructive. Dr. Sarmiento suggests an annual publication summarizing peer-reviewed articles and the opportunity for orthopedists to decide for themselves what treatments to choose based on reports from independent investigators. Although this sounds feasible, it would be difficult to decide which articles should be selected as pertinent for this type of publication. Any selection would be biased, and not all studies with high-level evidence are necessarily important or relevant. Therefore, selecting what is most appropriate to cite is not without its difficulties. We appreciate that there are problems in standardizing data reporting among registries. However, to improve interregistry collaboration, the US Food and Drug Administration is sponsoring the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR) to facilitate data presentation.19 ICOR aims to increase cooperation, standardize analyses, and improve reporting, which will only strengthen the data available to us. Such efforts will ultimately enhance coordination and international collaboration among registries.15 In addition, incorporating patient-reported outcomes into our national registry will aid in quantifying arthroplasty outcomes from the patient’s perspective and will continue to improve total joint arthroplasties.20

Overall, this debate is useful and highly relevant in highlighting potential issues with registries. Although registries are not without their flaws, like all aspects of orthopedics they are ever evolving, and they must be continually modified and improved. However, disregard for the potential value of AJRR, which has benefits for orthopedists and patients alike, is premature. Once again, we thank Dr. Sarmiento for starting this discussion, which will allow us to continue to evaluate and improve our registries.

References

1.    Konan S, Haddad FS. Joint registries: a Ptolemaic model of data interpretation? Bone Joint J Br. 2013;95(12):1585-1586.

2.    Banerjee S, Cafri G, Isaacs AJ, et al. A distributed health data network analysis of survival outcomes: the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries perspective. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(suppl 1):7-11.

3.    Lewallen DG, Etkin CD. The need for a national total joint registry. Orthop Nurs. 2013;32(1):4-5.

4.    Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW; National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet. 2012;379(9822):1199-1204.

5.    de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2287-2293.

6.    Hug KT, Watters TS, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The withdrawn ASR™ THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years? Clin Orthop. 2013;471(2):430-438.

7.    Gøthesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin L, et al. Survival rates and causes of revision in cemented primary total knee replacement: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994–2009. Bone Joint J Br. 2013;95(5):636-642.

8.    Plate JF, Seyler TM, Stroh DA, Issa K, Akbar M, Mont MA. Risk of dislocation using large- vs. small-diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:553.

9.    Daruwalla ZJ, Wong KL, Pillay KR, Leong KM, Murphy DP. Does ageing Singapore need an electronic database of hip fracture patients? The value and role of a national joint registry and an electronic database of intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures. Singapore Med J. 2014;55(5):287-288.

10.  Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Fevang BT, et al. A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(10):1328-1335.

11.  Hübschle L, Borgström F, Olafsson G, et al. Real-life results of balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures from the SWISSspine registry. Spine J. 2014;14(9):2063-2077.

12.  Ahn H, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM, Schemitsch EH. The use of hospital registries in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 3):68-72.

13.    Youngstrom N. Swept up in major medical device case, physician pays $650,000 to settle kickback charges. AIS Health Business Daily. May 3, 2010.

14.  Five companies in hip and knee replacement industry avoid prosecution by agreeing to compliance rules and monitoring [press release]. US Department of Justice website.  http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/pdffiles/Older/hips0927.rel.pdf. Published September 27, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2015.

15.  Namba RS, Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Robertsson O, Graves SE. The role of registry data in the evaluation of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(suppl 3):48-50.

16.  Insull PJ, Cobbett H, Frampton CM, Munro JT. The use of a lipped acetabular liner decreases the rate of revision for instability after total hip replacement: a study using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. Bone Joint J Br. 2014;96(7):884-888.

17.  Rankin EA. AJRR: becoming a national US joint registry. Orthopedics. 2013;36(3):175-176.

18.  American Joint Replacement Registry website. https://teamwork.aaos.org/ajrr/SitePages/About%20Us.aspx. Accessed February 19, 2015.

19.  International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries website. http://www.icor-initiative.org. Accessed February 19, 2015.

20.   Franklin PD, Harrold L, Ayers DC. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries: challenges and opportunities. Clin Orthop. 2013;471(11):3482-3488.

References

1.    Konan S, Haddad FS. Joint registries: a Ptolemaic model of data interpretation? Bone Joint J Br. 2013;95(12):1585-1586.

2.    Banerjee S, Cafri G, Isaacs AJ, et al. A distributed health data network analysis of survival outcomes: the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries perspective. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(suppl 1):7-11.

3.    Lewallen DG, Etkin CD. The need for a national total joint registry. Orthop Nurs. 2013;32(1):4-5.

4.    Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW; National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet. 2012;379(9822):1199-1204.

5.    de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2287-2293.

6.    Hug KT, Watters TS, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The withdrawn ASR™ THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years? Clin Orthop. 2013;471(2):430-438.

7.    Gøthesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin L, et al. Survival rates and causes of revision in cemented primary total knee replacement: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994–2009. Bone Joint J Br. 2013;95(5):636-642.

8.    Plate JF, Seyler TM, Stroh DA, Issa K, Akbar M, Mont MA. Risk of dislocation using large- vs. small-diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:553.

9.    Daruwalla ZJ, Wong KL, Pillay KR, Leong KM, Murphy DP. Does ageing Singapore need an electronic database of hip fracture patients? The value and role of a national joint registry and an electronic database of intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures. Singapore Med J. 2014;55(5):287-288.

10.  Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Fevang BT, et al. A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(10):1328-1335.

11.  Hübschle L, Borgström F, Olafsson G, et al. Real-life results of balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures from the SWISSspine registry. Spine J. 2014;14(9):2063-2077.

12.  Ahn H, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM, Schemitsch EH. The use of hospital registries in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 3):68-72.

13.    Youngstrom N. Swept up in major medical device case, physician pays $650,000 to settle kickback charges. AIS Health Business Daily. May 3, 2010.

14.  Five companies in hip and knee replacement industry avoid prosecution by agreeing to compliance rules and monitoring [press release]. US Department of Justice website.  http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/pdffiles/Older/hips0927.rel.pdf. Published September 27, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2015.

15.  Namba RS, Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Robertsson O, Graves SE. The role of registry data in the evaluation of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(suppl 3):48-50.

16.  Insull PJ, Cobbett H, Frampton CM, Munro JT. The use of a lipped acetabular liner decreases the rate of revision for instability after total hip replacement: a study using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. Bone Joint J Br. 2014;96(7):884-888.

17.  Rankin EA. AJRR: becoming a national US joint registry. Orthopedics. 2013;36(3):175-176.

18.  American Joint Replacement Registry website. https://teamwork.aaos.org/ajrr/SitePages/About%20Us.aspx. Accessed February 19, 2015.

19.  International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries website. http://www.icor-initiative.org. Accessed February 19, 2015.

20.   Franklin PD, Harrold L, Ayers DC. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries: challenges and opportunities. Clin Orthop. 2013;471(11):3482-3488.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(4)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(4)
Page Number
160-162
Page Number
160-162
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The Value of National and Hospital Registries
Display Headline
The Value of National and Hospital Registries
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, point, counterpoint, opinion, value, national, hospital, registry, registries, AJRR, american joint replacement registry, joint, sarmiento, mont, elmallah, cherian, orthopedics
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, point, counterpoint, opinion, value, national, hospital, registry, registries, AJRR, american joint replacement registry, joint, sarmiento, mont, elmallah, cherian, orthopedics
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Orthopedic Registries: Second Thoughts

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Orthopedic Registries: Second Thoughts

Many assume that the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is moving forward as originally planned. No one has reported any obstacles that may cast doubt on its continued progress.

Despite the enthusiasm for AJRR, we must be realistic and admit that the project may not in the final analysis bring about its anticipated results. Therefore, periodic sober assessments of its course should be carried out, as they might result in identifying possible flaws and strengths. It is imperative to continue to express doubts regarding the true long-term value of this registry.

Much of the original support for an ongoing registry came from the example provided by the Swedish national registry. The Scandinavian registry had been said to dramatically reduce the number of complications and halve the revision rate for total hip arthroplasties. We need to question the claim that this reduction was solely the result of information produced by the registry. It is hard to believe that the literature had failed to report on those complications long before the registry publicized its findings.

As we take a fresh look at AJRR, it is perhaps wise to keep in mind the history of the AO Swiss Fracture Registry, founded by Maurice Müller and heavily subsidized by industry. Apparently, after gathering millions of pieces of information, primarily about equipment used for fracture fixation, the Swiss registry has failed to produce the greater benefits it had expected. Given the similarities between the Swiss Fracture Registry and AJRR, it is logical to assume that the latter may suffer the same fate.

I base my concerns on factors that, carefully analyzed, might be important in determining the future of AJRR. One major consideration is the difficulty in guaranteeing the veracity of data submitted—a factor shared by all registries.1 To assume that all participating surgeons adhere to high ethical and professional standards is naïve. Some surgeons who stand to make large profits from their ownership of implants or equipment are submitting false and erroneous information. Other unscrupulous orthopedists are receiving large kickbacks for helping the industry market its implants. These people will be tempted to embellish and falsify information about successes and failures and submit it to the registry.1-3

Militating against the “guaranteed success” of AJRR is this tainted relationship between the implant manufacturing industry and some members of the orthopedics community. A 2002–2006 investigation by the US Justice Department found egregious unethical transgressions and corrupt relationships between 5 companies and hundreds of orthopedists—representing a widespread loss of professionalism in our ranks.4 More recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services5 disclosed that, in the last 5 months of 2013, $3.5 billion were paid by medical device companies to doctors and leading hospitals. As stated in a newspaper article, “‘Open Payments does not identify which financial relationships … could cause conflicts of interest,’ said Shantanu Agrawal, the agency official overseeing the project. ‘It simply makes the data available to the public.’”6 Further, “an initial Associated Press analysis found that orthopedists, cardiologists and adult medicine specialists were among the likeliest to receive payments from drug and device companies. Most of the contributions came in the form of cash payments, followed by in-kind gifts and services, and stock options.”6

This official government revelation is disturbing. Although the number of people who are deliberately committing clear infractions may be small, some of these people are likely well-known, and their influence should not be underestimated, particularly with regard to AJRR publications. Some in the orthopedic community do not question the accuracy of these publications but accept their conclusions as fact, and such may be the case with orthopedic guidelines.7

Given these concerns and the facts of the situation, can AJRR solve real problems that traditional systems have so far failed to solve? We have enough journals and scientific meetings informing us of the failures and successes of implants. I suspect it is wrong to believe that the AJRR data on 1 million patients’ arthroplasties are necessarily superior to the data from a 20,000-patient registry. Such an erroneous conclusion ignores the fact that, with clinical issues such as the one currently being addressed by AJRR, having a larger registry and more patients does not necessarily imply more meaningful information. In addition, follow-ups longer than those used with traditional methods are not possible—death will continue to intervene. No matter how many patients are included in the system, the maximum follow-up will forever remain the same.

Financing of AJRR is expensive, time-consuming, and likely to be terminated if clear evidence of the true value of the registry is not provided within the next few years. In light of such an outcome, we should replace the current system with a more effective mechanism. For example, we could produce an annual publication that summarizes the peer-reviewed articles published on joint replacement, with an emphasis on controversial topics. Orthopedic fellows, rather than readily accepting AJRR findings and recommendations, will instead be able to decide for themselves what treatment to use for each particular patient and situation, based on information provided by a number of independent investigators.

 

 

Meaningful progress in managing clinical conditions, such as the ones we are discussing, is achieved not by expanding the size of a registry but by being committed as individuals to making improvements. A cursory glance at the history of hip arthroplasty easily proves the point. Registries, guidelines, and other popular systems sometimes inadvertently create an environment that inhibits independent thinking. When powerful nonmedical economic and political bodies become involved in medical issues in order to ensure their continued profit, our autonomy is lost or compromised in major ways. Such scenarios must be avoided as forcefully as possible.8

Questioning the future of AJRR does not derive from rigid thinking or from a lack of awareness or understanding of the registry’s nature, procedures, benefits, goals, or highly altruistic and noble origins. However, pointing out a lack of evidence of success is not a crime. It is incumbent on us to look at this area and others with open minds while recognizing that honest and sincere scrutiny often helps make a better future a reality. The United States is working to achieve major goals for health care—access for all, lower costs, and fewer abuses of the system. Our involvement is a mandate to be followed enthusiastically.

References

1.    Carr AJ. Which research is to be believed? The ethics of industrial funding of orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(11):1452-1453.

2.    Callahan D. False Hopes: Overcoming the Obstacles to a Sustainable, Affordable Medicine. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1999.

3.     Relman AS. A Second Opinion: Rescuing America’s Healthcare: A Plan for Universal Coverage Serving Patients Over Profit. New York: Public Affairs; 2007.

4.    Five companies in hip and knee replacement industry avoid prosecution by agreeing to compliance rules and monitoring [press release]. US Department of Justice website. http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/pdffiles/Older/hips0927.rel.pdf. Published September 27, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2015.

5.    CMS makes first wave of drug & device company payments to teaching hospitals and physicians public [press release]. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2014-Press-releases-items/2014-09-30.html. Published September 30, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2015.

6.    Alonso-Zaldivar R, Gillum J. Drug, device firms paid $3.5B to care providers. The Big Story. Associated Press website. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c80ae51828a0497e87beda7f9ff60ac8/govt-reveal-drug-company-payments-doctors. Published September 30, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2015.

7.    Sarmiento A. Thoughts on orthopedic guidelines. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(8):373-374.

8.    Sarmiento A. Infringing on freedom of speech. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(2):222.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Augusto Sarmiento, MD

Author’s Disclosure Statement: The author reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
159-160
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, point, counterpoint, orthopedic, registries, thoughts, opinion, AJRR, american joint replacement registry, joint, arthroplasty, registry, sarmiento
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Augusto Sarmiento, MD

Author’s Disclosure Statement: The author reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Augusto Sarmiento, MD

Author’s Disclosure Statement: The author reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Many assume that the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is moving forward as originally planned. No one has reported any obstacles that may cast doubt on its continued progress.

Despite the enthusiasm for AJRR, we must be realistic and admit that the project may not in the final analysis bring about its anticipated results. Therefore, periodic sober assessments of its course should be carried out, as they might result in identifying possible flaws and strengths. It is imperative to continue to express doubts regarding the true long-term value of this registry.

Much of the original support for an ongoing registry came from the example provided by the Swedish national registry. The Scandinavian registry had been said to dramatically reduce the number of complications and halve the revision rate for total hip arthroplasties. We need to question the claim that this reduction was solely the result of information produced by the registry. It is hard to believe that the literature had failed to report on those complications long before the registry publicized its findings.

As we take a fresh look at AJRR, it is perhaps wise to keep in mind the history of the AO Swiss Fracture Registry, founded by Maurice Müller and heavily subsidized by industry. Apparently, after gathering millions of pieces of information, primarily about equipment used for fracture fixation, the Swiss registry has failed to produce the greater benefits it had expected. Given the similarities between the Swiss Fracture Registry and AJRR, it is logical to assume that the latter may suffer the same fate.

I base my concerns on factors that, carefully analyzed, might be important in determining the future of AJRR. One major consideration is the difficulty in guaranteeing the veracity of data submitted—a factor shared by all registries.1 To assume that all participating surgeons adhere to high ethical and professional standards is naïve. Some surgeons who stand to make large profits from their ownership of implants or equipment are submitting false and erroneous information. Other unscrupulous orthopedists are receiving large kickbacks for helping the industry market its implants. These people will be tempted to embellish and falsify information about successes and failures and submit it to the registry.1-3

Militating against the “guaranteed success” of AJRR is this tainted relationship between the implant manufacturing industry and some members of the orthopedics community. A 2002–2006 investigation by the US Justice Department found egregious unethical transgressions and corrupt relationships between 5 companies and hundreds of orthopedists—representing a widespread loss of professionalism in our ranks.4 More recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services5 disclosed that, in the last 5 months of 2013, $3.5 billion were paid by medical device companies to doctors and leading hospitals. As stated in a newspaper article, “‘Open Payments does not identify which financial relationships … could cause conflicts of interest,’ said Shantanu Agrawal, the agency official overseeing the project. ‘It simply makes the data available to the public.’”6 Further, “an initial Associated Press analysis found that orthopedists, cardiologists and adult medicine specialists were among the likeliest to receive payments from drug and device companies. Most of the contributions came in the form of cash payments, followed by in-kind gifts and services, and stock options.”6

This official government revelation is disturbing. Although the number of people who are deliberately committing clear infractions may be small, some of these people are likely well-known, and their influence should not be underestimated, particularly with regard to AJRR publications. Some in the orthopedic community do not question the accuracy of these publications but accept their conclusions as fact, and such may be the case with orthopedic guidelines.7

Given these concerns and the facts of the situation, can AJRR solve real problems that traditional systems have so far failed to solve? We have enough journals and scientific meetings informing us of the failures and successes of implants. I suspect it is wrong to believe that the AJRR data on 1 million patients’ arthroplasties are necessarily superior to the data from a 20,000-patient registry. Such an erroneous conclusion ignores the fact that, with clinical issues such as the one currently being addressed by AJRR, having a larger registry and more patients does not necessarily imply more meaningful information. In addition, follow-ups longer than those used with traditional methods are not possible—death will continue to intervene. No matter how many patients are included in the system, the maximum follow-up will forever remain the same.

Financing of AJRR is expensive, time-consuming, and likely to be terminated if clear evidence of the true value of the registry is not provided within the next few years. In light of such an outcome, we should replace the current system with a more effective mechanism. For example, we could produce an annual publication that summarizes the peer-reviewed articles published on joint replacement, with an emphasis on controversial topics. Orthopedic fellows, rather than readily accepting AJRR findings and recommendations, will instead be able to decide for themselves what treatment to use for each particular patient and situation, based on information provided by a number of independent investigators.

 

 

Meaningful progress in managing clinical conditions, such as the ones we are discussing, is achieved not by expanding the size of a registry but by being committed as individuals to making improvements. A cursory glance at the history of hip arthroplasty easily proves the point. Registries, guidelines, and other popular systems sometimes inadvertently create an environment that inhibits independent thinking. When powerful nonmedical economic and political bodies become involved in medical issues in order to ensure their continued profit, our autonomy is lost or compromised in major ways. Such scenarios must be avoided as forcefully as possible.8

Questioning the future of AJRR does not derive from rigid thinking or from a lack of awareness or understanding of the registry’s nature, procedures, benefits, goals, or highly altruistic and noble origins. However, pointing out a lack of evidence of success is not a crime. It is incumbent on us to look at this area and others with open minds while recognizing that honest and sincere scrutiny often helps make a better future a reality. The United States is working to achieve major goals for health care—access for all, lower costs, and fewer abuses of the system. Our involvement is a mandate to be followed enthusiastically.

Many assume that the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is moving forward as originally planned. No one has reported any obstacles that may cast doubt on its continued progress.

Despite the enthusiasm for AJRR, we must be realistic and admit that the project may not in the final analysis bring about its anticipated results. Therefore, periodic sober assessments of its course should be carried out, as they might result in identifying possible flaws and strengths. It is imperative to continue to express doubts regarding the true long-term value of this registry.

Much of the original support for an ongoing registry came from the example provided by the Swedish national registry. The Scandinavian registry had been said to dramatically reduce the number of complications and halve the revision rate for total hip arthroplasties. We need to question the claim that this reduction was solely the result of information produced by the registry. It is hard to believe that the literature had failed to report on those complications long before the registry publicized its findings.

As we take a fresh look at AJRR, it is perhaps wise to keep in mind the history of the AO Swiss Fracture Registry, founded by Maurice Müller and heavily subsidized by industry. Apparently, after gathering millions of pieces of information, primarily about equipment used for fracture fixation, the Swiss registry has failed to produce the greater benefits it had expected. Given the similarities between the Swiss Fracture Registry and AJRR, it is logical to assume that the latter may suffer the same fate.

I base my concerns on factors that, carefully analyzed, might be important in determining the future of AJRR. One major consideration is the difficulty in guaranteeing the veracity of data submitted—a factor shared by all registries.1 To assume that all participating surgeons adhere to high ethical and professional standards is naïve. Some surgeons who stand to make large profits from their ownership of implants or equipment are submitting false and erroneous information. Other unscrupulous orthopedists are receiving large kickbacks for helping the industry market its implants. These people will be tempted to embellish and falsify information about successes and failures and submit it to the registry.1-3

Militating against the “guaranteed success” of AJRR is this tainted relationship between the implant manufacturing industry and some members of the orthopedics community. A 2002–2006 investigation by the US Justice Department found egregious unethical transgressions and corrupt relationships between 5 companies and hundreds of orthopedists—representing a widespread loss of professionalism in our ranks.4 More recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services5 disclosed that, in the last 5 months of 2013, $3.5 billion were paid by medical device companies to doctors and leading hospitals. As stated in a newspaper article, “‘Open Payments does not identify which financial relationships … could cause conflicts of interest,’ said Shantanu Agrawal, the agency official overseeing the project. ‘It simply makes the data available to the public.’”6 Further, “an initial Associated Press analysis found that orthopedists, cardiologists and adult medicine specialists were among the likeliest to receive payments from drug and device companies. Most of the contributions came in the form of cash payments, followed by in-kind gifts and services, and stock options.”6

This official government revelation is disturbing. Although the number of people who are deliberately committing clear infractions may be small, some of these people are likely well-known, and their influence should not be underestimated, particularly with regard to AJRR publications. Some in the orthopedic community do not question the accuracy of these publications but accept their conclusions as fact, and such may be the case with orthopedic guidelines.7

Given these concerns and the facts of the situation, can AJRR solve real problems that traditional systems have so far failed to solve? We have enough journals and scientific meetings informing us of the failures and successes of implants. I suspect it is wrong to believe that the AJRR data on 1 million patients’ arthroplasties are necessarily superior to the data from a 20,000-patient registry. Such an erroneous conclusion ignores the fact that, with clinical issues such as the one currently being addressed by AJRR, having a larger registry and more patients does not necessarily imply more meaningful information. In addition, follow-ups longer than those used with traditional methods are not possible—death will continue to intervene. No matter how many patients are included in the system, the maximum follow-up will forever remain the same.

Financing of AJRR is expensive, time-consuming, and likely to be terminated if clear evidence of the true value of the registry is not provided within the next few years. In light of such an outcome, we should replace the current system with a more effective mechanism. For example, we could produce an annual publication that summarizes the peer-reviewed articles published on joint replacement, with an emphasis on controversial topics. Orthopedic fellows, rather than readily accepting AJRR findings and recommendations, will instead be able to decide for themselves what treatment to use for each particular patient and situation, based on information provided by a number of independent investigators.

 

 

Meaningful progress in managing clinical conditions, such as the ones we are discussing, is achieved not by expanding the size of a registry but by being committed as individuals to making improvements. A cursory glance at the history of hip arthroplasty easily proves the point. Registries, guidelines, and other popular systems sometimes inadvertently create an environment that inhibits independent thinking. When powerful nonmedical economic and political bodies become involved in medical issues in order to ensure their continued profit, our autonomy is lost or compromised in major ways. Such scenarios must be avoided as forcefully as possible.8

Questioning the future of AJRR does not derive from rigid thinking or from a lack of awareness or understanding of the registry’s nature, procedures, benefits, goals, or highly altruistic and noble origins. However, pointing out a lack of evidence of success is not a crime. It is incumbent on us to look at this area and others with open minds while recognizing that honest and sincere scrutiny often helps make a better future a reality. The United States is working to achieve major goals for health care—access for all, lower costs, and fewer abuses of the system. Our involvement is a mandate to be followed enthusiastically.

References

1.    Carr AJ. Which research is to be believed? The ethics of industrial funding of orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(11):1452-1453.

2.    Callahan D. False Hopes: Overcoming the Obstacles to a Sustainable, Affordable Medicine. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1999.

3.     Relman AS. A Second Opinion: Rescuing America’s Healthcare: A Plan for Universal Coverage Serving Patients Over Profit. New York: Public Affairs; 2007.

4.    Five companies in hip and knee replacement industry avoid prosecution by agreeing to compliance rules and monitoring [press release]. US Department of Justice website. http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/pdffiles/Older/hips0927.rel.pdf. Published September 27, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2015.

5.    CMS makes first wave of drug & device company payments to teaching hospitals and physicians public [press release]. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2014-Press-releases-items/2014-09-30.html. Published September 30, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2015.

6.    Alonso-Zaldivar R, Gillum J. Drug, device firms paid $3.5B to care providers. The Big Story. Associated Press website. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c80ae51828a0497e87beda7f9ff60ac8/govt-reveal-drug-company-payments-doctors. Published September 30, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2015.

7.    Sarmiento A. Thoughts on orthopedic guidelines. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(8):373-374.

8.    Sarmiento A. Infringing on freedom of speech. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(2):222.

References

1.    Carr AJ. Which research is to be believed? The ethics of industrial funding of orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(11):1452-1453.

2.    Callahan D. False Hopes: Overcoming the Obstacles to a Sustainable, Affordable Medicine. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1999.

3.     Relman AS. A Second Opinion: Rescuing America’s Healthcare: A Plan for Universal Coverage Serving Patients Over Profit. New York: Public Affairs; 2007.

4.    Five companies in hip and knee replacement industry avoid prosecution by agreeing to compliance rules and monitoring [press release]. US Department of Justice website. http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/pdffiles/Older/hips0927.rel.pdf. Published September 27, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2015.

5.    CMS makes first wave of drug & device company payments to teaching hospitals and physicians public [press release]. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2014-Press-releases-items/2014-09-30.html. Published September 30, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2015.

6.    Alonso-Zaldivar R, Gillum J. Drug, device firms paid $3.5B to care providers. The Big Story. Associated Press website. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c80ae51828a0497e87beda7f9ff60ac8/govt-reveal-drug-company-payments-doctors. Published September 30, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2015.

7.    Sarmiento A. Thoughts on orthopedic guidelines. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(8):373-374.

8.    Sarmiento A. Infringing on freedom of speech. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(2):222.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(4)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(4)
Page Number
159-160
Page Number
159-160
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Orthopedic Registries: Second Thoughts
Display Headline
Orthopedic Registries: Second Thoughts
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, point, counterpoint, orthopedic, registries, thoughts, opinion, AJRR, american joint replacement registry, joint, arthroplasty, registry, sarmiento
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, point, counterpoint, orthopedic, registries, thoughts, opinion, AJRR, american joint replacement registry, joint, arthroplasty, registry, sarmiento
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Intragrade Intramedullary Nailing of an Open Tibial Shaft Fracture in a Patient With Concomitant Ipsilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Intragrade Intramedullary Nailing of an Open Tibial Shaft Fracture in a Patient With Concomitant Ipsilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty

Fracture of the tibial shaft below an ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an infrequently occurring injury pattern that presents a unique treatment scenario. The high predilection for open wounds associated with these diaphyseal fractures further complicates the treatment algorithm.1,2 The standard principles of treatment for open tibial shaft fractures entail open fracture débridement followed by adequate fracture reduction and stable skeletal fixation in a manner that limits adverse complications of this injury, which include nonunion, malunion, infection, soft-tissue compromise, and reoperation.3,4

Antegrade intramedullary (IM) tibial nailing has become standard treatment for tibial shaft fractures.5-7 This minimally invasive method of fixation limits damage to the soft-tissue envelope, provides superior neutralization of the mechanical forces to provide a template for biologic fracture healing, and allows the best options for revision procedures in the event of inadequate healing. This case report examines treatment options for an open tibial shaft fracture of an ipsilateral TKA, complicating the standard treatment of antegrade tibial nailing. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 66-year-old woman became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs at her home. She was taken to the local emergency room where she presented with left leg pain, deformity, and a skin wound. The wound was dressed with sterile gauze and the extremity immobilized in a temporary plaster splint after which the patient was transferred to our level I trauma center. The accident occurred shortly after dawn, and she received definitive evaluation at the level I trauma center before noon the same day, making the time from injury to evaluation less than 6 hours.

The patient’s medical history was significant for depressive and anxiety disorders, fibromyalgia, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and lymphedema. Her surgical history was significant for a remote left TKA and remote open reduction with internal fixation of a left lateral malleolus fracture. She was prescribed antidepressant and anti-anxiolytic medications, narcotic medication, and antihypertensive therapy. She smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for approximately 20 years and denied alcohol consumption or illicit drug use. Her body mass index was 37.5, and she ambulated independently in the community.

Upon presentation at our hospital, the patient was hemodynamically stable with no discernable systemic compromise from the extremity injury. An examination of the left lower extremity showed a large longitudinal skin wound over the anteromedial surface of the lower leg measuring roughly 10 cm in length with obvious periosteal stripping and protrusion of the proximal fracture segment. Neurologic motor and sensory function was intact in the lower extremities and pulses were strong. Lower leg compartments were soft. Radiographic imaging confirmed a short oblique fracture of the distal third of the tibial diaphysis. The left TKA was intact with no signs of component loosening or periprosthetic fracture (Figures 1A, 1B).

The patient urgently received broad-spectrum antibiotics with intravenous (IV) cefazolin and IV gentamicin as well as tetanus vaccination. Her fracture was temporarily stabilized in a long-leg splint before she was transported to the operating room. Based upon the characteristics of the patient and the open fracture, we had an extensive discussion with the patient regarding the severity of her injury and treatment options, including nonoperative treatment, operative irrigation and débridement with skeletal stabilization, or below-knee amputation. The patient was adamant that limb salvage be attempted despite adequate understanding that she was exposing herself to risk of multiple reoperations from potential complications, as well as systemic medical compromise. Thus, we considered possible techniques for internal fixation of the tibial shaft fracture and treatment of the open wound.

Two primary technical concerns were addressed in the preoperative planning phase: the first was the need for primary closure of the open wound. This patient had a large wound over the anteromedial surface of the distal third of the tibia with scant soft-tissue coverage. Consequently, skin graft alone would not be adequate. While a muscle flap is another option, it would be prone to failure because of the patient’s age and comorbidities, including hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, lymphedema, and tobacco use. Therefore, we hoped to achieve primary closure. Our second major concern was that the method of fixation must be biomechanically sound without impeding our first goal of primary wound closure. In the setting of an ipsilateral TKA, standard antegrade IM nail fixation would not be possible. While we considered plate fixation, it is biomechanically less stable than an IM nail, and we had great concerns about wound complications. External fixation—uniplanar and mutliplanar (eg, Ilizarov)—was limited by issues of long-term fracture stability and risk of pin-site infection. Both methods appeared less desirable compared with IM nail fixation. Thus, we devised an innovative technique to implant an IM nail into the tibial canal. 

 

 

The operative procedure first entailed standard open fracture care comprising débridement of nonviable soft tissue from the traumatic anteromedial tibial wound, curettage of the fractured bone ends, and irrigation with pulse-jet lavage. Then, we turned to reduction and internal fixation of the bony injury. The large traumatic wound was not extended and was used as the primary surgical approach to permit introduction of the IM nail into the canal. Through the traumatic wound, we performed limited reaming of the proximal and distal fracture segments. Using a cannulated technique over guide wires, we reamed to 11 mm (Figure 2). The tourniquet was not used during the IM reaming. We determined the maximum nail length (approximately 22 cm) by measuring the distance from the fracture to the bone interface with the tibial component. We used a 10×200-mm femoral retrograde Synthes nail (Synthes, Inc, West Chester, Pennsylvania) for the procedure, although we considered an IM humerus nail. Through the traumatic wound, the nail was advanced in its entirety into the proximal tibial segment (Figure 3). The fracture was reduced anatomically and held with a bone tenaculum (Figures 4A, 4B). A medial cortical window proximal to the proximal extent of the IM nail was created through which the Synthes IM reduction tool (aluminum femoral finger) was advanced to impact the IM nail antegrade through the fracture site into the distal segment (Figure 5). After placement of the nail was complete, the excised fragment of bone was reinserted into the cortical window. The Synthes IM reduction tool was chosen for its diameter, length, and, most important, its relative flexibility. While maintaining reduction of the fracture, cross-locking of the nail was performed at the distal and proximal ends with perfect circle technique through stab incisions. Length, alignment, and rotation of the affected tibia were deemed symmetric to the contralateral side based on preoperative clinical measurements. Final fluoroscopic images showed appropriate alignment and proper implant placement.

Following open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture, the traumatic and surgical wounds were closed in a layered fashion. A subcutaneous drain and an incisional vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) device were applied to the closed traumatic wound, and a second subcutaneous drain was placed at the site of the cortical window. The patient tolerated the procedure well without perioperative complications.

In the acute period after surgery, the patient’s neurologic and vascular status remained stable. Her muscular compartments remained soft and compressible on physical examination, and her pain was well controlled. The incisional VAC and the 2 Hemovac drains were removed within a few days of the operation. Intravenous cefazolin was continued through her hospital stay and she was transitioned to oral cephalexin at discharge as recommended by our infectious disease colleagues to complete a 10-day course of antibiotic therapy.

At the time of discharge—within 1 week of her initial injury—the patient’s wounds were dry and she was ambulatory with a walker. She was instructed to remain non-weight-bearing and to keep her wounds clean and dry with follow-up in 2 weeks. Over 6 to 8 weeks after surgery, the patient’s weight-bearing status was gradually advanced to full weight-bearing, and she achieved union of the fracture and uneventful healing of the traumatic wound (Figures 6A, 6B, 7). 

Discussion

We have presented a case of an open distal-third tibial shaft fracture in a 66-year-old obese woman with an ipsilateral TKA. Open fracture of the tibial shaft is potentially limb-threatening because of the challenging management of the bone and soft-tissue injury. The presence of an ipsilateral TKA adds a degree of complexity. From a biomechanical standpoint, the lower interdigitation of cortical bone, coupled with weight-bearing of the lower extremity, subjects the tibia diaphysis to issues of rotation, length, and angular control.8 Due to the diaphyseal nature of the fracture, consisting of cortical bone with comparably lower vascularity and a small soft-tissue envelope, these fractures heal very slowly and often take as many as 6 to 9 months to achieve union.9,10 Furthermore, as was the case here, short oblique fractures of the tibial shaft often occur under bending stresses that also cause significant damage to the tibial soft-tissue envelope and periosteum, as indicated by the open wound. This disruption deprives the fracture and soft tissues of important vascular supply that is critical to healing and to avoiding infection and soft-tissue necrosis.11-13 The effects of treatment may magnify these biomechanical and biologic consequences. Ideal fixation serves to minimize potential complications by neutralizing the biomechanical forces to permit fracture healing while also limiting the amount of soft-tissue trauma and tension. Because the challenges associated with treatment of open tibial shaft fractures make it a limb-threatening injury in a patient with poor peripheral circulation, it is appropriate to consider primary amputation.14

 

 

If circumstances warrant an attempt at limb salvage, IM nailing with static interlocking screws would typically be the standard of care for treatment of an open fracture of the tibia shaft. This provides stable internal fixation that controls tibial alignment in 6° of freedom and neutralizes bending forces with less strain on the implant because of the IM position.15,16 In addition to superior neutralization of the biomechanical forces, IM nailing is also a minimally invasive approach that limits further trauma to the periosteum and soft-tissue envelope surrounding the fracture site. This optimizes biologic fracture healing and minimizes complications of malunion, infection, and nonunion.17-19 Moreover, by limiting further damage to the surrounding soft tissue, there is a diminished need for a plastic surgery procedure to reestablish soft-tissue integrity overlying the fracture site. This is particularly advantageous in patients with medical comorbidities that make skin grafts and muscle flaps less likely to succeed. For these reasons, IM nailing was our preferred method of fixation in our patient; however, the presence of an ipsilateral TKA made this standard treatment through an antegrade approach impossible. 

Consequently, we considered other methods of fixation, including internal fixation with plate application or external fixation with a multiplanar construct, such as an Ilizarov frame. Some orthopedists consider plate application a superior technique for achieving fracture union because it results in interfragmentary compression, which promotes primary healing. Interestingly, some would argue that the absolute stability provided by the plate may be too rigid a construct to enable optimal fracture healing biology if compression is not achieved.20 However, to allow primary healing to complete fracture union, absolute stability with rigid and strong fixation must be provided. In the tibial shaft, with large bending forces and rotational moments, this is difficult to achieve with plate fixation alone.8 Furthermore, plate application often requires relatively extensive soft-tissue dissection and may impede biologic factors in healing of the bone and soft tissue, increasing the likelihood of infection.21 Finally, adequate plate fixation would significantly increase the soft-tissue volume at this location, further compromising the soft tissues and impeding our goal of primary wound closure.

A uniplanar or mutliplanar external fixator would be an appealing option for definitive fixation because of minimal additional soft-tissue damage that is created during its application. However, it is difficult to achieve adequate stability to encourage either primary, or more commonly, secondary healing in the adult or elderly population.22 An Ilizarov frame is a multiplanar external construct, which allows reconstructive applications because of multiple points of fixation in bone.23 However, the multiple fixation points result in burdensome size of the implant for the patient and requires patient compliance to minimize risk of pin-site infection, which is magnified in a patient with multiple medical comorbid conditions. Furthermore, when comparing treatment options that aim to minimize additional soft-tissue trauma at the site of injury, there is little evidence to show a lower risk of infection at the open fracture site compared with IM nailing.24,25 Thus, in our patient, customary treatment of an open tibial shaft fracture using antegrade IM nailing was not possible, while plate application and external fixation, though potential treatment options, would be relatively contraindicated due to a higher likelihood of failure. 

Consequently, primary amputation may be the most appropriate treatment option in a patient with multiple comorbid medical conditions, including peripheral vascular disease. Primary amputation prevents morbidity and mortality associated with complications related to the aforementioned treatment options, as well as limiting risks associated with multiple re­operations.14,25 Studies illustrate that patient functional outcomes after primary amputation are equal to and, in some cases, superior to those patients undergoing limb salvage procedures for open tibial shaft fractures.26-28

Despite the appropriateness of primary amputation in this case, the patient requested limb salvage. Therefore, other innovative treatment options were explored to achieve our goals of primary wound closure and stable internal fixation. Previous case reports have examined retrograde IM nailing as a means of rigidly fixing tibial shaft fractures in the setting of poor soft tissues or ipsilateral knee arthroplasty.29-31 However, the retrograde approach to IM nailing requires passage of reamers through the subtalar and ankle joints, leading to associated arthritis in these joints or, more commonly, rigidity because the final nail position often crosses these joints in addition to the fracture site. Therefore, a novel approach for IM nailing was performed using the large open-fracture wound. Through the traumatic wound, open-fracture débridement was first performed, followed by placement of a nail into the medullary canal with little additional disruption of the surrounding periosteum or soft tissue.

 

 

Possible complications of this novel method for IM nail passage warrant discussion. First, potentially unfavorable aspects associated with IM reaming include impairment of endosteal blood circulation in the subacute postoperative period.32-34 If the patient develops complications, such as deep infection, nonunion, hardware failure, or periprosthetic fracture, treatment options that require removal of the nail would be very difficult to execute because this nail was passed “intragrade,” or through the fracture site, not from the knee or the calcaneus. However, unique to this case of intragrade nailing, complications associated with the proximal cortical window may occur. In particular, unintended cortical fracture may happen during impaction of the nail into the distal segment of the fracture after reduction. However, this complication may be avoided with the use of a 1-cm wide and 2-cm long window and the use of the malleable aluminum femoral finger (Synthes). Furthermore, use of a femoral nail is recommended because the Herzog curve of a tibial nail cannot be inserted in the proximal tibial segment using an “intragrade” nailing technique. However, fracture may occur intraoperatively or during rehabilitation after surgery because the cortical window creates a region of high stress distal to the tibial arthroplasty component. Likewise, the area of bone between the proximal extent of the IM nail and tibial component of the TKA represents an area of high stress susceptible to periprosthetic fracture.

Conclusion

We have presented a case of a high-energy open distal tibial diaphyseal fracture in a 66-year-old woman with medical comorbidities and treatment complicated by the presence of an ipsilateral TKA. Intramedullary nailing has become the standard of care for open fractures of the tibial diaphysis because of the high rate of union with little additional soft-tissue damage at the fracture site. Despite these advantages, the ipsilateral TKA complicated the placement of an antegrade tibial nail. An alternative treatment, such as an external fixation using an Ilizarov frame, would present equally challenging treatment aspects, including patient compliance, with little proven benefit over an IM nail. Application of a plate would be less desirable because of increased risk of infection at the fracture site, soft-tissue and periosteum disruption, and muscle necrosis compared with other treatment options. Primary amputation was an appropriate consideration for this patient given her comorbid medical circumstances, but the patient refused this treatment option. Therefore, we created a novel approach to place an IM nail, using the traumatic wound to achieve access to the medullary canal proximally and distally.

References

1.    Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J. Factors influencing infection rate in open fracture wounds. Clin Orthop. 1989;243:36-40.

2.    Court-Brown CM, McBirnie J. The epidemiology of tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):417-421.

3.    Puno RM, Teynor JT, Nagano J, Gustilo RB. Critical analysis of results of treatment of 201 tibial shaft fractures. Clin Orthop. 1986;212:113-121.

4.    Melvin JS, Dombroski DG, Torbert JT, Kovach SJ, Esterhal JL, Mehta S. Open tibial shaft fractures: I. Evaluation and initial wound management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(1):10-19.

5.     Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH. Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(1):62-68.

6.    SPRINT Investigators, Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Tornetta P 3rd, et al. Study to prospectively evaluate reamed intramedually nails in patients with tibial fractures (S.P.R.I.N.T.): study rationale and design. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:91.

7.    Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures Investigators, Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Tornetta P 3rd, et al. Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2567-2578.

8.    Burr DB, Milgrom C, Fyhrie D, et al. In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity. Bone. 1996;18(5):405-410.

9.    Edwards P. Fracture of the shaft of the tibia: 492 consecutive cases in adults: Importance of soft tissue injury. Acta Orthop Scand (Suppl). 1965;76(suppl 76):1-82.

10.  Papakostidis C, Kanakaris NK, Pretel J, Faour O, Morell DJ, Giannoudis PV. Prevalence of complications of open tibial shaft fractures stratified as per the Gustilo–Anderson classification. Injury. 2011;42(12):1408-1415.

11.  Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma. 1984;24(8):742-746.

12.    DeLong WG Jr, Born CT, Wei SY, Petrik ME, Ponzio R, Schwab CW. Aggressive treatment of 119 open fracture wounds. J Trauma. 1999;46(6):1049-1054.

13.  Tielinen L, Lindahl JE, Tukiainen EJ. Acute unreamed intramedullary nailing and soft tissue reconstruction with muscle flaps for the treatment of severe open tibial shaft fractures. Injury. 2007;38(8):906-912.

14.  Georgiadis GM, Behrens FF, Joyce MJ, Earle AS, Simmons AL. Open tibial fractures with severe soft-tissue loss. Limb salvage compared with below-the-knee amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(10):1431-1441.

15.  Hansen M, Mehler D, Hessmann MH, Blum J, Rommens PM. Intramedullary stabilization of extraarticular proximal tibial fractures: a biomechanical comparison of intramedullary and extramedullary implants including a new proximal tibia nail (PTN). J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10):701-709.

16.  Hoegel FW, Hoffmann S, Weninger P, Bühren V, Augat P. Biomechanical comparison of locked plate osteosynthesis, reamed and unreamed nailing in conventional interlocking technique, and unreamed angle stable nailing in distal tibia fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(4):933-938.

17.    Brumback RJ, Reilly JP, Poka A, Lakatos RP, Bathon GH, Burgess AR. Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Part 1: Decision-making errors with interlocking fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(10):1441-1452.

18.  Hooper GJ, Keddell RG, Penny ID. Conservative management or closed nailing for tibial shaft fractures. A randomised prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(1):83-85.

19.    Karladani AH, Granhed H, Edshage B, Jerre R, Styf J. Displaced tibial shaft fractures: a prospective randomized study of closed intramedullary nailing versus cast treatment in 53 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(12):160-167.

20.  Kenwright J, Richardson JB, Goodship AE, et al. Effect of controlled axial micromovement on healing of tibial fractures. Lancet. 1986;22(8517):1185-1187.

21.  Im GI, Tae SK. Distal metaphyseal fractures of tibia: a prospective randomized trial of closed reduction and intramedullary nail versus open reduction and plate and screws fixation. J Trauma. 2005;59(5):1219-1223.

22.  Henley MB, Chapman JR, Agel J, Harvey EJ, Whorton AM, Swiontkowski MF. Treatment of type II, IIIA, and IIIB open fractures of the tibial shaft: a prospective comparison of unreamed interlocking intramedullary nails and half-pin external fixators. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12(1):1-7.

23.  Ramos T, Ekholm C, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J, Nistor L. The Ilizarov external fixator - a useful alternative for the treatment of proximal tibial fractures. A prospective observational study of 30 consecutive patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:11.

24.    Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH. Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(1):62-68.

25.  Webb LX, Bosse MJ, Castillo RC, MacKenzie EJ; LEAP Study Group. Analysis of surgeon-controlled variables in the treatment of limb-threatening type-III open tibial diaphyseal fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):923-928.

26.  Bondurant FJ, Cotler HB, Buckle R, Miller-Crotchett P, Browner BD. The medical and economic impact of severely injured lower extremities. J Trauma. 1988;28(8):1270-1273.

27.  Bosse MJ, MacKenzie EJ, Kellam JF, et al. An analysis of outcomes of reconstruction or amputation of leg-threatening injuries. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(24):1924-1931.

28.  MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Pollak AN, et al. Long-term persistence of disability following severe lower-limb trauma. Results of a seven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1801-1809.

29.  Doulens KM, Joshi AB, Wagner RA. Tibial fracture after total knee arthroplasty treated with retrograde intramedullary fixation. Am J Orthop. 2007;36(7):E111-E113.

30.  Zafra-Jiménez JA, Pretell-Mazzini J, Resines-Erasun C. Distal tibial fracture below a total knee arthroplasty: retrograde intramedullary nailing as an alternative method of treatment: a case report. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(7):e74-e76.

31.  Loosen S, Preuss S, Zelle BA, Pape HC, Tarken IS. Multimorbid patients with poor soft tissue conditions: Treatment of distal tibia fractures with retrograde intramedullary nailing. Unfallchirurg. 2012;116(6):553-558.

32.  Kessler SB, Hallfeldt KJ, Perren SM, Schweiberer L. The effects of reaming and intramedullary nailing on fracture healing. Clin Orthop. 1986;212:18-25.

33.  Klein MP, Rahn BA, Frigg R, Kessler S, Perren SM. Reaming versus non-reaming in medullary nailing: interference with cortical circulation of the canine tibia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1990;109(6):314-316.

34.   Reichert IL, McCarthy ID, Hughes SP. The acute vascular response to intramedullary reaming. Microsphere estimation of blood flow in the intact ovine tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):490-493.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Greco, MD, Kanu Goyal, MD, and Ivan Tarkin, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E81-E86
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, nailing, tibial shaft fracture, tibial, tibia, fracture, fracture management, trauma, total knee arthroplasty, arthroplasty, knee, TKA, amputation, tibial diaphysis, greco, goyal, tarkin
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Greco, MD, Kanu Goyal, MD, and Ivan Tarkin, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Greco, MD, Kanu Goyal, MD, and Ivan Tarkin, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Fracture of the tibial shaft below an ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an infrequently occurring injury pattern that presents a unique treatment scenario. The high predilection for open wounds associated with these diaphyseal fractures further complicates the treatment algorithm.1,2 The standard principles of treatment for open tibial shaft fractures entail open fracture débridement followed by adequate fracture reduction and stable skeletal fixation in a manner that limits adverse complications of this injury, which include nonunion, malunion, infection, soft-tissue compromise, and reoperation.3,4

Antegrade intramedullary (IM) tibial nailing has become standard treatment for tibial shaft fractures.5-7 This minimally invasive method of fixation limits damage to the soft-tissue envelope, provides superior neutralization of the mechanical forces to provide a template for biologic fracture healing, and allows the best options for revision procedures in the event of inadequate healing. This case report examines treatment options for an open tibial shaft fracture of an ipsilateral TKA, complicating the standard treatment of antegrade tibial nailing. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 66-year-old woman became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs at her home. She was taken to the local emergency room where she presented with left leg pain, deformity, and a skin wound. The wound was dressed with sterile gauze and the extremity immobilized in a temporary plaster splint after which the patient was transferred to our level I trauma center. The accident occurred shortly after dawn, and she received definitive evaluation at the level I trauma center before noon the same day, making the time from injury to evaluation less than 6 hours.

The patient’s medical history was significant for depressive and anxiety disorders, fibromyalgia, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and lymphedema. Her surgical history was significant for a remote left TKA and remote open reduction with internal fixation of a left lateral malleolus fracture. She was prescribed antidepressant and anti-anxiolytic medications, narcotic medication, and antihypertensive therapy. She smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for approximately 20 years and denied alcohol consumption or illicit drug use. Her body mass index was 37.5, and she ambulated independently in the community.

Upon presentation at our hospital, the patient was hemodynamically stable with no discernable systemic compromise from the extremity injury. An examination of the left lower extremity showed a large longitudinal skin wound over the anteromedial surface of the lower leg measuring roughly 10 cm in length with obvious periosteal stripping and protrusion of the proximal fracture segment. Neurologic motor and sensory function was intact in the lower extremities and pulses were strong. Lower leg compartments were soft. Radiographic imaging confirmed a short oblique fracture of the distal third of the tibial diaphysis. The left TKA was intact with no signs of component loosening or periprosthetic fracture (Figures 1A, 1B).

The patient urgently received broad-spectrum antibiotics with intravenous (IV) cefazolin and IV gentamicin as well as tetanus vaccination. Her fracture was temporarily stabilized in a long-leg splint before she was transported to the operating room. Based upon the characteristics of the patient and the open fracture, we had an extensive discussion with the patient regarding the severity of her injury and treatment options, including nonoperative treatment, operative irrigation and débridement with skeletal stabilization, or below-knee amputation. The patient was adamant that limb salvage be attempted despite adequate understanding that she was exposing herself to risk of multiple reoperations from potential complications, as well as systemic medical compromise. Thus, we considered possible techniques for internal fixation of the tibial shaft fracture and treatment of the open wound.

Two primary technical concerns were addressed in the preoperative planning phase: the first was the need for primary closure of the open wound. This patient had a large wound over the anteromedial surface of the distal third of the tibia with scant soft-tissue coverage. Consequently, skin graft alone would not be adequate. While a muscle flap is another option, it would be prone to failure because of the patient’s age and comorbidities, including hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, lymphedema, and tobacco use. Therefore, we hoped to achieve primary closure. Our second major concern was that the method of fixation must be biomechanically sound without impeding our first goal of primary wound closure. In the setting of an ipsilateral TKA, standard antegrade IM nail fixation would not be possible. While we considered plate fixation, it is biomechanically less stable than an IM nail, and we had great concerns about wound complications. External fixation—uniplanar and mutliplanar (eg, Ilizarov)—was limited by issues of long-term fracture stability and risk of pin-site infection. Both methods appeared less desirable compared with IM nail fixation. Thus, we devised an innovative technique to implant an IM nail into the tibial canal. 

 

 

The operative procedure first entailed standard open fracture care comprising débridement of nonviable soft tissue from the traumatic anteromedial tibial wound, curettage of the fractured bone ends, and irrigation with pulse-jet lavage. Then, we turned to reduction and internal fixation of the bony injury. The large traumatic wound was not extended and was used as the primary surgical approach to permit introduction of the IM nail into the canal. Through the traumatic wound, we performed limited reaming of the proximal and distal fracture segments. Using a cannulated technique over guide wires, we reamed to 11 mm (Figure 2). The tourniquet was not used during the IM reaming. We determined the maximum nail length (approximately 22 cm) by measuring the distance from the fracture to the bone interface with the tibial component. We used a 10×200-mm femoral retrograde Synthes nail (Synthes, Inc, West Chester, Pennsylvania) for the procedure, although we considered an IM humerus nail. Through the traumatic wound, the nail was advanced in its entirety into the proximal tibial segment (Figure 3). The fracture was reduced anatomically and held with a bone tenaculum (Figures 4A, 4B). A medial cortical window proximal to the proximal extent of the IM nail was created through which the Synthes IM reduction tool (aluminum femoral finger) was advanced to impact the IM nail antegrade through the fracture site into the distal segment (Figure 5). After placement of the nail was complete, the excised fragment of bone was reinserted into the cortical window. The Synthes IM reduction tool was chosen for its diameter, length, and, most important, its relative flexibility. While maintaining reduction of the fracture, cross-locking of the nail was performed at the distal and proximal ends with perfect circle technique through stab incisions. Length, alignment, and rotation of the affected tibia were deemed symmetric to the contralateral side based on preoperative clinical measurements. Final fluoroscopic images showed appropriate alignment and proper implant placement.

Following open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture, the traumatic and surgical wounds were closed in a layered fashion. A subcutaneous drain and an incisional vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) device were applied to the closed traumatic wound, and a second subcutaneous drain was placed at the site of the cortical window. The patient tolerated the procedure well without perioperative complications.

In the acute period after surgery, the patient’s neurologic and vascular status remained stable. Her muscular compartments remained soft and compressible on physical examination, and her pain was well controlled. The incisional VAC and the 2 Hemovac drains were removed within a few days of the operation. Intravenous cefazolin was continued through her hospital stay and she was transitioned to oral cephalexin at discharge as recommended by our infectious disease colleagues to complete a 10-day course of antibiotic therapy.

At the time of discharge—within 1 week of her initial injury—the patient’s wounds were dry and she was ambulatory with a walker. She was instructed to remain non-weight-bearing and to keep her wounds clean and dry with follow-up in 2 weeks. Over 6 to 8 weeks after surgery, the patient’s weight-bearing status was gradually advanced to full weight-bearing, and she achieved union of the fracture and uneventful healing of the traumatic wound (Figures 6A, 6B, 7). 

Discussion

We have presented a case of an open distal-third tibial shaft fracture in a 66-year-old obese woman with an ipsilateral TKA. Open fracture of the tibial shaft is potentially limb-threatening because of the challenging management of the bone and soft-tissue injury. The presence of an ipsilateral TKA adds a degree of complexity. From a biomechanical standpoint, the lower interdigitation of cortical bone, coupled with weight-bearing of the lower extremity, subjects the tibia diaphysis to issues of rotation, length, and angular control.8 Due to the diaphyseal nature of the fracture, consisting of cortical bone with comparably lower vascularity and a small soft-tissue envelope, these fractures heal very slowly and often take as many as 6 to 9 months to achieve union.9,10 Furthermore, as was the case here, short oblique fractures of the tibial shaft often occur under bending stresses that also cause significant damage to the tibial soft-tissue envelope and periosteum, as indicated by the open wound. This disruption deprives the fracture and soft tissues of important vascular supply that is critical to healing and to avoiding infection and soft-tissue necrosis.11-13 The effects of treatment may magnify these biomechanical and biologic consequences. Ideal fixation serves to minimize potential complications by neutralizing the biomechanical forces to permit fracture healing while also limiting the amount of soft-tissue trauma and tension. Because the challenges associated with treatment of open tibial shaft fractures make it a limb-threatening injury in a patient with poor peripheral circulation, it is appropriate to consider primary amputation.14

 

 

If circumstances warrant an attempt at limb salvage, IM nailing with static interlocking screws would typically be the standard of care for treatment of an open fracture of the tibia shaft. This provides stable internal fixation that controls tibial alignment in 6° of freedom and neutralizes bending forces with less strain on the implant because of the IM position.15,16 In addition to superior neutralization of the biomechanical forces, IM nailing is also a minimally invasive approach that limits further trauma to the periosteum and soft-tissue envelope surrounding the fracture site. This optimizes biologic fracture healing and minimizes complications of malunion, infection, and nonunion.17-19 Moreover, by limiting further damage to the surrounding soft tissue, there is a diminished need for a plastic surgery procedure to reestablish soft-tissue integrity overlying the fracture site. This is particularly advantageous in patients with medical comorbidities that make skin grafts and muscle flaps less likely to succeed. For these reasons, IM nailing was our preferred method of fixation in our patient; however, the presence of an ipsilateral TKA made this standard treatment through an antegrade approach impossible. 

Consequently, we considered other methods of fixation, including internal fixation with plate application or external fixation with a multiplanar construct, such as an Ilizarov frame. Some orthopedists consider plate application a superior technique for achieving fracture union because it results in interfragmentary compression, which promotes primary healing. Interestingly, some would argue that the absolute stability provided by the plate may be too rigid a construct to enable optimal fracture healing biology if compression is not achieved.20 However, to allow primary healing to complete fracture union, absolute stability with rigid and strong fixation must be provided. In the tibial shaft, with large bending forces and rotational moments, this is difficult to achieve with plate fixation alone.8 Furthermore, plate application often requires relatively extensive soft-tissue dissection and may impede biologic factors in healing of the bone and soft tissue, increasing the likelihood of infection.21 Finally, adequate plate fixation would significantly increase the soft-tissue volume at this location, further compromising the soft tissues and impeding our goal of primary wound closure.

A uniplanar or mutliplanar external fixator would be an appealing option for definitive fixation because of minimal additional soft-tissue damage that is created during its application. However, it is difficult to achieve adequate stability to encourage either primary, or more commonly, secondary healing in the adult or elderly population.22 An Ilizarov frame is a multiplanar external construct, which allows reconstructive applications because of multiple points of fixation in bone.23 However, the multiple fixation points result in burdensome size of the implant for the patient and requires patient compliance to minimize risk of pin-site infection, which is magnified in a patient with multiple medical comorbid conditions. Furthermore, when comparing treatment options that aim to minimize additional soft-tissue trauma at the site of injury, there is little evidence to show a lower risk of infection at the open fracture site compared with IM nailing.24,25 Thus, in our patient, customary treatment of an open tibial shaft fracture using antegrade IM nailing was not possible, while plate application and external fixation, though potential treatment options, would be relatively contraindicated due to a higher likelihood of failure. 

Consequently, primary amputation may be the most appropriate treatment option in a patient with multiple comorbid medical conditions, including peripheral vascular disease. Primary amputation prevents morbidity and mortality associated with complications related to the aforementioned treatment options, as well as limiting risks associated with multiple re­operations.14,25 Studies illustrate that patient functional outcomes after primary amputation are equal to and, in some cases, superior to those patients undergoing limb salvage procedures for open tibial shaft fractures.26-28

Despite the appropriateness of primary amputation in this case, the patient requested limb salvage. Therefore, other innovative treatment options were explored to achieve our goals of primary wound closure and stable internal fixation. Previous case reports have examined retrograde IM nailing as a means of rigidly fixing tibial shaft fractures in the setting of poor soft tissues or ipsilateral knee arthroplasty.29-31 However, the retrograde approach to IM nailing requires passage of reamers through the subtalar and ankle joints, leading to associated arthritis in these joints or, more commonly, rigidity because the final nail position often crosses these joints in addition to the fracture site. Therefore, a novel approach for IM nailing was performed using the large open-fracture wound. Through the traumatic wound, open-fracture débridement was first performed, followed by placement of a nail into the medullary canal with little additional disruption of the surrounding periosteum or soft tissue.

 

 

Possible complications of this novel method for IM nail passage warrant discussion. First, potentially unfavorable aspects associated with IM reaming include impairment of endosteal blood circulation in the subacute postoperative period.32-34 If the patient develops complications, such as deep infection, nonunion, hardware failure, or periprosthetic fracture, treatment options that require removal of the nail would be very difficult to execute because this nail was passed “intragrade,” or through the fracture site, not from the knee or the calcaneus. However, unique to this case of intragrade nailing, complications associated with the proximal cortical window may occur. In particular, unintended cortical fracture may happen during impaction of the nail into the distal segment of the fracture after reduction. However, this complication may be avoided with the use of a 1-cm wide and 2-cm long window and the use of the malleable aluminum femoral finger (Synthes). Furthermore, use of a femoral nail is recommended because the Herzog curve of a tibial nail cannot be inserted in the proximal tibial segment using an “intragrade” nailing technique. However, fracture may occur intraoperatively or during rehabilitation after surgery because the cortical window creates a region of high stress distal to the tibial arthroplasty component. Likewise, the area of bone between the proximal extent of the IM nail and tibial component of the TKA represents an area of high stress susceptible to periprosthetic fracture.

Conclusion

We have presented a case of a high-energy open distal tibial diaphyseal fracture in a 66-year-old woman with medical comorbidities and treatment complicated by the presence of an ipsilateral TKA. Intramedullary nailing has become the standard of care for open fractures of the tibial diaphysis because of the high rate of union with little additional soft-tissue damage at the fracture site. Despite these advantages, the ipsilateral TKA complicated the placement of an antegrade tibial nail. An alternative treatment, such as an external fixation using an Ilizarov frame, would present equally challenging treatment aspects, including patient compliance, with little proven benefit over an IM nail. Application of a plate would be less desirable because of increased risk of infection at the fracture site, soft-tissue and periosteum disruption, and muscle necrosis compared with other treatment options. Primary amputation was an appropriate consideration for this patient given her comorbid medical circumstances, but the patient refused this treatment option. Therefore, we created a novel approach to place an IM nail, using the traumatic wound to achieve access to the medullary canal proximally and distally.

Fracture of the tibial shaft below an ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an infrequently occurring injury pattern that presents a unique treatment scenario. The high predilection for open wounds associated with these diaphyseal fractures further complicates the treatment algorithm.1,2 The standard principles of treatment for open tibial shaft fractures entail open fracture débridement followed by adequate fracture reduction and stable skeletal fixation in a manner that limits adverse complications of this injury, which include nonunion, malunion, infection, soft-tissue compromise, and reoperation.3,4

Antegrade intramedullary (IM) tibial nailing has become standard treatment for tibial shaft fractures.5-7 This minimally invasive method of fixation limits damage to the soft-tissue envelope, provides superior neutralization of the mechanical forces to provide a template for biologic fracture healing, and allows the best options for revision procedures in the event of inadequate healing. This case report examines treatment options for an open tibial shaft fracture of an ipsilateral TKA, complicating the standard treatment of antegrade tibial nailing. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 66-year-old woman became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs at her home. She was taken to the local emergency room where she presented with left leg pain, deformity, and a skin wound. The wound was dressed with sterile gauze and the extremity immobilized in a temporary plaster splint after which the patient was transferred to our level I trauma center. The accident occurred shortly after dawn, and she received definitive evaluation at the level I trauma center before noon the same day, making the time from injury to evaluation less than 6 hours.

The patient’s medical history was significant for depressive and anxiety disorders, fibromyalgia, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and lymphedema. Her surgical history was significant for a remote left TKA and remote open reduction with internal fixation of a left lateral malleolus fracture. She was prescribed antidepressant and anti-anxiolytic medications, narcotic medication, and antihypertensive therapy. She smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for approximately 20 years and denied alcohol consumption or illicit drug use. Her body mass index was 37.5, and she ambulated independently in the community.

Upon presentation at our hospital, the patient was hemodynamically stable with no discernable systemic compromise from the extremity injury. An examination of the left lower extremity showed a large longitudinal skin wound over the anteromedial surface of the lower leg measuring roughly 10 cm in length with obvious periosteal stripping and protrusion of the proximal fracture segment. Neurologic motor and sensory function was intact in the lower extremities and pulses were strong. Lower leg compartments were soft. Radiographic imaging confirmed a short oblique fracture of the distal third of the tibial diaphysis. The left TKA was intact with no signs of component loosening or periprosthetic fracture (Figures 1A, 1B).

The patient urgently received broad-spectrum antibiotics with intravenous (IV) cefazolin and IV gentamicin as well as tetanus vaccination. Her fracture was temporarily stabilized in a long-leg splint before she was transported to the operating room. Based upon the characteristics of the patient and the open fracture, we had an extensive discussion with the patient regarding the severity of her injury and treatment options, including nonoperative treatment, operative irrigation and débridement with skeletal stabilization, or below-knee amputation. The patient was adamant that limb salvage be attempted despite adequate understanding that she was exposing herself to risk of multiple reoperations from potential complications, as well as systemic medical compromise. Thus, we considered possible techniques for internal fixation of the tibial shaft fracture and treatment of the open wound.

Two primary technical concerns were addressed in the preoperative planning phase: the first was the need for primary closure of the open wound. This patient had a large wound over the anteromedial surface of the distal third of the tibia with scant soft-tissue coverage. Consequently, skin graft alone would not be adequate. While a muscle flap is another option, it would be prone to failure because of the patient’s age and comorbidities, including hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, lymphedema, and tobacco use. Therefore, we hoped to achieve primary closure. Our second major concern was that the method of fixation must be biomechanically sound without impeding our first goal of primary wound closure. In the setting of an ipsilateral TKA, standard antegrade IM nail fixation would not be possible. While we considered plate fixation, it is biomechanically less stable than an IM nail, and we had great concerns about wound complications. External fixation—uniplanar and mutliplanar (eg, Ilizarov)—was limited by issues of long-term fracture stability and risk of pin-site infection. Both methods appeared less desirable compared with IM nail fixation. Thus, we devised an innovative technique to implant an IM nail into the tibial canal. 

 

 

The operative procedure first entailed standard open fracture care comprising débridement of nonviable soft tissue from the traumatic anteromedial tibial wound, curettage of the fractured bone ends, and irrigation with pulse-jet lavage. Then, we turned to reduction and internal fixation of the bony injury. The large traumatic wound was not extended and was used as the primary surgical approach to permit introduction of the IM nail into the canal. Through the traumatic wound, we performed limited reaming of the proximal and distal fracture segments. Using a cannulated technique over guide wires, we reamed to 11 mm (Figure 2). The tourniquet was not used during the IM reaming. We determined the maximum nail length (approximately 22 cm) by measuring the distance from the fracture to the bone interface with the tibial component. We used a 10×200-mm femoral retrograde Synthes nail (Synthes, Inc, West Chester, Pennsylvania) for the procedure, although we considered an IM humerus nail. Through the traumatic wound, the nail was advanced in its entirety into the proximal tibial segment (Figure 3). The fracture was reduced anatomically and held with a bone tenaculum (Figures 4A, 4B). A medial cortical window proximal to the proximal extent of the IM nail was created through which the Synthes IM reduction tool (aluminum femoral finger) was advanced to impact the IM nail antegrade through the fracture site into the distal segment (Figure 5). After placement of the nail was complete, the excised fragment of bone was reinserted into the cortical window. The Synthes IM reduction tool was chosen for its diameter, length, and, most important, its relative flexibility. While maintaining reduction of the fracture, cross-locking of the nail was performed at the distal and proximal ends with perfect circle technique through stab incisions. Length, alignment, and rotation of the affected tibia were deemed symmetric to the contralateral side based on preoperative clinical measurements. Final fluoroscopic images showed appropriate alignment and proper implant placement.

Following open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture, the traumatic and surgical wounds were closed in a layered fashion. A subcutaneous drain and an incisional vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) device were applied to the closed traumatic wound, and a second subcutaneous drain was placed at the site of the cortical window. The patient tolerated the procedure well without perioperative complications.

In the acute period after surgery, the patient’s neurologic and vascular status remained stable. Her muscular compartments remained soft and compressible on physical examination, and her pain was well controlled. The incisional VAC and the 2 Hemovac drains were removed within a few days of the operation. Intravenous cefazolin was continued through her hospital stay and she was transitioned to oral cephalexin at discharge as recommended by our infectious disease colleagues to complete a 10-day course of antibiotic therapy.

At the time of discharge—within 1 week of her initial injury—the patient’s wounds were dry and she was ambulatory with a walker. She was instructed to remain non-weight-bearing and to keep her wounds clean and dry with follow-up in 2 weeks. Over 6 to 8 weeks after surgery, the patient’s weight-bearing status was gradually advanced to full weight-bearing, and she achieved union of the fracture and uneventful healing of the traumatic wound (Figures 6A, 6B, 7). 

Discussion

We have presented a case of an open distal-third tibial shaft fracture in a 66-year-old obese woman with an ipsilateral TKA. Open fracture of the tibial shaft is potentially limb-threatening because of the challenging management of the bone and soft-tissue injury. The presence of an ipsilateral TKA adds a degree of complexity. From a biomechanical standpoint, the lower interdigitation of cortical bone, coupled with weight-bearing of the lower extremity, subjects the tibia diaphysis to issues of rotation, length, and angular control.8 Due to the diaphyseal nature of the fracture, consisting of cortical bone with comparably lower vascularity and a small soft-tissue envelope, these fractures heal very slowly and often take as many as 6 to 9 months to achieve union.9,10 Furthermore, as was the case here, short oblique fractures of the tibial shaft often occur under bending stresses that also cause significant damage to the tibial soft-tissue envelope and periosteum, as indicated by the open wound. This disruption deprives the fracture and soft tissues of important vascular supply that is critical to healing and to avoiding infection and soft-tissue necrosis.11-13 The effects of treatment may magnify these biomechanical and biologic consequences. Ideal fixation serves to minimize potential complications by neutralizing the biomechanical forces to permit fracture healing while also limiting the amount of soft-tissue trauma and tension. Because the challenges associated with treatment of open tibial shaft fractures make it a limb-threatening injury in a patient with poor peripheral circulation, it is appropriate to consider primary amputation.14

 

 

If circumstances warrant an attempt at limb salvage, IM nailing with static interlocking screws would typically be the standard of care for treatment of an open fracture of the tibia shaft. This provides stable internal fixation that controls tibial alignment in 6° of freedom and neutralizes bending forces with less strain on the implant because of the IM position.15,16 In addition to superior neutralization of the biomechanical forces, IM nailing is also a minimally invasive approach that limits further trauma to the periosteum and soft-tissue envelope surrounding the fracture site. This optimizes biologic fracture healing and minimizes complications of malunion, infection, and nonunion.17-19 Moreover, by limiting further damage to the surrounding soft tissue, there is a diminished need for a plastic surgery procedure to reestablish soft-tissue integrity overlying the fracture site. This is particularly advantageous in patients with medical comorbidities that make skin grafts and muscle flaps less likely to succeed. For these reasons, IM nailing was our preferred method of fixation in our patient; however, the presence of an ipsilateral TKA made this standard treatment through an antegrade approach impossible. 

Consequently, we considered other methods of fixation, including internal fixation with plate application or external fixation with a multiplanar construct, such as an Ilizarov frame. Some orthopedists consider plate application a superior technique for achieving fracture union because it results in interfragmentary compression, which promotes primary healing. Interestingly, some would argue that the absolute stability provided by the plate may be too rigid a construct to enable optimal fracture healing biology if compression is not achieved.20 However, to allow primary healing to complete fracture union, absolute stability with rigid and strong fixation must be provided. In the tibial shaft, with large bending forces and rotational moments, this is difficult to achieve with plate fixation alone.8 Furthermore, plate application often requires relatively extensive soft-tissue dissection and may impede biologic factors in healing of the bone and soft tissue, increasing the likelihood of infection.21 Finally, adequate plate fixation would significantly increase the soft-tissue volume at this location, further compromising the soft tissues and impeding our goal of primary wound closure.

A uniplanar or mutliplanar external fixator would be an appealing option for definitive fixation because of minimal additional soft-tissue damage that is created during its application. However, it is difficult to achieve adequate stability to encourage either primary, or more commonly, secondary healing in the adult or elderly population.22 An Ilizarov frame is a multiplanar external construct, which allows reconstructive applications because of multiple points of fixation in bone.23 However, the multiple fixation points result in burdensome size of the implant for the patient and requires patient compliance to minimize risk of pin-site infection, which is magnified in a patient with multiple medical comorbid conditions. Furthermore, when comparing treatment options that aim to minimize additional soft-tissue trauma at the site of injury, there is little evidence to show a lower risk of infection at the open fracture site compared with IM nailing.24,25 Thus, in our patient, customary treatment of an open tibial shaft fracture using antegrade IM nailing was not possible, while plate application and external fixation, though potential treatment options, would be relatively contraindicated due to a higher likelihood of failure. 

Consequently, primary amputation may be the most appropriate treatment option in a patient with multiple comorbid medical conditions, including peripheral vascular disease. Primary amputation prevents morbidity and mortality associated with complications related to the aforementioned treatment options, as well as limiting risks associated with multiple re­operations.14,25 Studies illustrate that patient functional outcomes after primary amputation are equal to and, in some cases, superior to those patients undergoing limb salvage procedures for open tibial shaft fractures.26-28

Despite the appropriateness of primary amputation in this case, the patient requested limb salvage. Therefore, other innovative treatment options were explored to achieve our goals of primary wound closure and stable internal fixation. Previous case reports have examined retrograde IM nailing as a means of rigidly fixing tibial shaft fractures in the setting of poor soft tissues or ipsilateral knee arthroplasty.29-31 However, the retrograde approach to IM nailing requires passage of reamers through the subtalar and ankle joints, leading to associated arthritis in these joints or, more commonly, rigidity because the final nail position often crosses these joints in addition to the fracture site. Therefore, a novel approach for IM nailing was performed using the large open-fracture wound. Through the traumatic wound, open-fracture débridement was first performed, followed by placement of a nail into the medullary canal with little additional disruption of the surrounding periosteum or soft tissue.

 

 

Possible complications of this novel method for IM nail passage warrant discussion. First, potentially unfavorable aspects associated with IM reaming include impairment of endosteal blood circulation in the subacute postoperative period.32-34 If the patient develops complications, such as deep infection, nonunion, hardware failure, or periprosthetic fracture, treatment options that require removal of the nail would be very difficult to execute because this nail was passed “intragrade,” or through the fracture site, not from the knee or the calcaneus. However, unique to this case of intragrade nailing, complications associated with the proximal cortical window may occur. In particular, unintended cortical fracture may happen during impaction of the nail into the distal segment of the fracture after reduction. However, this complication may be avoided with the use of a 1-cm wide and 2-cm long window and the use of the malleable aluminum femoral finger (Synthes). Furthermore, use of a femoral nail is recommended because the Herzog curve of a tibial nail cannot be inserted in the proximal tibial segment using an “intragrade” nailing technique. However, fracture may occur intraoperatively or during rehabilitation after surgery because the cortical window creates a region of high stress distal to the tibial arthroplasty component. Likewise, the area of bone between the proximal extent of the IM nail and tibial component of the TKA represents an area of high stress susceptible to periprosthetic fracture.

Conclusion

We have presented a case of a high-energy open distal tibial diaphyseal fracture in a 66-year-old woman with medical comorbidities and treatment complicated by the presence of an ipsilateral TKA. Intramedullary nailing has become the standard of care for open fractures of the tibial diaphysis because of the high rate of union with little additional soft-tissue damage at the fracture site. Despite these advantages, the ipsilateral TKA complicated the placement of an antegrade tibial nail. An alternative treatment, such as an external fixation using an Ilizarov frame, would present equally challenging treatment aspects, including patient compliance, with little proven benefit over an IM nail. Application of a plate would be less desirable because of increased risk of infection at the fracture site, soft-tissue and periosteum disruption, and muscle necrosis compared with other treatment options. Primary amputation was an appropriate consideration for this patient given her comorbid medical circumstances, but the patient refused this treatment option. Therefore, we created a novel approach to place an IM nail, using the traumatic wound to achieve access to the medullary canal proximally and distally.

References

1.    Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J. Factors influencing infection rate in open fracture wounds. Clin Orthop. 1989;243:36-40.

2.    Court-Brown CM, McBirnie J. The epidemiology of tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):417-421.

3.    Puno RM, Teynor JT, Nagano J, Gustilo RB. Critical analysis of results of treatment of 201 tibial shaft fractures. Clin Orthop. 1986;212:113-121.

4.    Melvin JS, Dombroski DG, Torbert JT, Kovach SJ, Esterhal JL, Mehta S. Open tibial shaft fractures: I. Evaluation and initial wound management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(1):10-19.

5.     Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH. Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(1):62-68.

6.    SPRINT Investigators, Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Tornetta P 3rd, et al. Study to prospectively evaluate reamed intramedually nails in patients with tibial fractures (S.P.R.I.N.T.): study rationale and design. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:91.

7.    Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures Investigators, Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Tornetta P 3rd, et al. Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2567-2578.

8.    Burr DB, Milgrom C, Fyhrie D, et al. In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity. Bone. 1996;18(5):405-410.

9.    Edwards P. Fracture of the shaft of the tibia: 492 consecutive cases in adults: Importance of soft tissue injury. Acta Orthop Scand (Suppl). 1965;76(suppl 76):1-82.

10.  Papakostidis C, Kanakaris NK, Pretel J, Faour O, Morell DJ, Giannoudis PV. Prevalence of complications of open tibial shaft fractures stratified as per the Gustilo–Anderson classification. Injury. 2011;42(12):1408-1415.

11.  Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma. 1984;24(8):742-746.

12.    DeLong WG Jr, Born CT, Wei SY, Petrik ME, Ponzio R, Schwab CW. Aggressive treatment of 119 open fracture wounds. J Trauma. 1999;46(6):1049-1054.

13.  Tielinen L, Lindahl JE, Tukiainen EJ. Acute unreamed intramedullary nailing and soft tissue reconstruction with muscle flaps for the treatment of severe open tibial shaft fractures. Injury. 2007;38(8):906-912.

14.  Georgiadis GM, Behrens FF, Joyce MJ, Earle AS, Simmons AL. Open tibial fractures with severe soft-tissue loss. Limb salvage compared with below-the-knee amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(10):1431-1441.

15.  Hansen M, Mehler D, Hessmann MH, Blum J, Rommens PM. Intramedullary stabilization of extraarticular proximal tibial fractures: a biomechanical comparison of intramedullary and extramedullary implants including a new proximal tibia nail (PTN). J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10):701-709.

16.  Hoegel FW, Hoffmann S, Weninger P, Bühren V, Augat P. Biomechanical comparison of locked plate osteosynthesis, reamed and unreamed nailing in conventional interlocking technique, and unreamed angle stable nailing in distal tibia fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(4):933-938.

17.    Brumback RJ, Reilly JP, Poka A, Lakatos RP, Bathon GH, Burgess AR. Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Part 1: Decision-making errors with interlocking fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(10):1441-1452.

18.  Hooper GJ, Keddell RG, Penny ID. Conservative management or closed nailing for tibial shaft fractures. A randomised prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(1):83-85.

19.    Karladani AH, Granhed H, Edshage B, Jerre R, Styf J. Displaced tibial shaft fractures: a prospective randomized study of closed intramedullary nailing versus cast treatment in 53 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(12):160-167.

20.  Kenwright J, Richardson JB, Goodship AE, et al. Effect of controlled axial micromovement on healing of tibial fractures. Lancet. 1986;22(8517):1185-1187.

21.  Im GI, Tae SK. Distal metaphyseal fractures of tibia: a prospective randomized trial of closed reduction and intramedullary nail versus open reduction and plate and screws fixation. J Trauma. 2005;59(5):1219-1223.

22.  Henley MB, Chapman JR, Agel J, Harvey EJ, Whorton AM, Swiontkowski MF. Treatment of type II, IIIA, and IIIB open fractures of the tibial shaft: a prospective comparison of unreamed interlocking intramedullary nails and half-pin external fixators. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12(1):1-7.

23.  Ramos T, Ekholm C, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J, Nistor L. The Ilizarov external fixator - a useful alternative for the treatment of proximal tibial fractures. A prospective observational study of 30 consecutive patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:11.

24.    Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH. Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(1):62-68.

25.  Webb LX, Bosse MJ, Castillo RC, MacKenzie EJ; LEAP Study Group. Analysis of surgeon-controlled variables in the treatment of limb-threatening type-III open tibial diaphyseal fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):923-928.

26.  Bondurant FJ, Cotler HB, Buckle R, Miller-Crotchett P, Browner BD. The medical and economic impact of severely injured lower extremities. J Trauma. 1988;28(8):1270-1273.

27.  Bosse MJ, MacKenzie EJ, Kellam JF, et al. An analysis of outcomes of reconstruction or amputation of leg-threatening injuries. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(24):1924-1931.

28.  MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Pollak AN, et al. Long-term persistence of disability following severe lower-limb trauma. Results of a seven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1801-1809.

29.  Doulens KM, Joshi AB, Wagner RA. Tibial fracture after total knee arthroplasty treated with retrograde intramedullary fixation. Am J Orthop. 2007;36(7):E111-E113.

30.  Zafra-Jiménez JA, Pretell-Mazzini J, Resines-Erasun C. Distal tibial fracture below a total knee arthroplasty: retrograde intramedullary nailing as an alternative method of treatment: a case report. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(7):e74-e76.

31.  Loosen S, Preuss S, Zelle BA, Pape HC, Tarken IS. Multimorbid patients with poor soft tissue conditions: Treatment of distal tibia fractures with retrograde intramedullary nailing. Unfallchirurg. 2012;116(6):553-558.

32.  Kessler SB, Hallfeldt KJ, Perren SM, Schweiberer L. The effects of reaming and intramedullary nailing on fracture healing. Clin Orthop. 1986;212:18-25.

33.  Klein MP, Rahn BA, Frigg R, Kessler S, Perren SM. Reaming versus non-reaming in medullary nailing: interference with cortical circulation of the canine tibia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1990;109(6):314-316.

34.   Reichert IL, McCarthy ID, Hughes SP. The acute vascular response to intramedullary reaming. Microsphere estimation of blood flow in the intact ovine tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):490-493.

References

1.    Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J. Factors influencing infection rate in open fracture wounds. Clin Orthop. 1989;243:36-40.

2.    Court-Brown CM, McBirnie J. The epidemiology of tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):417-421.

3.    Puno RM, Teynor JT, Nagano J, Gustilo RB. Critical analysis of results of treatment of 201 tibial shaft fractures. Clin Orthop. 1986;212:113-121.

4.    Melvin JS, Dombroski DG, Torbert JT, Kovach SJ, Esterhal JL, Mehta S. Open tibial shaft fractures: I. Evaluation and initial wound management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(1):10-19.

5.     Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH. Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(1):62-68.

6.    SPRINT Investigators, Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Tornetta P 3rd, et al. Study to prospectively evaluate reamed intramedually nails in patients with tibial fractures (S.P.R.I.N.T.): study rationale and design. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:91.

7.    Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures Investigators, Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Tornetta P 3rd, et al. Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2567-2578.

8.    Burr DB, Milgrom C, Fyhrie D, et al. In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity. Bone. 1996;18(5):405-410.

9.    Edwards P. Fracture of the shaft of the tibia: 492 consecutive cases in adults: Importance of soft tissue injury. Acta Orthop Scand (Suppl). 1965;76(suppl 76):1-82.

10.  Papakostidis C, Kanakaris NK, Pretel J, Faour O, Morell DJ, Giannoudis PV. Prevalence of complications of open tibial shaft fractures stratified as per the Gustilo–Anderson classification. Injury. 2011;42(12):1408-1415.

11.  Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma. 1984;24(8):742-746.

12.    DeLong WG Jr, Born CT, Wei SY, Petrik ME, Ponzio R, Schwab CW. Aggressive treatment of 119 open fracture wounds. J Trauma. 1999;46(6):1049-1054.

13.  Tielinen L, Lindahl JE, Tukiainen EJ. Acute unreamed intramedullary nailing and soft tissue reconstruction with muscle flaps for the treatment of severe open tibial shaft fractures. Injury. 2007;38(8):906-912.

14.  Georgiadis GM, Behrens FF, Joyce MJ, Earle AS, Simmons AL. Open tibial fractures with severe soft-tissue loss. Limb salvage compared with below-the-knee amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(10):1431-1441.

15.  Hansen M, Mehler D, Hessmann MH, Blum J, Rommens PM. Intramedullary stabilization of extraarticular proximal tibial fractures: a biomechanical comparison of intramedullary and extramedullary implants including a new proximal tibia nail (PTN). J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10):701-709.

16.  Hoegel FW, Hoffmann S, Weninger P, Bühren V, Augat P. Biomechanical comparison of locked plate osteosynthesis, reamed and unreamed nailing in conventional interlocking technique, and unreamed angle stable nailing in distal tibia fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(4):933-938.

17.    Brumback RJ, Reilly JP, Poka A, Lakatos RP, Bathon GH, Burgess AR. Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Part 1: Decision-making errors with interlocking fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(10):1441-1452.

18.  Hooper GJ, Keddell RG, Penny ID. Conservative management or closed nailing for tibial shaft fractures. A randomised prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(1):83-85.

19.    Karladani AH, Granhed H, Edshage B, Jerre R, Styf J. Displaced tibial shaft fractures: a prospective randomized study of closed intramedullary nailing versus cast treatment in 53 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(12):160-167.

20.  Kenwright J, Richardson JB, Goodship AE, et al. Effect of controlled axial micromovement on healing of tibial fractures. Lancet. 1986;22(8517):1185-1187.

21.  Im GI, Tae SK. Distal metaphyseal fractures of tibia: a prospective randomized trial of closed reduction and intramedullary nail versus open reduction and plate and screws fixation. J Trauma. 2005;59(5):1219-1223.

22.  Henley MB, Chapman JR, Agel J, Harvey EJ, Whorton AM, Swiontkowski MF. Treatment of type II, IIIA, and IIIB open fractures of the tibial shaft: a prospective comparison of unreamed interlocking intramedullary nails and half-pin external fixators. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12(1):1-7.

23.  Ramos T, Ekholm C, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J, Nistor L. The Ilizarov external fixator - a useful alternative for the treatment of proximal tibial fractures. A prospective observational study of 30 consecutive patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:11.

24.    Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH. Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(1):62-68.

25.  Webb LX, Bosse MJ, Castillo RC, MacKenzie EJ; LEAP Study Group. Analysis of surgeon-controlled variables in the treatment of limb-threatening type-III open tibial diaphyseal fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):923-928.

26.  Bondurant FJ, Cotler HB, Buckle R, Miller-Crotchett P, Browner BD. The medical and economic impact of severely injured lower extremities. J Trauma. 1988;28(8):1270-1273.

27.  Bosse MJ, MacKenzie EJ, Kellam JF, et al. An analysis of outcomes of reconstruction or amputation of leg-threatening injuries. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(24):1924-1931.

28.  MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Pollak AN, et al. Long-term persistence of disability following severe lower-limb trauma. Results of a seven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1801-1809.

29.  Doulens KM, Joshi AB, Wagner RA. Tibial fracture after total knee arthroplasty treated with retrograde intramedullary fixation. Am J Orthop. 2007;36(7):E111-E113.

30.  Zafra-Jiménez JA, Pretell-Mazzini J, Resines-Erasun C. Distal tibial fracture below a total knee arthroplasty: retrograde intramedullary nailing as an alternative method of treatment: a case report. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(7):e74-e76.

31.  Loosen S, Preuss S, Zelle BA, Pape HC, Tarken IS. Multimorbid patients with poor soft tissue conditions: Treatment of distal tibia fractures with retrograde intramedullary nailing. Unfallchirurg. 2012;116(6):553-558.

32.  Kessler SB, Hallfeldt KJ, Perren SM, Schweiberer L. The effects of reaming and intramedullary nailing on fracture healing. Clin Orthop. 1986;212:18-25.

33.  Klein MP, Rahn BA, Frigg R, Kessler S, Perren SM. Reaming versus non-reaming in medullary nailing: interference with cortical circulation of the canine tibia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1990;109(6):314-316.

34.   Reichert IL, McCarthy ID, Hughes SP. The acute vascular response to intramedullary reaming. Microsphere estimation of blood flow in the intact ovine tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):490-493.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Page Number
E81-E86
Page Number
E81-E86
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Intragrade Intramedullary Nailing of an Open Tibial Shaft Fracture in a Patient With Concomitant Ipsilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty
Display Headline
Intragrade Intramedullary Nailing of an Open Tibial Shaft Fracture in a Patient With Concomitant Ipsilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, nailing, tibial shaft fracture, tibial, tibia, fracture, fracture management, trauma, total knee arthroplasty, arthroplasty, knee, TKA, amputation, tibial diaphysis, greco, goyal, tarkin
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, nailing, tibial shaft fracture, tibial, tibia, fracture, fracture management, trauma, total knee arthroplasty, arthroplasty, knee, TKA, amputation, tibial diaphysis, greco, goyal, tarkin
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Glenoid Damage From Articular Protrusion of Metal Suture Anchor After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Glenoid Damage From Articular Protrusion of Metal Suture Anchor After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Complications with the use of anchor screws in shoulder surgery have been well-documented1,2 and can be divided into 3 categories: insertion (eg, incomplete seating, inadequate insertion, and migration), biologic (eg, large tacks producing synovitis and bone reaction), and, less commonly, mechanical (eg, intra- and extra-articular bone pull-out with migration) complications.

Prominent hardware, including suture anchors, as a cause of arthritis and joint damage has been well-documented in shoulder surgery.3,4 For example, anchors placed on the glenoid rim have been implicated in severe cartilage loss if they protrude above the level of the glenoid rim.3 However, to the authors’ knowledge, prominent anchor placement after rotator cuff repair has not been reported as a cause of arthritis unless the anchor dislodges into the glenohumeral joint. The authors present a case in which a suture anchor used for rotator cuff repair protruded through the humeral head, resulting in glenohumeral arthritis. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman presented with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain for 5 months after a fall from a bicycle. She had taken nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication without pain relief. On presentation, she had no atrophy or deformity, was neurologically intact for sensation and reflexes, and had full range of motion (ROM) but a painful arc. She had tenderness over the greater tuberosity and positive Neer and Hawkins-Kennedy impingement signs. She had pain but no weakness to resisted abduction or to resisted external rotation with the arms at the sides.

Preoperative conventional radiographs of the shoulder were normal. A gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance arthrogram showed a high-grade articular partial tear of the supraspinatus, which was judged to be at least two-thirds of the tendon width. Because nonoperative methods had failed, the patient elected operative intervention for this tear.

Diagnostic arthroscopy (with the patient in a lateral decubitus position) showed a normal joint except for a high-grade, 8×8-mm, greater than 6 mm deep, partial tear of the articular side of the supraspinatus tendon. The subacromial space had moderate to severe bursal tissue inflammation but no full-thickness component to the rotator cuff tear. A bursectomy, coracoacromial ligament release, and partial anterolateral acromioplasty were performed.

A transtendinous technique was used to repair this high-grade tear. For an anatomically rigid repair, we used 3 suture anchors with a straight configuration because each metal anchor has only 1 suture. According to the standard arthroscopic transtendinous repair technique, the suture anchors were placed through the rotator cuff tendon (at the lateral articular margin at the medial extent of the footprint) after localization of the angle with a spinal needle. A shuttle relay was used to pass the sutures, and the knot was pulled into the subacromial space, cinching the rotator cuff on top of the suture anchors and reestablishing the contact of the tendon to the footprint. We used two 2.4-mm FASTak suture anchors (Arthrex, Naples, Florida) and one 3.5-mm Corkscrew suture anchor (Arthrex). This process was repeated for the remaining suture limbs. The placement of the suture anchors adequately reduced the articular part of the cuff to the footprint.

After surgery, the patient had no complications, and radiographs taken the next day suggested no abnormalities (Figure 1A). The shoulder was immobilized for 4 weeks after surgery, and passive, gentle ROM exercise was supervised by a physical therapist twice a week during this period. After the first 4 weeks, an active ROM program was begun. However, shortly after initiating motion in the shoulder, the patient complained of a recurrence of pain that she described as a sharp and grinding sensation.

The patient was reevaluated 8 weeks after surgery. Her pain was worsening, and she was having difficulty regaining ROM. Conventional radiographs showed the tip of the metal anchor protruding through the articular cartilage of the humeral head (Figure 1B). The patient was informed of the findings, and immediate surgery was performed to remove the anchor.

Arthroscopic examination showed extensive damage to the glenoid cartilage (Figure 1C) and an intra-articularly intact rotator cuff repair. The cartilage damage was located in the posterior and inferior half of the glenoid, which is related to the forward flexion of the arm; the depth of the cartilage defect was approximately 2 mm. Under the image intensifier, an empty suture anchor driver was inserted into the previous screw insertion hole, and the anchor was screwed back out and removed.

After surgery, the patient’s arm was placed in a sling, and an ROM program began 4 weeks later. The sensation of grinding was eliminated, and her pain gradually improved. Three years after surgery, she had no pain, no weakness, and full ROM without limitations (Figure 2).

 

 

Discussion

Protrusion and migration of suture anchors in shoulder surgery has been documented extensively.3,4 Zuckerman and Matsen4 divided these complications into 4 groups: (1) incorrect placement, (2) migration after placement, (3) loosening, and (4) device breakage. These complications may be frequently related to surgical technique, and all these studies describe backward migration of the anchor out of the drill hole. In the current case, the anchor tip penetrated the articular surface of the humeral head, not because of anchor migration but because the anchor was inserted too far. To the authors’ knowledge, there is only 1 reported case of anchor protrusion through the humeral head; it involved a different type of anchor insertion system.5 In that case, there was only mild cartilage damage to the glenoid, and the patient recovered after removal of the anchors.

Several factors contributed to the improper insertion of the anchor in the current patient. First, repairing a high-grade articular side defect or partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion lesion can be technically challenging because rotator cuff tissue obscures the view when inserting the anchor. Second, the anchor was inserted too medially on the greater tuberosity, which made the distance from the tuberosity to the joint shorter. Wong and colleagues5 performed an analysis of the angle of insertion that would be safe using a PEEK PushLock SP system (Arthrex), but they emphasized that the angle depends on the configuration of the particular insertion system. The current case also shows that the surgeon should be cognizant of the fact that penetration of the humeral head by the anchor can occur if the surgeon is unaware of the distance from the anchor to the laser line on the insertion device or of the distance from the tuberosity to the articular surface of the humeral head.

The current case also shows that the type of anchor and delivery system may contribute to this complication. Double-loaded suture anchors can decrease the number of anchors needed for secure fixation. Bioabsorbable anchors can be used for this purpose, but they may be technically more difficult to use for repairing partial tears of the rotator cuff. Better visualization of the laser line on the anchor may be facilitated by using a probe from an anterior portal to hold the cuff up while the anchor is inserted.

This case has shown the importance of obtaining post­operative radiographic studies in patients who have metal anchors placed during shoulder surgery, especially if they complain of continued pain, new pain, crepitus, or grinding. When conventional radiography is insufficient for locating the anchor or its proximity to the joint line, computed tomography can be helpful.1

Conclusion

Removing failed suture anchors can be challenging, especially when they protrude into the joint on the humeral side.1,6 The best way to prevent this complication is through careful technique. The anchors should not be inserted beyond the depth of the laser line on the anchors, and every attempt should be made to make sure the laser line is visible at the time of anchor insertion. Postoperative radiographs should be considered for patients with metal anchors in the shoulder, especially if the patient continues to have symptoms or develops new symptoms in the shoulder after surgery.

References

1.    Park HB, Keyurapan E, Gill HS, Selhi HS, McFarland EG. Suture anchors and tacks for shoulder surgery. Part II: The prevention and treatment of complications. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(1):136-144.

2.    McFarland EG, Park HB, Keyurapan E, Gill HS, Selhi HS. Suture anchors and tacks for shoulder surgery. Part I: Biology and biomechanics. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1918-1923.

3.    Rhee YG, Lee DH, Chun IH, Bae SC. Glenohumeral arthropathy after arthro­scopic anterior shoulder stabilization. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(4):402-406.

4.    Zuckerman JD, Matsen FA III. Complications about the glenohumeral joint related to the use of screws and staples. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):175-180.

5.    Wong AS, Kokkalis ZT, Schmidt CC. Proper insertion angle is essential to prevent intra-articular protrusion of a knotless suture anchor in shoulder rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(2):286-290.

6.     Grutter PW, McFarland EG, Zikria BA, Dai Z, Petersen SA. Techniques for suture anchor removal in shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(8):1706-1710.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Yang-Soo Kim, MD, Ji-Hoon Ok, MD, Juan Garzon-Muvdi, MD, and Edward G. McFarland, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E78-E80
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, glenoid damage, metal suture anchor, metal, suture, arthroscopy, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, rotator cuff, shoulder, cartilage, biologics, joints, glenohumeral arthritis, arthritis, suture anchors, surgery, kim, ok, garzon-muvdi, mcfarland
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Yang-Soo Kim, MD, Ji-Hoon Ok, MD, Juan Garzon-Muvdi, MD, and Edward G. McFarland, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Yang-Soo Kim, MD, Ji-Hoon Ok, MD, Juan Garzon-Muvdi, MD, and Edward G. McFarland, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Complications with the use of anchor screws in shoulder surgery have been well-documented1,2 and can be divided into 3 categories: insertion (eg, incomplete seating, inadequate insertion, and migration), biologic (eg, large tacks producing synovitis and bone reaction), and, less commonly, mechanical (eg, intra- and extra-articular bone pull-out with migration) complications.

Prominent hardware, including suture anchors, as a cause of arthritis and joint damage has been well-documented in shoulder surgery.3,4 For example, anchors placed on the glenoid rim have been implicated in severe cartilage loss if they protrude above the level of the glenoid rim.3 However, to the authors’ knowledge, prominent anchor placement after rotator cuff repair has not been reported as a cause of arthritis unless the anchor dislodges into the glenohumeral joint. The authors present a case in which a suture anchor used for rotator cuff repair protruded through the humeral head, resulting in glenohumeral arthritis. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman presented with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain for 5 months after a fall from a bicycle. She had taken nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication without pain relief. On presentation, she had no atrophy or deformity, was neurologically intact for sensation and reflexes, and had full range of motion (ROM) but a painful arc. She had tenderness over the greater tuberosity and positive Neer and Hawkins-Kennedy impingement signs. She had pain but no weakness to resisted abduction or to resisted external rotation with the arms at the sides.

Preoperative conventional radiographs of the shoulder were normal. A gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance arthrogram showed a high-grade articular partial tear of the supraspinatus, which was judged to be at least two-thirds of the tendon width. Because nonoperative methods had failed, the patient elected operative intervention for this tear.

Diagnostic arthroscopy (with the patient in a lateral decubitus position) showed a normal joint except for a high-grade, 8×8-mm, greater than 6 mm deep, partial tear of the articular side of the supraspinatus tendon. The subacromial space had moderate to severe bursal tissue inflammation but no full-thickness component to the rotator cuff tear. A bursectomy, coracoacromial ligament release, and partial anterolateral acromioplasty were performed.

A transtendinous technique was used to repair this high-grade tear. For an anatomically rigid repair, we used 3 suture anchors with a straight configuration because each metal anchor has only 1 suture. According to the standard arthroscopic transtendinous repair technique, the suture anchors were placed through the rotator cuff tendon (at the lateral articular margin at the medial extent of the footprint) after localization of the angle with a spinal needle. A shuttle relay was used to pass the sutures, and the knot was pulled into the subacromial space, cinching the rotator cuff on top of the suture anchors and reestablishing the contact of the tendon to the footprint. We used two 2.4-mm FASTak suture anchors (Arthrex, Naples, Florida) and one 3.5-mm Corkscrew suture anchor (Arthrex). This process was repeated for the remaining suture limbs. The placement of the suture anchors adequately reduced the articular part of the cuff to the footprint.

After surgery, the patient had no complications, and radiographs taken the next day suggested no abnormalities (Figure 1A). The shoulder was immobilized for 4 weeks after surgery, and passive, gentle ROM exercise was supervised by a physical therapist twice a week during this period. After the first 4 weeks, an active ROM program was begun. However, shortly after initiating motion in the shoulder, the patient complained of a recurrence of pain that she described as a sharp and grinding sensation.

The patient was reevaluated 8 weeks after surgery. Her pain was worsening, and she was having difficulty regaining ROM. Conventional radiographs showed the tip of the metal anchor protruding through the articular cartilage of the humeral head (Figure 1B). The patient was informed of the findings, and immediate surgery was performed to remove the anchor.

Arthroscopic examination showed extensive damage to the glenoid cartilage (Figure 1C) and an intra-articularly intact rotator cuff repair. The cartilage damage was located in the posterior and inferior half of the glenoid, which is related to the forward flexion of the arm; the depth of the cartilage defect was approximately 2 mm. Under the image intensifier, an empty suture anchor driver was inserted into the previous screw insertion hole, and the anchor was screwed back out and removed.

After surgery, the patient’s arm was placed in a sling, and an ROM program began 4 weeks later. The sensation of grinding was eliminated, and her pain gradually improved. Three years after surgery, she had no pain, no weakness, and full ROM without limitations (Figure 2).

 

 

Discussion

Protrusion and migration of suture anchors in shoulder surgery has been documented extensively.3,4 Zuckerman and Matsen4 divided these complications into 4 groups: (1) incorrect placement, (2) migration after placement, (3) loosening, and (4) device breakage. These complications may be frequently related to surgical technique, and all these studies describe backward migration of the anchor out of the drill hole. In the current case, the anchor tip penetrated the articular surface of the humeral head, not because of anchor migration but because the anchor was inserted too far. To the authors’ knowledge, there is only 1 reported case of anchor protrusion through the humeral head; it involved a different type of anchor insertion system.5 In that case, there was only mild cartilage damage to the glenoid, and the patient recovered after removal of the anchors.

Several factors contributed to the improper insertion of the anchor in the current patient. First, repairing a high-grade articular side defect or partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion lesion can be technically challenging because rotator cuff tissue obscures the view when inserting the anchor. Second, the anchor was inserted too medially on the greater tuberosity, which made the distance from the tuberosity to the joint shorter. Wong and colleagues5 performed an analysis of the angle of insertion that would be safe using a PEEK PushLock SP system (Arthrex), but they emphasized that the angle depends on the configuration of the particular insertion system. The current case also shows that the surgeon should be cognizant of the fact that penetration of the humeral head by the anchor can occur if the surgeon is unaware of the distance from the anchor to the laser line on the insertion device or of the distance from the tuberosity to the articular surface of the humeral head.

The current case also shows that the type of anchor and delivery system may contribute to this complication. Double-loaded suture anchors can decrease the number of anchors needed for secure fixation. Bioabsorbable anchors can be used for this purpose, but they may be technically more difficult to use for repairing partial tears of the rotator cuff. Better visualization of the laser line on the anchor may be facilitated by using a probe from an anterior portal to hold the cuff up while the anchor is inserted.

This case has shown the importance of obtaining post­operative radiographic studies in patients who have metal anchors placed during shoulder surgery, especially if they complain of continued pain, new pain, crepitus, or grinding. When conventional radiography is insufficient for locating the anchor or its proximity to the joint line, computed tomography can be helpful.1

Conclusion

Removing failed suture anchors can be challenging, especially when they protrude into the joint on the humeral side.1,6 The best way to prevent this complication is through careful technique. The anchors should not be inserted beyond the depth of the laser line on the anchors, and every attempt should be made to make sure the laser line is visible at the time of anchor insertion. Postoperative radiographs should be considered for patients with metal anchors in the shoulder, especially if the patient continues to have symptoms or develops new symptoms in the shoulder after surgery.

Complications with the use of anchor screws in shoulder surgery have been well-documented1,2 and can be divided into 3 categories: insertion (eg, incomplete seating, inadequate insertion, and migration), biologic (eg, large tacks producing synovitis and bone reaction), and, less commonly, mechanical (eg, intra- and extra-articular bone pull-out with migration) complications.

Prominent hardware, including suture anchors, as a cause of arthritis and joint damage has been well-documented in shoulder surgery.3,4 For example, anchors placed on the glenoid rim have been implicated in severe cartilage loss if they protrude above the level of the glenoid rim.3 However, to the authors’ knowledge, prominent anchor placement after rotator cuff repair has not been reported as a cause of arthritis unless the anchor dislodges into the glenohumeral joint. The authors present a case in which a suture anchor used for rotator cuff repair protruded through the humeral head, resulting in glenohumeral arthritis. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman presented with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain for 5 months after a fall from a bicycle. She had taken nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication without pain relief. On presentation, she had no atrophy or deformity, was neurologically intact for sensation and reflexes, and had full range of motion (ROM) but a painful arc. She had tenderness over the greater tuberosity and positive Neer and Hawkins-Kennedy impingement signs. She had pain but no weakness to resisted abduction or to resisted external rotation with the arms at the sides.

Preoperative conventional radiographs of the shoulder were normal. A gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance arthrogram showed a high-grade articular partial tear of the supraspinatus, which was judged to be at least two-thirds of the tendon width. Because nonoperative methods had failed, the patient elected operative intervention for this tear.

Diagnostic arthroscopy (with the patient in a lateral decubitus position) showed a normal joint except for a high-grade, 8×8-mm, greater than 6 mm deep, partial tear of the articular side of the supraspinatus tendon. The subacromial space had moderate to severe bursal tissue inflammation but no full-thickness component to the rotator cuff tear. A bursectomy, coracoacromial ligament release, and partial anterolateral acromioplasty were performed.

A transtendinous technique was used to repair this high-grade tear. For an anatomically rigid repair, we used 3 suture anchors with a straight configuration because each metal anchor has only 1 suture. According to the standard arthroscopic transtendinous repair technique, the suture anchors were placed through the rotator cuff tendon (at the lateral articular margin at the medial extent of the footprint) after localization of the angle with a spinal needle. A shuttle relay was used to pass the sutures, and the knot was pulled into the subacromial space, cinching the rotator cuff on top of the suture anchors and reestablishing the contact of the tendon to the footprint. We used two 2.4-mm FASTak suture anchors (Arthrex, Naples, Florida) and one 3.5-mm Corkscrew suture anchor (Arthrex). This process was repeated for the remaining suture limbs. The placement of the suture anchors adequately reduced the articular part of the cuff to the footprint.

After surgery, the patient had no complications, and radiographs taken the next day suggested no abnormalities (Figure 1A). The shoulder was immobilized for 4 weeks after surgery, and passive, gentle ROM exercise was supervised by a physical therapist twice a week during this period. After the first 4 weeks, an active ROM program was begun. However, shortly after initiating motion in the shoulder, the patient complained of a recurrence of pain that she described as a sharp and grinding sensation.

The patient was reevaluated 8 weeks after surgery. Her pain was worsening, and she was having difficulty regaining ROM. Conventional radiographs showed the tip of the metal anchor protruding through the articular cartilage of the humeral head (Figure 1B). The patient was informed of the findings, and immediate surgery was performed to remove the anchor.

Arthroscopic examination showed extensive damage to the glenoid cartilage (Figure 1C) and an intra-articularly intact rotator cuff repair. The cartilage damage was located in the posterior and inferior half of the glenoid, which is related to the forward flexion of the arm; the depth of the cartilage defect was approximately 2 mm. Under the image intensifier, an empty suture anchor driver was inserted into the previous screw insertion hole, and the anchor was screwed back out and removed.

After surgery, the patient’s arm was placed in a sling, and an ROM program began 4 weeks later. The sensation of grinding was eliminated, and her pain gradually improved. Three years after surgery, she had no pain, no weakness, and full ROM without limitations (Figure 2).

 

 

Discussion

Protrusion and migration of suture anchors in shoulder surgery has been documented extensively.3,4 Zuckerman and Matsen4 divided these complications into 4 groups: (1) incorrect placement, (2) migration after placement, (3) loosening, and (4) device breakage. These complications may be frequently related to surgical technique, and all these studies describe backward migration of the anchor out of the drill hole. In the current case, the anchor tip penetrated the articular surface of the humeral head, not because of anchor migration but because the anchor was inserted too far. To the authors’ knowledge, there is only 1 reported case of anchor protrusion through the humeral head; it involved a different type of anchor insertion system.5 In that case, there was only mild cartilage damage to the glenoid, and the patient recovered after removal of the anchors.

Several factors contributed to the improper insertion of the anchor in the current patient. First, repairing a high-grade articular side defect or partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion lesion can be technically challenging because rotator cuff tissue obscures the view when inserting the anchor. Second, the anchor was inserted too medially on the greater tuberosity, which made the distance from the tuberosity to the joint shorter. Wong and colleagues5 performed an analysis of the angle of insertion that would be safe using a PEEK PushLock SP system (Arthrex), but they emphasized that the angle depends on the configuration of the particular insertion system. The current case also shows that the surgeon should be cognizant of the fact that penetration of the humeral head by the anchor can occur if the surgeon is unaware of the distance from the anchor to the laser line on the insertion device or of the distance from the tuberosity to the articular surface of the humeral head.

The current case also shows that the type of anchor and delivery system may contribute to this complication. Double-loaded suture anchors can decrease the number of anchors needed for secure fixation. Bioabsorbable anchors can be used for this purpose, but they may be technically more difficult to use for repairing partial tears of the rotator cuff. Better visualization of the laser line on the anchor may be facilitated by using a probe from an anterior portal to hold the cuff up while the anchor is inserted.

This case has shown the importance of obtaining post­operative radiographic studies in patients who have metal anchors placed during shoulder surgery, especially if they complain of continued pain, new pain, crepitus, or grinding. When conventional radiography is insufficient for locating the anchor or its proximity to the joint line, computed tomography can be helpful.1

Conclusion

Removing failed suture anchors can be challenging, especially when they protrude into the joint on the humeral side.1,6 The best way to prevent this complication is through careful technique. The anchors should not be inserted beyond the depth of the laser line on the anchors, and every attempt should be made to make sure the laser line is visible at the time of anchor insertion. Postoperative radiographs should be considered for patients with metal anchors in the shoulder, especially if the patient continues to have symptoms or develops new symptoms in the shoulder after surgery.

References

1.    Park HB, Keyurapan E, Gill HS, Selhi HS, McFarland EG. Suture anchors and tacks for shoulder surgery. Part II: The prevention and treatment of complications. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(1):136-144.

2.    McFarland EG, Park HB, Keyurapan E, Gill HS, Selhi HS. Suture anchors and tacks for shoulder surgery. Part I: Biology and biomechanics. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1918-1923.

3.    Rhee YG, Lee DH, Chun IH, Bae SC. Glenohumeral arthropathy after arthro­scopic anterior shoulder stabilization. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(4):402-406.

4.    Zuckerman JD, Matsen FA III. Complications about the glenohumeral joint related to the use of screws and staples. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):175-180.

5.    Wong AS, Kokkalis ZT, Schmidt CC. Proper insertion angle is essential to prevent intra-articular protrusion of a knotless suture anchor in shoulder rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(2):286-290.

6.     Grutter PW, McFarland EG, Zikria BA, Dai Z, Petersen SA. Techniques for suture anchor removal in shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(8):1706-1710.

References

1.    Park HB, Keyurapan E, Gill HS, Selhi HS, McFarland EG. Suture anchors and tacks for shoulder surgery. Part II: The prevention and treatment of complications. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(1):136-144.

2.    McFarland EG, Park HB, Keyurapan E, Gill HS, Selhi HS. Suture anchors and tacks for shoulder surgery. Part I: Biology and biomechanics. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1918-1923.

3.    Rhee YG, Lee DH, Chun IH, Bae SC. Glenohumeral arthropathy after arthro­scopic anterior shoulder stabilization. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(4):402-406.

4.    Zuckerman JD, Matsen FA III. Complications about the glenohumeral joint related to the use of screws and staples. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):175-180.

5.    Wong AS, Kokkalis ZT, Schmidt CC. Proper insertion angle is essential to prevent intra-articular protrusion of a knotless suture anchor in shoulder rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(2):286-290.

6.     Grutter PW, McFarland EG, Zikria BA, Dai Z, Petersen SA. Techniques for suture anchor removal in shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(8):1706-1710.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Page Number
E78-E80
Page Number
E78-E80
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Glenoid Damage From Articular Protrusion of Metal Suture Anchor After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Display Headline
Glenoid Damage From Articular Protrusion of Metal Suture Anchor After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, glenoid damage, metal suture anchor, metal, suture, arthroscopy, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, rotator cuff, shoulder, cartilage, biologics, joints, glenohumeral arthritis, arthritis, suture anchors, surgery, kim, ok, garzon-muvdi, mcfarland
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, glenoid damage, metal suture anchor, metal, suture, arthroscopy, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, rotator cuff, shoulder, cartilage, biologics, joints, glenohumeral arthritis, arthritis, suture anchors, surgery, kim, ok, garzon-muvdi, mcfarland
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Harrington Rod Revision After Failed Total Hip Arthroplasty Due to Missed Acetabular Metastasis

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Harrington Rod Revision After Failed Total Hip Arthroplasty Due to Missed Acetabular Metastasis

We report the case of a patient who was treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis but was found to have a large acetabular defect caused by pulmonary metastasis. She was promptly referred to our orthopedic oncology clinic for revision because she had experienced no improvement in her symptoms. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman was referred to us for evaluation of a large right supra-acetabular lesion after undergoing a right THA at another hospital 3 weeks earlier. Preoperative radiographs showed severe osteoarthritis of the right hip but there was no diagnosis of an acetabular lesion in her medical history. During the operation, the surgeon noted poor acetabulum bone quality and sent acetabular reamings for histopathologic analysis, which revealed adenocarcinoma. The arthroplasty was completed in a normal fashion, and the patient was discharged. Postoperatively, her pain did not resolve, and her functional status deteriorated from ambulating with a walker to very limited activity and weight-bearing.

When the patient came to our clinic, we learned she underwent a lobectomy in 2011 for lung cancer resulting from her 40-pack-year history of smoking and had a strong family history of breast cancer. She also had a history of coronary artery disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, morbid obesity, and depression. We obtained plain films and a computed tomography (CT) scan that showed a 6.5×7.1×6.5-cm lytic lesion arising from the right acetabulum with cortical penetration and an extraosseous soft-tissue component. Two smaller 10-mm to 12-mm lesions were also found superior and medial to the large lesion. These radiographs and CT images are shown in Figures 1-3.

We discussed nonoperative and operative options for treatment with the patient and her family, and she elected to undergo palliative surgical curettage and fixation. Significant bone erosion of the acetabulum and a resultant lack of mechanical support for the acetabular cup were found intraoperatively. An unusual surgical approach was selected in order to minimize morbidity and avoid performing a revision acetabular component if the cup was found to be stable from the standpoint of osseointegration. We approached from the superior side of the ilium, removing the abductors in the superperiosteal fashion extending down from the supra-acetabular ilium, sparing the hip capsule. When the acetabular component was exposed and stressed under fluoroscopy, there was no evidence of loosening. We decided to reconstruct the mechanical defect without revision of the acetabular component and to leave the screw in place. After partial excision of the right supra-acetabular ilium, specimens were sent to pathology. We placed five 4.8-mm and four 4.0-mm threaded Steinmann pins intraosseously through the iliac wing to abut the acetabular cup. In this way, the Steinmann pins provided a stable roof to the cup for weight-bearing and scaffolding for methylmethacrylate cement impregnated with tobramycin. A postoperative radiograph of the patient’s pelvis is shown in Figure 4.

Immediately after her surgery, the patient was bearing weight as tolerated and participating in physical therapy 3 times a day. Two months postoperatively, she was able to walk 1 block with use of a walker, and her pain was controlled with oral pain medication. At her 1-year visit, she was walking without pain for prolonged distances. She had a mild limp but did not need ambulatory aids. She had full range of motion, was able to perform all of her desired activities, and was quite pleased with her result. One-year postoperative radiographs (Figure 5) show stable placement of her acetabular cup with her pins and cement in an unchanged position without recurrence of her destructive lesion. There was no evidence of progression of her cancer, although she had some heterotopic bone in her lateral soft tissues.

Discussion

Many cases have been reported in the literature of metastases to the pelvis and acetabulum; almost 10% of bone metastases are in the pelvis.1 Although many are seen on radiographs, pelvic metastases, especially if they involve the acetabulum, can present with hip pain, decreased joint range of motion, and reduced ambulatory function, all symptoms that are similar to osteoarthritis. While the presence of metastases indicates late-stage disease, many patients still live for years with hip symptoms before succumbing to cancer.1 Palliative treatment initially consists of protected weight-bearing, analgesics, antineoplastic medications ,and radiation. When these first-line therapies fail, palliative operative treatment can be considered, with goals to maintain stability and to preserve mobility, independence, and comfort.2 Patients should be offered this only if there is a reasonable chance that structural stability can be achieved via reconstruction and if the patient will live long enough to realize the functional improvement.3 Harrington4 described patterns of acetabular metastases and surgical treatments in his classic series of 58 patients. For class II and III lesions, he concluded it was necessary to provide additional structural support to the acetabular component of a THA, either in the form of a protrusion shell or with Steinmann pins and bone cement.4 Antiprotrusion cages combined with arthroplasty have been used with modest success for cases where implant bone integration is unlikely.5-6 Several studies since Harrington have shown that constructs with cement reinforced with Steinmann pins can provide reduced pain and improved mobility with a low failure rate for the remainder of the patient’s life.7-9

 

 

In addition, a few cases have been reported of metastases to endoprostheses, which were implanted long before the diagnosis of cancer.10 To an unsuspecting surgeon, the lytic periprosthetic metastases may look like osteolysis or pseudotumor. Fabbri and colleagues11 presented 4 cases showing how sarcoma around a joint endoprosthesis can easily be mistaken for pseudotumor. A patient considering primary or revision THA for bone loss caused by osteolysis would be given different options than if the bone loss were secondary to metastases. Revision techniques in the setting of acetabular osteolysis include acetabular liner exchanges, cementless hemispherical components and jumbo cups, structural allografts, metal augments, impaction grafting, and acetabular cages and cup-cage constructs. Rarely are “Harrington” reconstructions performed for this reason.12

This case is unusual because the diagnosis of metastatic disease was missed and THA was performed under the presumptive diagnosis of osteoarthritis. While a malignant process was recognized intraoperatively, the joint replacement was completed nonetheless, with revision surgery inevitably occurring within a few weeks. Our patient’s history of lung cancer reinforces the importance of preoperative history taking, and the missed diagnosis highlights the need for clinicians to maintain a broad differential, even in seemingly simple arthritis cases. Proper preoperative imaging, biopsies, and cultures are also paramount. Lesions that are painful, involve the whole cortex, appear soon after implementation, and are rapidly progressing should raise concern for malignancy.10 If there is concern for osteolysis, quantitative CT with 3-dimensional reconstructions can help visualize the lesions and help in planning surgery.13 Had a timely diagnosis been made, the proper reconstruction could have been planned before the index procedure, and our patient could have been spared the pain, risk, and morbidity of a second operation.

The second lesson of this case is that, as long as the cup was stable, the etiology of the hip pain was lack of mechanical support. Once corrected, the total hip functioned as planned. A minimally invasive approach that allowed for observation of the cup without exposing the entire hip saved a patient a significant amount of morbidity and led to an acceptable outcome.

References

1.    Ho L, Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR. Modified Harrington reconstruction for advanced periacetabular metastatic disease. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(2):170-174.

2.    Papagelopoulos PJ, Mavrogenis AF, Soucacos PN. Evaluation and treatment of pelvic metastases. Injury. 2007;38(4):509-520.

3.    Allan DG, Bell RS, Davis A, Langer F. Complex acetabular reconstruction for metastatic tumor. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(3):301-306.

4.    Harrington KD. The management of acetabular insufficiency secondary to metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(4):653-64.

5.    Hoell S, Dedy N, Gosheger G, Dieckmann R, Daniilidis K, Hardes J. The Burch-Schneider cage for reconstruction after metastatic destruction of the acetabulum: outcome and complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(3):405-410.

6.    Clayer M. The survivorship of protrusio cages for metastatic disease involving the acetabulum. Clin Orthop. 2010;468(11):2980-2984.

7.    Marco RA, Sheth DS, Boland PJ, Wunder JS, Siegel JA, Healey JH. Functional and oncological outcome of acetabular reconstruction for the treatment of metastatic disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(5):642-651.

8.    Tillman RM, Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Grimer RJ. The three-pin modified ‘Harrington’ procedure for advanced metastatic destruction of the acetabulum.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(1):84-87.

9.    Walker RH. Pelvic reconstruction/total hip arthroplasty for metastatic acetabular insufficiency. Clin Orthop. 1993;294:170-175.

10.  Dramis A, Desai AS, Board TN, Hekal WE, Panezai JR. Periprosthetic osteolysis due to metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a case report. Cases J. 2008;1(1):297.

11.  Fabbri N, Rustemi E, Masetti C, et al. Severe osteolysis and soft tissue mass around total hip arthroplasty: description of four cases and review of the literature with respect to clinico-radiographic and pathologic differential diagnosis. Eur J Radiol. 2011;77(1):43-50.

12.  Deirmengian GK, Zmistowski B, O’Neil JT, Hozack WJ. Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(19):1842-1852.

13.   Kitamura N, Leung SB, Engh CA Sr. Characteristics of pelvic osteolysis on computed tomography after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2005;441:291-297.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Phillip R. Ross, BS, Gregory P. Kolovich, MD, MPH, and Joel L. Mayerson, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E75-E77
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, harrington rod revision, rod, total hip arthroplasty, THA, hip, arthroplasty, metastasis, implant, pins, revision, ross, kolovich, mayerson
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Phillip R. Ross, BS, Gregory P. Kolovich, MD, MPH, and Joel L. Mayerson, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Phillip R. Ross, BS, Gregory P. Kolovich, MD, MPH, and Joel L. Mayerson, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

We report the case of a patient who was treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis but was found to have a large acetabular defect caused by pulmonary metastasis. She was promptly referred to our orthopedic oncology clinic for revision because she had experienced no improvement in her symptoms. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman was referred to us for evaluation of a large right supra-acetabular lesion after undergoing a right THA at another hospital 3 weeks earlier. Preoperative radiographs showed severe osteoarthritis of the right hip but there was no diagnosis of an acetabular lesion in her medical history. During the operation, the surgeon noted poor acetabulum bone quality and sent acetabular reamings for histopathologic analysis, which revealed adenocarcinoma. The arthroplasty was completed in a normal fashion, and the patient was discharged. Postoperatively, her pain did not resolve, and her functional status deteriorated from ambulating with a walker to very limited activity and weight-bearing.

When the patient came to our clinic, we learned she underwent a lobectomy in 2011 for lung cancer resulting from her 40-pack-year history of smoking and had a strong family history of breast cancer. She also had a history of coronary artery disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, morbid obesity, and depression. We obtained plain films and a computed tomography (CT) scan that showed a 6.5×7.1×6.5-cm lytic lesion arising from the right acetabulum with cortical penetration and an extraosseous soft-tissue component. Two smaller 10-mm to 12-mm lesions were also found superior and medial to the large lesion. These radiographs and CT images are shown in Figures 1-3.

We discussed nonoperative and operative options for treatment with the patient and her family, and she elected to undergo palliative surgical curettage and fixation. Significant bone erosion of the acetabulum and a resultant lack of mechanical support for the acetabular cup were found intraoperatively. An unusual surgical approach was selected in order to minimize morbidity and avoid performing a revision acetabular component if the cup was found to be stable from the standpoint of osseointegration. We approached from the superior side of the ilium, removing the abductors in the superperiosteal fashion extending down from the supra-acetabular ilium, sparing the hip capsule. When the acetabular component was exposed and stressed under fluoroscopy, there was no evidence of loosening. We decided to reconstruct the mechanical defect without revision of the acetabular component and to leave the screw in place. After partial excision of the right supra-acetabular ilium, specimens were sent to pathology. We placed five 4.8-mm and four 4.0-mm threaded Steinmann pins intraosseously through the iliac wing to abut the acetabular cup. In this way, the Steinmann pins provided a stable roof to the cup for weight-bearing and scaffolding for methylmethacrylate cement impregnated with tobramycin. A postoperative radiograph of the patient’s pelvis is shown in Figure 4.

Immediately after her surgery, the patient was bearing weight as tolerated and participating in physical therapy 3 times a day. Two months postoperatively, she was able to walk 1 block with use of a walker, and her pain was controlled with oral pain medication. At her 1-year visit, she was walking without pain for prolonged distances. She had a mild limp but did not need ambulatory aids. She had full range of motion, was able to perform all of her desired activities, and was quite pleased with her result. One-year postoperative radiographs (Figure 5) show stable placement of her acetabular cup with her pins and cement in an unchanged position without recurrence of her destructive lesion. There was no evidence of progression of her cancer, although she had some heterotopic bone in her lateral soft tissues.

Discussion

Many cases have been reported in the literature of metastases to the pelvis and acetabulum; almost 10% of bone metastases are in the pelvis.1 Although many are seen on radiographs, pelvic metastases, especially if they involve the acetabulum, can present with hip pain, decreased joint range of motion, and reduced ambulatory function, all symptoms that are similar to osteoarthritis. While the presence of metastases indicates late-stage disease, many patients still live for years with hip symptoms before succumbing to cancer.1 Palliative treatment initially consists of protected weight-bearing, analgesics, antineoplastic medications ,and radiation. When these first-line therapies fail, palliative operative treatment can be considered, with goals to maintain stability and to preserve mobility, independence, and comfort.2 Patients should be offered this only if there is a reasonable chance that structural stability can be achieved via reconstruction and if the patient will live long enough to realize the functional improvement.3 Harrington4 described patterns of acetabular metastases and surgical treatments in his classic series of 58 patients. For class II and III lesions, he concluded it was necessary to provide additional structural support to the acetabular component of a THA, either in the form of a protrusion shell or with Steinmann pins and bone cement.4 Antiprotrusion cages combined with arthroplasty have been used with modest success for cases where implant bone integration is unlikely.5-6 Several studies since Harrington have shown that constructs with cement reinforced with Steinmann pins can provide reduced pain and improved mobility with a low failure rate for the remainder of the patient’s life.7-9

 

 

In addition, a few cases have been reported of metastases to endoprostheses, which were implanted long before the diagnosis of cancer.10 To an unsuspecting surgeon, the lytic periprosthetic metastases may look like osteolysis or pseudotumor. Fabbri and colleagues11 presented 4 cases showing how sarcoma around a joint endoprosthesis can easily be mistaken for pseudotumor. A patient considering primary or revision THA for bone loss caused by osteolysis would be given different options than if the bone loss were secondary to metastases. Revision techniques in the setting of acetabular osteolysis include acetabular liner exchanges, cementless hemispherical components and jumbo cups, structural allografts, metal augments, impaction grafting, and acetabular cages and cup-cage constructs. Rarely are “Harrington” reconstructions performed for this reason.12

This case is unusual because the diagnosis of metastatic disease was missed and THA was performed under the presumptive diagnosis of osteoarthritis. While a malignant process was recognized intraoperatively, the joint replacement was completed nonetheless, with revision surgery inevitably occurring within a few weeks. Our patient’s history of lung cancer reinforces the importance of preoperative history taking, and the missed diagnosis highlights the need for clinicians to maintain a broad differential, even in seemingly simple arthritis cases. Proper preoperative imaging, biopsies, and cultures are also paramount. Lesions that are painful, involve the whole cortex, appear soon after implementation, and are rapidly progressing should raise concern for malignancy.10 If there is concern for osteolysis, quantitative CT with 3-dimensional reconstructions can help visualize the lesions and help in planning surgery.13 Had a timely diagnosis been made, the proper reconstruction could have been planned before the index procedure, and our patient could have been spared the pain, risk, and morbidity of a second operation.

The second lesson of this case is that, as long as the cup was stable, the etiology of the hip pain was lack of mechanical support. Once corrected, the total hip functioned as planned. A minimally invasive approach that allowed for observation of the cup without exposing the entire hip saved a patient a significant amount of morbidity and led to an acceptable outcome.

We report the case of a patient who was treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis but was found to have a large acetabular defect caused by pulmonary metastasis. She was promptly referred to our orthopedic oncology clinic for revision because she had experienced no improvement in her symptoms. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman was referred to us for evaluation of a large right supra-acetabular lesion after undergoing a right THA at another hospital 3 weeks earlier. Preoperative radiographs showed severe osteoarthritis of the right hip but there was no diagnosis of an acetabular lesion in her medical history. During the operation, the surgeon noted poor acetabulum bone quality and sent acetabular reamings for histopathologic analysis, which revealed adenocarcinoma. The arthroplasty was completed in a normal fashion, and the patient was discharged. Postoperatively, her pain did not resolve, and her functional status deteriorated from ambulating with a walker to very limited activity and weight-bearing.

When the patient came to our clinic, we learned she underwent a lobectomy in 2011 for lung cancer resulting from her 40-pack-year history of smoking and had a strong family history of breast cancer. She also had a history of coronary artery disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, morbid obesity, and depression. We obtained plain films and a computed tomography (CT) scan that showed a 6.5×7.1×6.5-cm lytic lesion arising from the right acetabulum with cortical penetration and an extraosseous soft-tissue component. Two smaller 10-mm to 12-mm lesions were also found superior and medial to the large lesion. These radiographs and CT images are shown in Figures 1-3.

We discussed nonoperative and operative options for treatment with the patient and her family, and she elected to undergo palliative surgical curettage and fixation. Significant bone erosion of the acetabulum and a resultant lack of mechanical support for the acetabular cup were found intraoperatively. An unusual surgical approach was selected in order to minimize morbidity and avoid performing a revision acetabular component if the cup was found to be stable from the standpoint of osseointegration. We approached from the superior side of the ilium, removing the abductors in the superperiosteal fashion extending down from the supra-acetabular ilium, sparing the hip capsule. When the acetabular component was exposed and stressed under fluoroscopy, there was no evidence of loosening. We decided to reconstruct the mechanical defect without revision of the acetabular component and to leave the screw in place. After partial excision of the right supra-acetabular ilium, specimens were sent to pathology. We placed five 4.8-mm and four 4.0-mm threaded Steinmann pins intraosseously through the iliac wing to abut the acetabular cup. In this way, the Steinmann pins provided a stable roof to the cup for weight-bearing and scaffolding for methylmethacrylate cement impregnated with tobramycin. A postoperative radiograph of the patient’s pelvis is shown in Figure 4.

Immediately after her surgery, the patient was bearing weight as tolerated and participating in physical therapy 3 times a day. Two months postoperatively, she was able to walk 1 block with use of a walker, and her pain was controlled with oral pain medication. At her 1-year visit, she was walking without pain for prolonged distances. She had a mild limp but did not need ambulatory aids. She had full range of motion, was able to perform all of her desired activities, and was quite pleased with her result. One-year postoperative radiographs (Figure 5) show stable placement of her acetabular cup with her pins and cement in an unchanged position without recurrence of her destructive lesion. There was no evidence of progression of her cancer, although she had some heterotopic bone in her lateral soft tissues.

Discussion

Many cases have been reported in the literature of metastases to the pelvis and acetabulum; almost 10% of bone metastases are in the pelvis.1 Although many are seen on radiographs, pelvic metastases, especially if they involve the acetabulum, can present with hip pain, decreased joint range of motion, and reduced ambulatory function, all symptoms that are similar to osteoarthritis. While the presence of metastases indicates late-stage disease, many patients still live for years with hip symptoms before succumbing to cancer.1 Palliative treatment initially consists of protected weight-bearing, analgesics, antineoplastic medications ,and radiation. When these first-line therapies fail, palliative operative treatment can be considered, with goals to maintain stability and to preserve mobility, independence, and comfort.2 Patients should be offered this only if there is a reasonable chance that structural stability can be achieved via reconstruction and if the patient will live long enough to realize the functional improvement.3 Harrington4 described patterns of acetabular metastases and surgical treatments in his classic series of 58 patients. For class II and III lesions, he concluded it was necessary to provide additional structural support to the acetabular component of a THA, either in the form of a protrusion shell or with Steinmann pins and bone cement.4 Antiprotrusion cages combined with arthroplasty have been used with modest success for cases where implant bone integration is unlikely.5-6 Several studies since Harrington have shown that constructs with cement reinforced with Steinmann pins can provide reduced pain and improved mobility with a low failure rate for the remainder of the patient’s life.7-9

 

 

In addition, a few cases have been reported of metastases to endoprostheses, which were implanted long before the diagnosis of cancer.10 To an unsuspecting surgeon, the lytic periprosthetic metastases may look like osteolysis or pseudotumor. Fabbri and colleagues11 presented 4 cases showing how sarcoma around a joint endoprosthesis can easily be mistaken for pseudotumor. A patient considering primary or revision THA for bone loss caused by osteolysis would be given different options than if the bone loss were secondary to metastases. Revision techniques in the setting of acetabular osteolysis include acetabular liner exchanges, cementless hemispherical components and jumbo cups, structural allografts, metal augments, impaction grafting, and acetabular cages and cup-cage constructs. Rarely are “Harrington” reconstructions performed for this reason.12

This case is unusual because the diagnosis of metastatic disease was missed and THA was performed under the presumptive diagnosis of osteoarthritis. While a malignant process was recognized intraoperatively, the joint replacement was completed nonetheless, with revision surgery inevitably occurring within a few weeks. Our patient’s history of lung cancer reinforces the importance of preoperative history taking, and the missed diagnosis highlights the need for clinicians to maintain a broad differential, even in seemingly simple arthritis cases. Proper preoperative imaging, biopsies, and cultures are also paramount. Lesions that are painful, involve the whole cortex, appear soon after implementation, and are rapidly progressing should raise concern for malignancy.10 If there is concern for osteolysis, quantitative CT with 3-dimensional reconstructions can help visualize the lesions and help in planning surgery.13 Had a timely diagnosis been made, the proper reconstruction could have been planned before the index procedure, and our patient could have been spared the pain, risk, and morbidity of a second operation.

The second lesson of this case is that, as long as the cup was stable, the etiology of the hip pain was lack of mechanical support. Once corrected, the total hip functioned as planned. A minimally invasive approach that allowed for observation of the cup without exposing the entire hip saved a patient a significant amount of morbidity and led to an acceptable outcome.

References

1.    Ho L, Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR. Modified Harrington reconstruction for advanced periacetabular metastatic disease. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(2):170-174.

2.    Papagelopoulos PJ, Mavrogenis AF, Soucacos PN. Evaluation and treatment of pelvic metastases. Injury. 2007;38(4):509-520.

3.    Allan DG, Bell RS, Davis A, Langer F. Complex acetabular reconstruction for metastatic tumor. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(3):301-306.

4.    Harrington KD. The management of acetabular insufficiency secondary to metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(4):653-64.

5.    Hoell S, Dedy N, Gosheger G, Dieckmann R, Daniilidis K, Hardes J. The Burch-Schneider cage for reconstruction after metastatic destruction of the acetabulum: outcome and complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(3):405-410.

6.    Clayer M. The survivorship of protrusio cages for metastatic disease involving the acetabulum. Clin Orthop. 2010;468(11):2980-2984.

7.    Marco RA, Sheth DS, Boland PJ, Wunder JS, Siegel JA, Healey JH. Functional and oncological outcome of acetabular reconstruction for the treatment of metastatic disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(5):642-651.

8.    Tillman RM, Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Grimer RJ. The three-pin modified ‘Harrington’ procedure for advanced metastatic destruction of the acetabulum.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(1):84-87.

9.    Walker RH. Pelvic reconstruction/total hip arthroplasty for metastatic acetabular insufficiency. Clin Orthop. 1993;294:170-175.

10.  Dramis A, Desai AS, Board TN, Hekal WE, Panezai JR. Periprosthetic osteolysis due to metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a case report. Cases J. 2008;1(1):297.

11.  Fabbri N, Rustemi E, Masetti C, et al. Severe osteolysis and soft tissue mass around total hip arthroplasty: description of four cases and review of the literature with respect to clinico-radiographic and pathologic differential diagnosis. Eur J Radiol. 2011;77(1):43-50.

12.  Deirmengian GK, Zmistowski B, O’Neil JT, Hozack WJ. Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(19):1842-1852.

13.   Kitamura N, Leung SB, Engh CA Sr. Characteristics of pelvic osteolysis on computed tomography after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2005;441:291-297.

References

1.    Ho L, Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR. Modified Harrington reconstruction for advanced periacetabular metastatic disease. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(2):170-174.

2.    Papagelopoulos PJ, Mavrogenis AF, Soucacos PN. Evaluation and treatment of pelvic metastases. Injury. 2007;38(4):509-520.

3.    Allan DG, Bell RS, Davis A, Langer F. Complex acetabular reconstruction for metastatic tumor. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(3):301-306.

4.    Harrington KD. The management of acetabular insufficiency secondary to metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(4):653-64.

5.    Hoell S, Dedy N, Gosheger G, Dieckmann R, Daniilidis K, Hardes J. The Burch-Schneider cage for reconstruction after metastatic destruction of the acetabulum: outcome and complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(3):405-410.

6.    Clayer M. The survivorship of protrusio cages for metastatic disease involving the acetabulum. Clin Orthop. 2010;468(11):2980-2984.

7.    Marco RA, Sheth DS, Boland PJ, Wunder JS, Siegel JA, Healey JH. Functional and oncological outcome of acetabular reconstruction for the treatment of metastatic disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(5):642-651.

8.    Tillman RM, Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Grimer RJ. The three-pin modified ‘Harrington’ procedure for advanced metastatic destruction of the acetabulum.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(1):84-87.

9.    Walker RH. Pelvic reconstruction/total hip arthroplasty for metastatic acetabular insufficiency. Clin Orthop. 1993;294:170-175.

10.  Dramis A, Desai AS, Board TN, Hekal WE, Panezai JR. Periprosthetic osteolysis due to metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a case report. Cases J. 2008;1(1):297.

11.  Fabbri N, Rustemi E, Masetti C, et al. Severe osteolysis and soft tissue mass around total hip arthroplasty: description of four cases and review of the literature with respect to clinico-radiographic and pathologic differential diagnosis. Eur J Radiol. 2011;77(1):43-50.

12.  Deirmengian GK, Zmistowski B, O’Neil JT, Hozack WJ. Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(19):1842-1852.

13.   Kitamura N, Leung SB, Engh CA Sr. Characteristics of pelvic osteolysis on computed tomography after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2005;441:291-297.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Page Number
E75-E77
Page Number
E75-E77
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Harrington Rod Revision After Failed Total Hip Arthroplasty Due to Missed Acetabular Metastasis
Display Headline
Harrington Rod Revision After Failed Total Hip Arthroplasty Due to Missed Acetabular Metastasis
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, harrington rod revision, rod, total hip arthroplasty, THA, hip, arthroplasty, metastasis, implant, pins, revision, ross, kolovich, mayerson
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, case report and literature review, case report, online exclusive, harrington rod revision, rod, total hip arthroplasty, THA, hip, arthroplasty, metastasis, implant, pins, revision, ross, kolovich, mayerson
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Wrisberg-Variant Discoid Lateral Meniscus: Current Concepts, Treatment Options, and Imaging Features With Emphasis on Dynamic Ultrasonography

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Wrisberg-Variant Discoid Lateral Meniscus: Current Concepts, Treatment Options, and Imaging Features With Emphasis on Dynamic Ultrasonography

First described by Young1 in 1889, discoid lateral meniscus covers a spectrum of meniscal disorders of varying morphology and stability. Determining the true incidence of discoid lateral menisci is difficult because of the large number of asymptomatic cases, though published estimates range from 1% to 17%2-4 of the population, with bilaterality occurring in up to 20%.5 The most commonly used classification system for discoid lateral menisci—reported by Watanabe and colleagues6—describes 3 types of meniscal pathology based on stability to probing and arthroscopic appearance. Type I is stable to probing, has normal tibial attachments, and is “block-shaped,” with increased thickness spanning the entire lateral tibial plateau. Type II is stable to probing and has normal tibial attachments as well, but covers less than 80% of the lateral tibial plateau. Type III (the Wrisberg variant) is unstable because it lacks a posterior meniscotibial (coronary) ligament and has only 1 posterior attachment, the posterior meniscofemoral ligament, or Wrisberg ligament. Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci are rare; estimated incidence is 0.2%.7

Pathophysiology

The normal lateral meniscus, with its flat tibial and concave femoral surfaces, is crucial to load transmission across the knee joint.8 Embryologically differentiating from mesenchymal tissue within the limb bud during fetal development, a normal lateral meniscus never has a discoid shape.8-10 The implication, that discoid lateral menisci represent a congenital anomaly, is further supported by ultrastructural studies involving transmission electron microscopy. These studies have demonstrated that discoid menisci have fewer collagen fibers with a more disorganized course compared with normal menisci.11

With considerable variability, the average normal lateral meniscus is 12 mm wide and 4 mm thick.2 The blood supply to the lateral meniscus recedes during growth, with only the peripheral third remaining in adulthood8 and the inner two-thirds receiving nutrients by diffusion from the intra-articular fluid.5 In comparison, discoid lateral menisci often have poorer vascularity than normal menisci and therefore are more susceptible to tears.8,12,13

Ligamentous attachments to the lateral meniscus include the lateral meniscocapsular ligament, which attaches to the lateral joint capsule. In addition, 70% to 100% of people have accessory meniscofemoral ligaments, which insert anterior (ligament of Humphrey) or posterior (ligament of Wrisberg) to the posterior cruciate ligament.14 There are no ligamentous attachments at the popliteus hiatus or lateral collateral ligament, allowing for 9- to 11-mm excursion of the lateral meniscus during knee flexion and extension.3 Morphologically, the lack of a meniscotibial (coronary) ligament in the setting of a discoid lateral meniscus (Wrisberg variant) results in meniscal hypermobility. During knee range of motion, compressive forces between the femoral condyle and the tibial plateau spread through the peripheral portion of the meniscus and, without ligamentous attachments, allow it to displace anteriorly into the femoral intercondylar notch. This displacement results in impingement between the femur and the tibia15-18 and leads to the characteristic symptoms of “snapping knee syndrome.”10

Clinical Features

Snapping knee syndrome was first described by Kroiss19 in 1910.5 Multiple authors have described patients’ primary complaints as pain, swelling, locking, and a palpable or visible snap at terminal extension. Sudden movement of a soft-tissue structure across a bony prominence during a provocative maneuver is the source of the snapping. The syndrome has many etiologies. Extra-articular causes of lateral snapping knee syndrome include iliotibial band friction syndrome, soft-tissue tumors, hypermobile popliteus tendons, and abnormal anterior insertions of the biceps femoris tendons.20,21 Common intra-articular etiologies include ganglion, synovial, and parameniscal cysts; intra-articular loose bodies; lateral meniscal tears; and discoid lateral menisci.22 Patients with discoid lateral menisci often present with knee pain, popping, range-of-motion limitations, and snapping.23,24 However, the symptoms are quite variable and depend on type of discoid meniscus, presence of a tear, and stability of the rim.2,7,18

Obtaining a thorough history is essential in evaluating patients with suspected discoid lateral menisci. Physical examination should include evaluation of the lateral joint line for bulges, effusion, and tenderness. Patients may experience knee pain with flexion to 30° to 40° when varus or valgus stress (modified McMurray maneuver) is applied.10 In addition, a clunk may be appreciated with McMurray testing as a result of subluxation of the unstable lateral meniscus.10 The contralateral knee should be carefully evaluated, given the frequency of bilateral discoid menisci.10

The figure-4 test, a maneuver developed by LaPrade and Konowalchuk25 to detect peripheral meniscal tears or tears of the popliteomeniscal fascicles, is performed with the patient in the supine position, with the foot of the affected extremity placed on the contralateral knee. Normally, the popliteus tendon pulls the meniscus out of the joint when the knee is brought into the figure-4 position. However, without popliteomeniscal fascicles, the meniscus subluxes into the joint and becomes impinged. With the patient in the figure-4 position, reproduction of symptoms over the lateral joint line is a positive test and suggests peripheral meniscal tears and/or tears or absence of the popliteomeniscal fascicles.25

 

 

In the series reported by LaPrade and Konowalchuk,25 all of the patients who experienced symptoms during figure-4 testing were found, on arthroscopic examination, to have lateral meniscal hypermobility caused by tears of the popliteomeniscal fascicles. Despite the success of those authors in using the figure-4 technique for diagnosis, others have reported that the accuracy of the clinical examination (vs arthroscopy) in diagnosing Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci ranges from 29% to 93%.5,26,27 This emphasizes the importance of diagnostic imaging in the work-up of patients with suspected Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci.

Imaging Features

Radiography

In 1964, Picard and Constantin28 recommended that patients with suspected discoid lateral menisci undergo standard anteroposterior, lateral, tunnel, and skyline radiographs as part of the diagnostic work-up. In patients with discoid lateral menisci, plain film radiographs are often normal10 but may demonstrate lateral femoral condyle squaring, widening of the lateral joint line, lateral tibial plateau cupping, tibial eminence hypoplasia, and fibular head elevation.5,29 Plain radiography is unreliable, however, and patients often require advanced imaging, such as knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).10

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Because it clearly depicts soft-tissue structures, MRI is widely used to diagnose musculoskeletal pathology in and around the knee. Criteria for the diagnosis of discoid menisci include meniscal width of 15 mm or more, ratio of minimum meniscal width to maximum tibial width on coronal slice of more than 20%, ratio of sum of width of both lateral horns to meniscal diameter (on sagittal slice showing maximum meniscal diameter) of more than 75%, and continuity of anterior and posterior horns on at least 3 consecutive sagittal slices (bow tie sign).5,30,31 Even in the presence of a tear, the described ratios have sensitivity and specificity of 95% and 97% in detecting discoid lateral menisci.30

However, the Wrisberg variant, which may consist of only a thickened portion of the posterior horn, is often more difficult to diagnose using these criteria and can even appear normal on MRI.26,32 In a series by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 none of the Wrisberg-variant menisci had a true discoid shape, suggesting that the size of the lateral meniscus may appear normal in affected patients. Appropriate positioning during MRI evaluation of patients suspected of having the Wrisberg variant was emphasized by Moser and colleagues,33 who described a case of discoid lateral meniscus not observable on initial MRI but visible on MRI performed with the affected knee extended in the locked position.

The unstable lateral meniscus may be seen subluxed anteriorly or laterally because of lack of posterior attachments. A deficiency of normal popliteomeniscal fascicles and coronary ligaments is represented by a high T2 signal interposed between the discoid lateral meniscus and the posterior joint capsule, simulating a vertical peripheral tear and suggesting presence of the Wrisberg variant (Figures 1A–1C). In addition, the posterior horn of the enlarged discoid lateral meniscus may connect to a prominent and thickened meniscofemoral ligament of Wrisberg. Despite these characteristic imaging features, some studies have found low sensitivity of MRI in the diagnosis of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci.26

Ultrasonography

There is a growing interest in using ultrasonography in the diagnosis of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci because of its availability, multiplanar capability, and lower cost compared with MRI. Ultrasonographic criteria for the diagnosis of discoid menisci include absence of normal triangular shape, presence of abnormally elongated and thickened meniscal tissue, and demonstration of a heterogeneous central pattern.5 Through use of a high-resolution probe, which better fits the anatomical concavity of the popliteal fossa, a positive predictive value of 95% and a negative predictive value of 100% have been reported for ultrasonography in the diagnosis of meniscal tears.34

Perhaps the main advantage of ultrasonography is the possibility of performing a dynamic study to evaluate the extrusion of the meniscus into the lateral gutter and to correlate this with knee snapping (Figures 2A, 2B).35 One technique for sonographic evaluation of a hypermobile lateral meniscus involves placing the patient supine with the high-resolution (9 or 12 MHz) linear transducer along the lateral knee joint line. The patient is then asked to place the foot of the affected extremity on the contralateral knee; the combination resembles the numeral 4 (figure-4 test) (Figures 3A, 3B). In a symptomatic patient, this results in clicking, snapping, and/or pain along the lateral joint line, and the lateral meniscus is noted sonographically to extrude into the lateral gutter (Figure 2B), either the result of torn popliteomeniscal fascicles or the increased meniscal mobility of Wrisberg variants.

The main drawback of ultrasonography is operator dependence. As clinicians become more familiar with ultrasonography, dynamic ultrasonography should be used for what is often a difficult diagnosis both clinically and with nondynamic imaging.

 

 

Management

The historical treatment for symptomatic discoid lateral menisci, open total meniscectomy,5,7,15,36 is no longer performed, as studies have shown it increases contact stresses proportional to the amount of meniscus removed, with up to a 235% increase after total meniscectomy,37 predisposing patients to early degenerative changes and osteoarthritis.38-41

With an appreciation of the role of menisci as load distributors and joint stabilizers in cartilage nutrition, current treatments aim to preserve as much stable meniscal tissue as possible.5 Surgical management of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci involves posterior stabilization with or without saucerization.7,33,42 The goal of arthroscopic saucerization is to preserve healthy tissue and create a stable remaining meniscus (6-8 mm in width)2,7,43,44 that provides adequate shock absorption without retearing.10 Wrisberg-variant discoid menisci can be stabilized with use of all-inside sutures from the meniscus to the joint capsule (Figures 4A–4F) when there is sufficient residual meniscus to allow for suture fixation to the posterior capsule after débridement. In contrast, some prefer an inside-out technique, as described by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 with inclusion of a mini-open approach. Any meniscal tears are addressed at time of surgery, either by partial meniscectomy or repair. Relative indications for meniscal repair include longitudinal, vertical, nondegenerative tears that are within 3 mm of the periphery (vascular zone) and are less than 3 cm in length.45 However, the majority of tears in adults are degenerative cleavage tears outside the vascular zone and therefore not amenable to repair.45,46 Before surgery, patients treated with stabilization with or without saucerization are prescribed partial weight-bearing in a hinged knee brace with gradual range of motion to 90° by 6 weeks and return to sports in 3 to 4 months.

Clinical Results

As has been consistently demonstrated, the long-term outcomes of total meniscectomy are poor function39,40,47 and radiographic evidence of lateral compartment arthritis.48 Patients who previously underwent total meniscectomy should be offered meniscal allograft transplantation, as it may offset the increased peak local contact pressures in the lateral compartment10 and improve function.49

With an appreciation for the importance of meniscus preservation, more recent studies have found encouraging results for arthroscopic saucerization and stabilization of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci. For example, Woods and Whelan44 reported excellent results in 75% of patients at 37.5-month follow-up after open repair of discoid lateral menisci lacking posterior attachments. In another study, by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 4 of 6 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of unstable discoid lateral menisci without posterior coronary ligaments had excellent outcomes. Although these studies demonstrated symptom resolution and lack of radiographic evidence of degenerative changes at midterm follow-up,50 additional long-term studies should be performed to determine whether saucerization and stabilization prevent the onset of lateral compartment osteoarthritis.

Conclusion

Abnormally mobile discoid lateral menisci can result in painful lateral snapping knee syndromes but are often challenging to diagnose clinically and with traditional static imaging. Dynamic ultrasonography with provocative maneuvers can reveal lateral meniscal subluxation, which often cannot be appreciated on MRI, allowing for timely stabilization and symptom resolution.

References

1.    Young RB. The external semilunar cartilage as a complete disc. In: Cleland J, Mackey JY, Young RB, eds. Memoirs and Memoranda in Anatomy. London, England: Williams & Norgate; 1889:179.

2.    Jordan MR. Lateral meniscal variants: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1996;4(4):191-200.

3.    Greis PE, Bardana DD, Holmstrom MC, Burks RT. Meniscal injury: I. Basic science and evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002;10(3):168-176.

4.    Ikeuchi H. Arthroscopic treatment of the discoid lateral meniscus. Technique and long-term results. Clin Orthop. 1982;(167):19-28.

5.     Yaniv M, Blumberg N. The discoid meniscus. J Child Orthop. 2007;1(2):89-96.

6.    Watanabe M, Takeda S, Ikeuchi H. Atlas of Arthroscopy. Tokyo, Japan: Igaku-Shoin; 1978.

7.    Neuschwander DC, Drez D Jr, Finney TP. Lateral meniscal variant with absence of the posterior coronary ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(8):1186-1190.

8.    Clark CR, Ogden JA. Development of the menisci of the human knee joint. Morphological changes and their potential role in childhood meniscal injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(4):538-547.

9.    Kaplan EB. Discoid lateral meniscus of the knee joint; nature, mechanism, and operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1957;39(1):77-87.

10.  Kramer DE, Micheli LJ. Meniscal tears and discoid meniscus in children: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(11):698-707.

11.  Atay OA, Pekmezci M, Doral MN, Sargon MF, Ayvaz M, Johnson DL. Discoid meniscus: an ultrastructural study with transmission electron microscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):475-478.

12.  Nathan PA, Cole SC. Discoid meniscus. A clinical and pathologic study. Clin Orthop. 1969;(64):107-113.

13.  Good CR, Green DW, Griffith MH, Valen AW, Widmann RF, Rodeo SA. Arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic discoid meniscus in children: classification, technique, and results. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(2):157-163.

14.  Harner CD, Xerogeanes JW, Livesay GA, et al. The human posterior cruciate ligament complex: an interdisciplinary study. Ligament morphology and biomechanical evaluation. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(6):736-745.

15.  Smillie IS. The congenital discoid meniscus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948;30(4):671-682.

16.  Yoo WJ, Choi IH, Chung CY, et al. Discoid lateral meniscus in children: limited knee extension and meniscal instability in the posterior segment. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28(5):544-548.

17.  Simonian PT, Sussmann PS, Wickiewicz TL, et al. Popliteomeniscal fasciculi and the unstable lateral meniscus: clinical correlation and magnetic resonance diagnosis. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(5):590-596.

18.  Dickhaut SC, DeLee JC. The discoid lateral-meniscus syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(7):1068-1073.

19.  Kroiss F. Die Verletzungen der Kniegelenkoszwischenknorpel und ihrer Verbindungen. Beitr Klin Chir. 1910;66:598-801.

20.  Lokiec F, Velkes S, Schindler A, Pritsch M. The snapping biceps femoris syndrome. Clin Orthop. 1992;(283):205-206.

21.  Cooper DE. Snapping popliteus tendon syndrome. A cause of mechanical knee popping in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(5):671-674.

22.  Liu PC, Chen CH, Huang HT, et al. Snapping knee symptoms caused by an intra-articular ganglion cyst. Knee. 2007;14(2):167-168.

23.  Bellier G, Dupont JY, Larrain M, Caudron C, Carlioz H. Lateral discoid menisci in children. Arthroscopy. 1989;5(1):52-56.

24.  Washington ER 3rd, Root L, Liener UC. Discoid lateral meniscus in children. Long-term follow-up after excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(9):1357-1361.

25.  LaPrade RF, Konowalchuk BK. Popliteomeniscal fascicle tears causing symptomatic lateral compartment knee pain: diagnosis by the figure-4 test and treatment by open repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(8):1231-1236.

26.  Kocher MS, DiCanzio J, Zurakowski D, Micheli LJ. Diagnostic performance of clinical examination and selective magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of intraarticular knee disorders in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(3):292-296.

27.  Stanitski CL. Correlation of arthroscopic and clinical examinations with magnetic resonance imaging findings of injured knees in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):2-6.

28.  Picard JJ, Constantin L. Radiological aspects of the discoid meniscus [in French]. J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl. 1964;45:839-841.

29.  Kerr R. Radiologic case study. Discoid lateral meniscus. Orthopedics. 1986;9(8):1142, 1145-1147.

30.    Samoto N, Kozuma M, Tokuhisa T, Kobayashi K. Diagnosis of discoid lateral meniscus of the knee on MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;20(1):59-64.

31.  Silverman JM, Mink JH, Deutsch AL. Discoid menisci of the knee: MR imaging appearance. Radiology. 1989;173(2):351-354.

32.  Singh K, Helms CA, Jacobs MT, Higgins LD. MRI appearance of Wrisberg variant of discoid lateral meniscus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):384-387.

33.  Moser MW, Dugas J, Hartzell J, Thornton DD. A hypermobile Wrisberg variant lateral discoid meniscus seen on MRI. Clin Orthop. 2007;(456):264-267.

34.  Najafi J, Bagheri S, Lahiji FA. The value of sonography with micro convex probes in diagnosing meniscal tears compared with arthroscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(5):593-597.

35.  Marchand AJ, Proisy M, Ropars M, Cohen M, Duvauferrier R, Guillin R. Snapping knee: imaging findings with an emphasis on dynamic sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(1):142-150.

36.  Nathan PA, Cole SC. Discoid meniscus. A clinical and pathologic study. Clin Orthop. 1969;(64):107-113.

37.  Baratz ME, Fu FH, Mengato R. Meniscal tears: the effect of meniscectomy and of repair on intraarticular contact areas and stress in the human knee. A preliminary report. Am J Sports Med. 1986;14(4):270-275.

38.  Fairbank TJ. Knee joint changes after meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948;30(4):664-670.

39.  Manzione M, Pizzutillo PD, Peoples AB, Schweizer PA. Meniscectomy in children: a long-term follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 1983;11(3):111-115.

40.  Wroble RR, Henderson RC, Campion ER, el-Khoury GY, Albright JP. Meniscectomy in children and adolescents. A long-term follow-up study. Clin Orthop. 1992;(279):180-189.

41.  Abdon P, Turner MS, Pettersson H, Lindstrand A, Stenstrom A, Swanson AJ. A long-term follow-up study of total meniscectomy in children. Clin Orthop. 1990;(257):166-170.

42.  Rosenberg TD, Paulos LE, Parker RD, Harner CD, Gurley WD. Discoid lateral meniscus: case report of arthroscopic attachment of a symptomatic Wrisberg-ligament type. Arthroscopy. 1987;3(4):277-282.

43.  Fleissner PR, Eilert RE. Discoid lateral meniscus. Am J Knee Surg. 1999;12(2):125-131.

44.  Woods GW, Whelan JM. Discoid meniscus. Clin Sports Med. 1990;9(3):695-706.

45.  Yue BW, Gupta AK, Moorman CT 3rd, Garrett WE, Helms CA. Wrisberg variant of the discoid lateral meniscus with flipped meniscal fragments simulating bucket-handle tear: MRI and arthroscopic correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(8):1089-1094.

46.  Weiss CB, Lundberg M, Hamberg P, DeHaven KE, Gillquist J. Non-operative treatment of meniscal tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(6):811-822.

47.  Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1756-1769.

48.  Kim SJ, Chun YM, Jeong JH, Ryu SW, Oh KS, Lubis AM. Effects of arthroscopic meniscectomy on the long-term prognosis for the discoid lateral meniscus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15(11):1315-1320.

49.  Kim JM, Bin SI. Meniscal allograft transplantation after total meniscectomy of torn discoid lateral meniscus. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1344-1350.e1.

50.   Ogut T, Kesmezacar H, Akgun I, Cansu E. Arthroscopic meniscectomy for discoid lateral meniscus in children and adolescents: 4.5 year follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2003;12(6):390-397.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Jean Jose, DO, Leonard T. Buller, MD, Sebastian Rivera, BS, Jaime A. Carvajal Alba, MD, and Michael Baraga, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
135-139
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, imaging series, imaging, wrisberg-variant, wrisberg, ultrasonography, discoid lateral menisci, knee, snapping knee syndrome, magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, soft-tissue, radiography, radiology, jose, buller, rivera, carvajal alba, baraga
Author and Disclosure Information

Jean Jose, DO, Leonard T. Buller, MD, Sebastian Rivera, BS, Jaime A. Carvajal Alba, MD, and Michael Baraga, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Jean Jose, DO, Leonard T. Buller, MD, Sebastian Rivera, BS, Jaime A. Carvajal Alba, MD, and Michael Baraga, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

First described by Young1 in 1889, discoid lateral meniscus covers a spectrum of meniscal disorders of varying morphology and stability. Determining the true incidence of discoid lateral menisci is difficult because of the large number of asymptomatic cases, though published estimates range from 1% to 17%2-4 of the population, with bilaterality occurring in up to 20%.5 The most commonly used classification system for discoid lateral menisci—reported by Watanabe and colleagues6—describes 3 types of meniscal pathology based on stability to probing and arthroscopic appearance. Type I is stable to probing, has normal tibial attachments, and is “block-shaped,” with increased thickness spanning the entire lateral tibial plateau. Type II is stable to probing and has normal tibial attachments as well, but covers less than 80% of the lateral tibial plateau. Type III (the Wrisberg variant) is unstable because it lacks a posterior meniscotibial (coronary) ligament and has only 1 posterior attachment, the posterior meniscofemoral ligament, or Wrisberg ligament. Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci are rare; estimated incidence is 0.2%.7

Pathophysiology

The normal lateral meniscus, with its flat tibial and concave femoral surfaces, is crucial to load transmission across the knee joint.8 Embryologically differentiating from mesenchymal tissue within the limb bud during fetal development, a normal lateral meniscus never has a discoid shape.8-10 The implication, that discoid lateral menisci represent a congenital anomaly, is further supported by ultrastructural studies involving transmission electron microscopy. These studies have demonstrated that discoid menisci have fewer collagen fibers with a more disorganized course compared with normal menisci.11

With considerable variability, the average normal lateral meniscus is 12 mm wide and 4 mm thick.2 The blood supply to the lateral meniscus recedes during growth, with only the peripheral third remaining in adulthood8 and the inner two-thirds receiving nutrients by diffusion from the intra-articular fluid.5 In comparison, discoid lateral menisci often have poorer vascularity than normal menisci and therefore are more susceptible to tears.8,12,13

Ligamentous attachments to the lateral meniscus include the lateral meniscocapsular ligament, which attaches to the lateral joint capsule. In addition, 70% to 100% of people have accessory meniscofemoral ligaments, which insert anterior (ligament of Humphrey) or posterior (ligament of Wrisberg) to the posterior cruciate ligament.14 There are no ligamentous attachments at the popliteus hiatus or lateral collateral ligament, allowing for 9- to 11-mm excursion of the lateral meniscus during knee flexion and extension.3 Morphologically, the lack of a meniscotibial (coronary) ligament in the setting of a discoid lateral meniscus (Wrisberg variant) results in meniscal hypermobility. During knee range of motion, compressive forces between the femoral condyle and the tibial plateau spread through the peripheral portion of the meniscus and, without ligamentous attachments, allow it to displace anteriorly into the femoral intercondylar notch. This displacement results in impingement between the femur and the tibia15-18 and leads to the characteristic symptoms of “snapping knee syndrome.”10

Clinical Features

Snapping knee syndrome was first described by Kroiss19 in 1910.5 Multiple authors have described patients’ primary complaints as pain, swelling, locking, and a palpable or visible snap at terminal extension. Sudden movement of a soft-tissue structure across a bony prominence during a provocative maneuver is the source of the snapping. The syndrome has many etiologies. Extra-articular causes of lateral snapping knee syndrome include iliotibial band friction syndrome, soft-tissue tumors, hypermobile popliteus tendons, and abnormal anterior insertions of the biceps femoris tendons.20,21 Common intra-articular etiologies include ganglion, synovial, and parameniscal cysts; intra-articular loose bodies; lateral meniscal tears; and discoid lateral menisci.22 Patients with discoid lateral menisci often present with knee pain, popping, range-of-motion limitations, and snapping.23,24 However, the symptoms are quite variable and depend on type of discoid meniscus, presence of a tear, and stability of the rim.2,7,18

Obtaining a thorough history is essential in evaluating patients with suspected discoid lateral menisci. Physical examination should include evaluation of the lateral joint line for bulges, effusion, and tenderness. Patients may experience knee pain with flexion to 30° to 40° when varus or valgus stress (modified McMurray maneuver) is applied.10 In addition, a clunk may be appreciated with McMurray testing as a result of subluxation of the unstable lateral meniscus.10 The contralateral knee should be carefully evaluated, given the frequency of bilateral discoid menisci.10

The figure-4 test, a maneuver developed by LaPrade and Konowalchuk25 to detect peripheral meniscal tears or tears of the popliteomeniscal fascicles, is performed with the patient in the supine position, with the foot of the affected extremity placed on the contralateral knee. Normally, the popliteus tendon pulls the meniscus out of the joint when the knee is brought into the figure-4 position. However, without popliteomeniscal fascicles, the meniscus subluxes into the joint and becomes impinged. With the patient in the figure-4 position, reproduction of symptoms over the lateral joint line is a positive test and suggests peripheral meniscal tears and/or tears or absence of the popliteomeniscal fascicles.25

 

 

In the series reported by LaPrade and Konowalchuk,25 all of the patients who experienced symptoms during figure-4 testing were found, on arthroscopic examination, to have lateral meniscal hypermobility caused by tears of the popliteomeniscal fascicles. Despite the success of those authors in using the figure-4 technique for diagnosis, others have reported that the accuracy of the clinical examination (vs arthroscopy) in diagnosing Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci ranges from 29% to 93%.5,26,27 This emphasizes the importance of diagnostic imaging in the work-up of patients with suspected Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci.

Imaging Features

Radiography

In 1964, Picard and Constantin28 recommended that patients with suspected discoid lateral menisci undergo standard anteroposterior, lateral, tunnel, and skyline radiographs as part of the diagnostic work-up. In patients with discoid lateral menisci, plain film radiographs are often normal10 but may demonstrate lateral femoral condyle squaring, widening of the lateral joint line, lateral tibial plateau cupping, tibial eminence hypoplasia, and fibular head elevation.5,29 Plain radiography is unreliable, however, and patients often require advanced imaging, such as knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).10

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Because it clearly depicts soft-tissue structures, MRI is widely used to diagnose musculoskeletal pathology in and around the knee. Criteria for the diagnosis of discoid menisci include meniscal width of 15 mm or more, ratio of minimum meniscal width to maximum tibial width on coronal slice of more than 20%, ratio of sum of width of both lateral horns to meniscal diameter (on sagittal slice showing maximum meniscal diameter) of more than 75%, and continuity of anterior and posterior horns on at least 3 consecutive sagittal slices (bow tie sign).5,30,31 Even in the presence of a tear, the described ratios have sensitivity and specificity of 95% and 97% in detecting discoid lateral menisci.30

However, the Wrisberg variant, which may consist of only a thickened portion of the posterior horn, is often more difficult to diagnose using these criteria and can even appear normal on MRI.26,32 In a series by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 none of the Wrisberg-variant menisci had a true discoid shape, suggesting that the size of the lateral meniscus may appear normal in affected patients. Appropriate positioning during MRI evaluation of patients suspected of having the Wrisberg variant was emphasized by Moser and colleagues,33 who described a case of discoid lateral meniscus not observable on initial MRI but visible on MRI performed with the affected knee extended in the locked position.

The unstable lateral meniscus may be seen subluxed anteriorly or laterally because of lack of posterior attachments. A deficiency of normal popliteomeniscal fascicles and coronary ligaments is represented by a high T2 signal interposed between the discoid lateral meniscus and the posterior joint capsule, simulating a vertical peripheral tear and suggesting presence of the Wrisberg variant (Figures 1A–1C). In addition, the posterior horn of the enlarged discoid lateral meniscus may connect to a prominent and thickened meniscofemoral ligament of Wrisberg. Despite these characteristic imaging features, some studies have found low sensitivity of MRI in the diagnosis of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci.26

Ultrasonography

There is a growing interest in using ultrasonography in the diagnosis of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci because of its availability, multiplanar capability, and lower cost compared with MRI. Ultrasonographic criteria for the diagnosis of discoid menisci include absence of normal triangular shape, presence of abnormally elongated and thickened meniscal tissue, and demonstration of a heterogeneous central pattern.5 Through use of a high-resolution probe, which better fits the anatomical concavity of the popliteal fossa, a positive predictive value of 95% and a negative predictive value of 100% have been reported for ultrasonography in the diagnosis of meniscal tears.34

Perhaps the main advantage of ultrasonography is the possibility of performing a dynamic study to evaluate the extrusion of the meniscus into the lateral gutter and to correlate this with knee snapping (Figures 2A, 2B).35 One technique for sonographic evaluation of a hypermobile lateral meniscus involves placing the patient supine with the high-resolution (9 or 12 MHz) linear transducer along the lateral knee joint line. The patient is then asked to place the foot of the affected extremity on the contralateral knee; the combination resembles the numeral 4 (figure-4 test) (Figures 3A, 3B). In a symptomatic patient, this results in clicking, snapping, and/or pain along the lateral joint line, and the lateral meniscus is noted sonographically to extrude into the lateral gutter (Figure 2B), either the result of torn popliteomeniscal fascicles or the increased meniscal mobility of Wrisberg variants.

The main drawback of ultrasonography is operator dependence. As clinicians become more familiar with ultrasonography, dynamic ultrasonography should be used for what is often a difficult diagnosis both clinically and with nondynamic imaging.

 

 

Management

The historical treatment for symptomatic discoid lateral menisci, open total meniscectomy,5,7,15,36 is no longer performed, as studies have shown it increases contact stresses proportional to the amount of meniscus removed, with up to a 235% increase after total meniscectomy,37 predisposing patients to early degenerative changes and osteoarthritis.38-41

With an appreciation of the role of menisci as load distributors and joint stabilizers in cartilage nutrition, current treatments aim to preserve as much stable meniscal tissue as possible.5 Surgical management of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci involves posterior stabilization with or without saucerization.7,33,42 The goal of arthroscopic saucerization is to preserve healthy tissue and create a stable remaining meniscus (6-8 mm in width)2,7,43,44 that provides adequate shock absorption without retearing.10 Wrisberg-variant discoid menisci can be stabilized with use of all-inside sutures from the meniscus to the joint capsule (Figures 4A–4F) when there is sufficient residual meniscus to allow for suture fixation to the posterior capsule after débridement. In contrast, some prefer an inside-out technique, as described by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 with inclusion of a mini-open approach. Any meniscal tears are addressed at time of surgery, either by partial meniscectomy or repair. Relative indications for meniscal repair include longitudinal, vertical, nondegenerative tears that are within 3 mm of the periphery (vascular zone) and are less than 3 cm in length.45 However, the majority of tears in adults are degenerative cleavage tears outside the vascular zone and therefore not amenable to repair.45,46 Before surgery, patients treated with stabilization with or without saucerization are prescribed partial weight-bearing in a hinged knee brace with gradual range of motion to 90° by 6 weeks and return to sports in 3 to 4 months.

Clinical Results

As has been consistently demonstrated, the long-term outcomes of total meniscectomy are poor function39,40,47 and radiographic evidence of lateral compartment arthritis.48 Patients who previously underwent total meniscectomy should be offered meniscal allograft transplantation, as it may offset the increased peak local contact pressures in the lateral compartment10 and improve function.49

With an appreciation for the importance of meniscus preservation, more recent studies have found encouraging results for arthroscopic saucerization and stabilization of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci. For example, Woods and Whelan44 reported excellent results in 75% of patients at 37.5-month follow-up after open repair of discoid lateral menisci lacking posterior attachments. In another study, by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 4 of 6 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of unstable discoid lateral menisci without posterior coronary ligaments had excellent outcomes. Although these studies demonstrated symptom resolution and lack of radiographic evidence of degenerative changes at midterm follow-up,50 additional long-term studies should be performed to determine whether saucerization and stabilization prevent the onset of lateral compartment osteoarthritis.

Conclusion

Abnormally mobile discoid lateral menisci can result in painful lateral snapping knee syndromes but are often challenging to diagnose clinically and with traditional static imaging. Dynamic ultrasonography with provocative maneuvers can reveal lateral meniscal subluxation, which often cannot be appreciated on MRI, allowing for timely stabilization and symptom resolution.

First described by Young1 in 1889, discoid lateral meniscus covers a spectrum of meniscal disorders of varying morphology and stability. Determining the true incidence of discoid lateral menisci is difficult because of the large number of asymptomatic cases, though published estimates range from 1% to 17%2-4 of the population, with bilaterality occurring in up to 20%.5 The most commonly used classification system for discoid lateral menisci—reported by Watanabe and colleagues6—describes 3 types of meniscal pathology based on stability to probing and arthroscopic appearance. Type I is stable to probing, has normal tibial attachments, and is “block-shaped,” with increased thickness spanning the entire lateral tibial plateau. Type II is stable to probing and has normal tibial attachments as well, but covers less than 80% of the lateral tibial plateau. Type III (the Wrisberg variant) is unstable because it lacks a posterior meniscotibial (coronary) ligament and has only 1 posterior attachment, the posterior meniscofemoral ligament, or Wrisberg ligament. Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci are rare; estimated incidence is 0.2%.7

Pathophysiology

The normal lateral meniscus, with its flat tibial and concave femoral surfaces, is crucial to load transmission across the knee joint.8 Embryologically differentiating from mesenchymal tissue within the limb bud during fetal development, a normal lateral meniscus never has a discoid shape.8-10 The implication, that discoid lateral menisci represent a congenital anomaly, is further supported by ultrastructural studies involving transmission electron microscopy. These studies have demonstrated that discoid menisci have fewer collagen fibers with a more disorganized course compared with normal menisci.11

With considerable variability, the average normal lateral meniscus is 12 mm wide and 4 mm thick.2 The blood supply to the lateral meniscus recedes during growth, with only the peripheral third remaining in adulthood8 and the inner two-thirds receiving nutrients by diffusion from the intra-articular fluid.5 In comparison, discoid lateral menisci often have poorer vascularity than normal menisci and therefore are more susceptible to tears.8,12,13

Ligamentous attachments to the lateral meniscus include the lateral meniscocapsular ligament, which attaches to the lateral joint capsule. In addition, 70% to 100% of people have accessory meniscofemoral ligaments, which insert anterior (ligament of Humphrey) or posterior (ligament of Wrisberg) to the posterior cruciate ligament.14 There are no ligamentous attachments at the popliteus hiatus or lateral collateral ligament, allowing for 9- to 11-mm excursion of the lateral meniscus during knee flexion and extension.3 Morphologically, the lack of a meniscotibial (coronary) ligament in the setting of a discoid lateral meniscus (Wrisberg variant) results in meniscal hypermobility. During knee range of motion, compressive forces between the femoral condyle and the tibial plateau spread through the peripheral portion of the meniscus and, without ligamentous attachments, allow it to displace anteriorly into the femoral intercondylar notch. This displacement results in impingement between the femur and the tibia15-18 and leads to the characteristic symptoms of “snapping knee syndrome.”10

Clinical Features

Snapping knee syndrome was first described by Kroiss19 in 1910.5 Multiple authors have described patients’ primary complaints as pain, swelling, locking, and a palpable or visible snap at terminal extension. Sudden movement of a soft-tissue structure across a bony prominence during a provocative maneuver is the source of the snapping. The syndrome has many etiologies. Extra-articular causes of lateral snapping knee syndrome include iliotibial band friction syndrome, soft-tissue tumors, hypermobile popliteus tendons, and abnormal anterior insertions of the biceps femoris tendons.20,21 Common intra-articular etiologies include ganglion, synovial, and parameniscal cysts; intra-articular loose bodies; lateral meniscal tears; and discoid lateral menisci.22 Patients with discoid lateral menisci often present with knee pain, popping, range-of-motion limitations, and snapping.23,24 However, the symptoms are quite variable and depend on type of discoid meniscus, presence of a tear, and stability of the rim.2,7,18

Obtaining a thorough history is essential in evaluating patients with suspected discoid lateral menisci. Physical examination should include evaluation of the lateral joint line for bulges, effusion, and tenderness. Patients may experience knee pain with flexion to 30° to 40° when varus or valgus stress (modified McMurray maneuver) is applied.10 In addition, a clunk may be appreciated with McMurray testing as a result of subluxation of the unstable lateral meniscus.10 The contralateral knee should be carefully evaluated, given the frequency of bilateral discoid menisci.10

The figure-4 test, a maneuver developed by LaPrade and Konowalchuk25 to detect peripheral meniscal tears or tears of the popliteomeniscal fascicles, is performed with the patient in the supine position, with the foot of the affected extremity placed on the contralateral knee. Normally, the popliteus tendon pulls the meniscus out of the joint when the knee is brought into the figure-4 position. However, without popliteomeniscal fascicles, the meniscus subluxes into the joint and becomes impinged. With the patient in the figure-4 position, reproduction of symptoms over the lateral joint line is a positive test and suggests peripheral meniscal tears and/or tears or absence of the popliteomeniscal fascicles.25

 

 

In the series reported by LaPrade and Konowalchuk,25 all of the patients who experienced symptoms during figure-4 testing were found, on arthroscopic examination, to have lateral meniscal hypermobility caused by tears of the popliteomeniscal fascicles. Despite the success of those authors in using the figure-4 technique for diagnosis, others have reported that the accuracy of the clinical examination (vs arthroscopy) in diagnosing Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci ranges from 29% to 93%.5,26,27 This emphasizes the importance of diagnostic imaging in the work-up of patients with suspected Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci.

Imaging Features

Radiography

In 1964, Picard and Constantin28 recommended that patients with suspected discoid lateral menisci undergo standard anteroposterior, lateral, tunnel, and skyline radiographs as part of the diagnostic work-up. In patients with discoid lateral menisci, plain film radiographs are often normal10 but may demonstrate lateral femoral condyle squaring, widening of the lateral joint line, lateral tibial plateau cupping, tibial eminence hypoplasia, and fibular head elevation.5,29 Plain radiography is unreliable, however, and patients often require advanced imaging, such as knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).10

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Because it clearly depicts soft-tissue structures, MRI is widely used to diagnose musculoskeletal pathology in and around the knee. Criteria for the diagnosis of discoid menisci include meniscal width of 15 mm or more, ratio of minimum meniscal width to maximum tibial width on coronal slice of more than 20%, ratio of sum of width of both lateral horns to meniscal diameter (on sagittal slice showing maximum meniscal diameter) of more than 75%, and continuity of anterior and posterior horns on at least 3 consecutive sagittal slices (bow tie sign).5,30,31 Even in the presence of a tear, the described ratios have sensitivity and specificity of 95% and 97% in detecting discoid lateral menisci.30

However, the Wrisberg variant, which may consist of only a thickened portion of the posterior horn, is often more difficult to diagnose using these criteria and can even appear normal on MRI.26,32 In a series by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 none of the Wrisberg-variant menisci had a true discoid shape, suggesting that the size of the lateral meniscus may appear normal in affected patients. Appropriate positioning during MRI evaluation of patients suspected of having the Wrisberg variant was emphasized by Moser and colleagues,33 who described a case of discoid lateral meniscus not observable on initial MRI but visible on MRI performed with the affected knee extended in the locked position.

The unstable lateral meniscus may be seen subluxed anteriorly or laterally because of lack of posterior attachments. A deficiency of normal popliteomeniscal fascicles and coronary ligaments is represented by a high T2 signal interposed between the discoid lateral meniscus and the posterior joint capsule, simulating a vertical peripheral tear and suggesting presence of the Wrisberg variant (Figures 1A–1C). In addition, the posterior horn of the enlarged discoid lateral meniscus may connect to a prominent and thickened meniscofemoral ligament of Wrisberg. Despite these characteristic imaging features, some studies have found low sensitivity of MRI in the diagnosis of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci.26

Ultrasonography

There is a growing interest in using ultrasonography in the diagnosis of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci because of its availability, multiplanar capability, and lower cost compared with MRI. Ultrasonographic criteria for the diagnosis of discoid menisci include absence of normal triangular shape, presence of abnormally elongated and thickened meniscal tissue, and demonstration of a heterogeneous central pattern.5 Through use of a high-resolution probe, which better fits the anatomical concavity of the popliteal fossa, a positive predictive value of 95% and a negative predictive value of 100% have been reported for ultrasonography in the diagnosis of meniscal tears.34

Perhaps the main advantage of ultrasonography is the possibility of performing a dynamic study to evaluate the extrusion of the meniscus into the lateral gutter and to correlate this with knee snapping (Figures 2A, 2B).35 One technique for sonographic evaluation of a hypermobile lateral meniscus involves placing the patient supine with the high-resolution (9 or 12 MHz) linear transducer along the lateral knee joint line. The patient is then asked to place the foot of the affected extremity on the contralateral knee; the combination resembles the numeral 4 (figure-4 test) (Figures 3A, 3B). In a symptomatic patient, this results in clicking, snapping, and/or pain along the lateral joint line, and the lateral meniscus is noted sonographically to extrude into the lateral gutter (Figure 2B), either the result of torn popliteomeniscal fascicles or the increased meniscal mobility of Wrisberg variants.

The main drawback of ultrasonography is operator dependence. As clinicians become more familiar with ultrasonography, dynamic ultrasonography should be used for what is often a difficult diagnosis both clinically and with nondynamic imaging.

 

 

Management

The historical treatment for symptomatic discoid lateral menisci, open total meniscectomy,5,7,15,36 is no longer performed, as studies have shown it increases contact stresses proportional to the amount of meniscus removed, with up to a 235% increase after total meniscectomy,37 predisposing patients to early degenerative changes and osteoarthritis.38-41

With an appreciation of the role of menisci as load distributors and joint stabilizers in cartilage nutrition, current treatments aim to preserve as much stable meniscal tissue as possible.5 Surgical management of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci involves posterior stabilization with or without saucerization.7,33,42 The goal of arthroscopic saucerization is to preserve healthy tissue and create a stable remaining meniscus (6-8 mm in width)2,7,43,44 that provides adequate shock absorption without retearing.10 Wrisberg-variant discoid menisci can be stabilized with use of all-inside sutures from the meniscus to the joint capsule (Figures 4A–4F) when there is sufficient residual meniscus to allow for suture fixation to the posterior capsule after débridement. In contrast, some prefer an inside-out technique, as described by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 with inclusion of a mini-open approach. Any meniscal tears are addressed at time of surgery, either by partial meniscectomy or repair. Relative indications for meniscal repair include longitudinal, vertical, nondegenerative tears that are within 3 mm of the periphery (vascular zone) and are less than 3 cm in length.45 However, the majority of tears in adults are degenerative cleavage tears outside the vascular zone and therefore not amenable to repair.45,46 Before surgery, patients treated with stabilization with or without saucerization are prescribed partial weight-bearing in a hinged knee brace with gradual range of motion to 90° by 6 weeks and return to sports in 3 to 4 months.

Clinical Results

As has been consistently demonstrated, the long-term outcomes of total meniscectomy are poor function39,40,47 and radiographic evidence of lateral compartment arthritis.48 Patients who previously underwent total meniscectomy should be offered meniscal allograft transplantation, as it may offset the increased peak local contact pressures in the lateral compartment10 and improve function.49

With an appreciation for the importance of meniscus preservation, more recent studies have found encouraging results for arthroscopic saucerization and stabilization of Wrisberg-variant discoid lateral menisci. For example, Woods and Whelan44 reported excellent results in 75% of patients at 37.5-month follow-up after open repair of discoid lateral menisci lacking posterior attachments. In another study, by Neuschwander and colleagues,7 4 of 6 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of unstable discoid lateral menisci without posterior coronary ligaments had excellent outcomes. Although these studies demonstrated symptom resolution and lack of radiographic evidence of degenerative changes at midterm follow-up,50 additional long-term studies should be performed to determine whether saucerization and stabilization prevent the onset of lateral compartment osteoarthritis.

Conclusion

Abnormally mobile discoid lateral menisci can result in painful lateral snapping knee syndromes but are often challenging to diagnose clinically and with traditional static imaging. Dynamic ultrasonography with provocative maneuvers can reveal lateral meniscal subluxation, which often cannot be appreciated on MRI, allowing for timely stabilization and symptom resolution.

References

1.    Young RB. The external semilunar cartilage as a complete disc. In: Cleland J, Mackey JY, Young RB, eds. Memoirs and Memoranda in Anatomy. London, England: Williams & Norgate; 1889:179.

2.    Jordan MR. Lateral meniscal variants: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1996;4(4):191-200.

3.    Greis PE, Bardana DD, Holmstrom MC, Burks RT. Meniscal injury: I. Basic science and evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002;10(3):168-176.

4.    Ikeuchi H. Arthroscopic treatment of the discoid lateral meniscus. Technique and long-term results. Clin Orthop. 1982;(167):19-28.

5.     Yaniv M, Blumberg N. The discoid meniscus. J Child Orthop. 2007;1(2):89-96.

6.    Watanabe M, Takeda S, Ikeuchi H. Atlas of Arthroscopy. Tokyo, Japan: Igaku-Shoin; 1978.

7.    Neuschwander DC, Drez D Jr, Finney TP. Lateral meniscal variant with absence of the posterior coronary ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(8):1186-1190.

8.    Clark CR, Ogden JA. Development of the menisci of the human knee joint. Morphological changes and their potential role in childhood meniscal injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(4):538-547.

9.    Kaplan EB. Discoid lateral meniscus of the knee joint; nature, mechanism, and operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1957;39(1):77-87.

10.  Kramer DE, Micheli LJ. Meniscal tears and discoid meniscus in children: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(11):698-707.

11.  Atay OA, Pekmezci M, Doral MN, Sargon MF, Ayvaz M, Johnson DL. Discoid meniscus: an ultrastructural study with transmission electron microscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):475-478.

12.  Nathan PA, Cole SC. Discoid meniscus. A clinical and pathologic study. Clin Orthop. 1969;(64):107-113.

13.  Good CR, Green DW, Griffith MH, Valen AW, Widmann RF, Rodeo SA. Arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic discoid meniscus in children: classification, technique, and results. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(2):157-163.

14.  Harner CD, Xerogeanes JW, Livesay GA, et al. The human posterior cruciate ligament complex: an interdisciplinary study. Ligament morphology and biomechanical evaluation. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(6):736-745.

15.  Smillie IS. The congenital discoid meniscus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948;30(4):671-682.

16.  Yoo WJ, Choi IH, Chung CY, et al. Discoid lateral meniscus in children: limited knee extension and meniscal instability in the posterior segment. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28(5):544-548.

17.  Simonian PT, Sussmann PS, Wickiewicz TL, et al. Popliteomeniscal fasciculi and the unstable lateral meniscus: clinical correlation and magnetic resonance diagnosis. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(5):590-596.

18.  Dickhaut SC, DeLee JC. The discoid lateral-meniscus syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(7):1068-1073.

19.  Kroiss F. Die Verletzungen der Kniegelenkoszwischenknorpel und ihrer Verbindungen. Beitr Klin Chir. 1910;66:598-801.

20.  Lokiec F, Velkes S, Schindler A, Pritsch M. The snapping biceps femoris syndrome. Clin Orthop. 1992;(283):205-206.

21.  Cooper DE. Snapping popliteus tendon syndrome. A cause of mechanical knee popping in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(5):671-674.

22.  Liu PC, Chen CH, Huang HT, et al. Snapping knee symptoms caused by an intra-articular ganglion cyst. Knee. 2007;14(2):167-168.

23.  Bellier G, Dupont JY, Larrain M, Caudron C, Carlioz H. Lateral discoid menisci in children. Arthroscopy. 1989;5(1):52-56.

24.  Washington ER 3rd, Root L, Liener UC. Discoid lateral meniscus in children. Long-term follow-up after excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(9):1357-1361.

25.  LaPrade RF, Konowalchuk BK. Popliteomeniscal fascicle tears causing symptomatic lateral compartment knee pain: diagnosis by the figure-4 test and treatment by open repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(8):1231-1236.

26.  Kocher MS, DiCanzio J, Zurakowski D, Micheli LJ. Diagnostic performance of clinical examination and selective magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of intraarticular knee disorders in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(3):292-296.

27.  Stanitski CL. Correlation of arthroscopic and clinical examinations with magnetic resonance imaging findings of injured knees in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):2-6.

28.  Picard JJ, Constantin L. Radiological aspects of the discoid meniscus [in French]. J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl. 1964;45:839-841.

29.  Kerr R. Radiologic case study. Discoid lateral meniscus. Orthopedics. 1986;9(8):1142, 1145-1147.

30.    Samoto N, Kozuma M, Tokuhisa T, Kobayashi K. Diagnosis of discoid lateral meniscus of the knee on MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;20(1):59-64.

31.  Silverman JM, Mink JH, Deutsch AL. Discoid menisci of the knee: MR imaging appearance. Radiology. 1989;173(2):351-354.

32.  Singh K, Helms CA, Jacobs MT, Higgins LD. MRI appearance of Wrisberg variant of discoid lateral meniscus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):384-387.

33.  Moser MW, Dugas J, Hartzell J, Thornton DD. A hypermobile Wrisberg variant lateral discoid meniscus seen on MRI. Clin Orthop. 2007;(456):264-267.

34.  Najafi J, Bagheri S, Lahiji FA. The value of sonography with micro convex probes in diagnosing meniscal tears compared with arthroscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(5):593-597.

35.  Marchand AJ, Proisy M, Ropars M, Cohen M, Duvauferrier R, Guillin R. Snapping knee: imaging findings with an emphasis on dynamic sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(1):142-150.

36.  Nathan PA, Cole SC. Discoid meniscus. A clinical and pathologic study. Clin Orthop. 1969;(64):107-113.

37.  Baratz ME, Fu FH, Mengato R. Meniscal tears: the effect of meniscectomy and of repair on intraarticular contact areas and stress in the human knee. A preliminary report. Am J Sports Med. 1986;14(4):270-275.

38.  Fairbank TJ. Knee joint changes after meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948;30(4):664-670.

39.  Manzione M, Pizzutillo PD, Peoples AB, Schweizer PA. Meniscectomy in children: a long-term follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 1983;11(3):111-115.

40.  Wroble RR, Henderson RC, Campion ER, el-Khoury GY, Albright JP. Meniscectomy in children and adolescents. A long-term follow-up study. Clin Orthop. 1992;(279):180-189.

41.  Abdon P, Turner MS, Pettersson H, Lindstrand A, Stenstrom A, Swanson AJ. A long-term follow-up study of total meniscectomy in children. Clin Orthop. 1990;(257):166-170.

42.  Rosenberg TD, Paulos LE, Parker RD, Harner CD, Gurley WD. Discoid lateral meniscus: case report of arthroscopic attachment of a symptomatic Wrisberg-ligament type. Arthroscopy. 1987;3(4):277-282.

43.  Fleissner PR, Eilert RE. Discoid lateral meniscus. Am J Knee Surg. 1999;12(2):125-131.

44.  Woods GW, Whelan JM. Discoid meniscus. Clin Sports Med. 1990;9(3):695-706.

45.  Yue BW, Gupta AK, Moorman CT 3rd, Garrett WE, Helms CA. Wrisberg variant of the discoid lateral meniscus with flipped meniscal fragments simulating bucket-handle tear: MRI and arthroscopic correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(8):1089-1094.

46.  Weiss CB, Lundberg M, Hamberg P, DeHaven KE, Gillquist J. Non-operative treatment of meniscal tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(6):811-822.

47.  Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1756-1769.

48.  Kim SJ, Chun YM, Jeong JH, Ryu SW, Oh KS, Lubis AM. Effects of arthroscopic meniscectomy on the long-term prognosis for the discoid lateral meniscus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15(11):1315-1320.

49.  Kim JM, Bin SI. Meniscal allograft transplantation after total meniscectomy of torn discoid lateral meniscus. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1344-1350.e1.

50.   Ogut T, Kesmezacar H, Akgun I, Cansu E. Arthroscopic meniscectomy for discoid lateral meniscus in children and adolescents: 4.5 year follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2003;12(6):390-397.

References

1.    Young RB. The external semilunar cartilage as a complete disc. In: Cleland J, Mackey JY, Young RB, eds. Memoirs and Memoranda in Anatomy. London, England: Williams & Norgate; 1889:179.

2.    Jordan MR. Lateral meniscal variants: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1996;4(4):191-200.

3.    Greis PE, Bardana DD, Holmstrom MC, Burks RT. Meniscal injury: I. Basic science and evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002;10(3):168-176.

4.    Ikeuchi H. Arthroscopic treatment of the discoid lateral meniscus. Technique and long-term results. Clin Orthop. 1982;(167):19-28.

5.     Yaniv M, Blumberg N. The discoid meniscus. J Child Orthop. 2007;1(2):89-96.

6.    Watanabe M, Takeda S, Ikeuchi H. Atlas of Arthroscopy. Tokyo, Japan: Igaku-Shoin; 1978.

7.    Neuschwander DC, Drez D Jr, Finney TP. Lateral meniscal variant with absence of the posterior coronary ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(8):1186-1190.

8.    Clark CR, Ogden JA. Development of the menisci of the human knee joint. Morphological changes and their potential role in childhood meniscal injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(4):538-547.

9.    Kaplan EB. Discoid lateral meniscus of the knee joint; nature, mechanism, and operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1957;39(1):77-87.

10.  Kramer DE, Micheli LJ. Meniscal tears and discoid meniscus in children: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(11):698-707.

11.  Atay OA, Pekmezci M, Doral MN, Sargon MF, Ayvaz M, Johnson DL. Discoid meniscus: an ultrastructural study with transmission electron microscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):475-478.

12.  Nathan PA, Cole SC. Discoid meniscus. A clinical and pathologic study. Clin Orthop. 1969;(64):107-113.

13.  Good CR, Green DW, Griffith MH, Valen AW, Widmann RF, Rodeo SA. Arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic discoid meniscus in children: classification, technique, and results. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(2):157-163.

14.  Harner CD, Xerogeanes JW, Livesay GA, et al. The human posterior cruciate ligament complex: an interdisciplinary study. Ligament morphology and biomechanical evaluation. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(6):736-745.

15.  Smillie IS. The congenital discoid meniscus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948;30(4):671-682.

16.  Yoo WJ, Choi IH, Chung CY, et al. Discoid lateral meniscus in children: limited knee extension and meniscal instability in the posterior segment. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28(5):544-548.

17.  Simonian PT, Sussmann PS, Wickiewicz TL, et al. Popliteomeniscal fasciculi and the unstable lateral meniscus: clinical correlation and magnetic resonance diagnosis. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(5):590-596.

18.  Dickhaut SC, DeLee JC. The discoid lateral-meniscus syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(7):1068-1073.

19.  Kroiss F. Die Verletzungen der Kniegelenkoszwischenknorpel und ihrer Verbindungen. Beitr Klin Chir. 1910;66:598-801.

20.  Lokiec F, Velkes S, Schindler A, Pritsch M. The snapping biceps femoris syndrome. Clin Orthop. 1992;(283):205-206.

21.  Cooper DE. Snapping popliteus tendon syndrome. A cause of mechanical knee popping in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(5):671-674.

22.  Liu PC, Chen CH, Huang HT, et al. Snapping knee symptoms caused by an intra-articular ganglion cyst. Knee. 2007;14(2):167-168.

23.  Bellier G, Dupont JY, Larrain M, Caudron C, Carlioz H. Lateral discoid menisci in children. Arthroscopy. 1989;5(1):52-56.

24.  Washington ER 3rd, Root L, Liener UC. Discoid lateral meniscus in children. Long-term follow-up after excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(9):1357-1361.

25.  LaPrade RF, Konowalchuk BK. Popliteomeniscal fascicle tears causing symptomatic lateral compartment knee pain: diagnosis by the figure-4 test and treatment by open repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(8):1231-1236.

26.  Kocher MS, DiCanzio J, Zurakowski D, Micheli LJ. Diagnostic performance of clinical examination and selective magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of intraarticular knee disorders in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(3):292-296.

27.  Stanitski CL. Correlation of arthroscopic and clinical examinations with magnetic resonance imaging findings of injured knees in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):2-6.

28.  Picard JJ, Constantin L. Radiological aspects of the discoid meniscus [in French]. J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl. 1964;45:839-841.

29.  Kerr R. Radiologic case study. Discoid lateral meniscus. Orthopedics. 1986;9(8):1142, 1145-1147.

30.    Samoto N, Kozuma M, Tokuhisa T, Kobayashi K. Diagnosis of discoid lateral meniscus of the knee on MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;20(1):59-64.

31.  Silverman JM, Mink JH, Deutsch AL. Discoid menisci of the knee: MR imaging appearance. Radiology. 1989;173(2):351-354.

32.  Singh K, Helms CA, Jacobs MT, Higgins LD. MRI appearance of Wrisberg variant of discoid lateral meniscus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):384-387.

33.  Moser MW, Dugas J, Hartzell J, Thornton DD. A hypermobile Wrisberg variant lateral discoid meniscus seen on MRI. Clin Orthop. 2007;(456):264-267.

34.  Najafi J, Bagheri S, Lahiji FA. The value of sonography with micro convex probes in diagnosing meniscal tears compared with arthroscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(5):593-597.

35.  Marchand AJ, Proisy M, Ropars M, Cohen M, Duvauferrier R, Guillin R. Snapping knee: imaging findings with an emphasis on dynamic sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(1):142-150.

36.  Nathan PA, Cole SC. Discoid meniscus. A clinical and pathologic study. Clin Orthop. 1969;(64):107-113.

37.  Baratz ME, Fu FH, Mengato R. Meniscal tears: the effect of meniscectomy and of repair on intraarticular contact areas and stress in the human knee. A preliminary report. Am J Sports Med. 1986;14(4):270-275.

38.  Fairbank TJ. Knee joint changes after meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948;30(4):664-670.

39.  Manzione M, Pizzutillo PD, Peoples AB, Schweizer PA. Meniscectomy in children: a long-term follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 1983;11(3):111-115.

40.  Wroble RR, Henderson RC, Campion ER, el-Khoury GY, Albright JP. Meniscectomy in children and adolescents. A long-term follow-up study. Clin Orthop. 1992;(279):180-189.

41.  Abdon P, Turner MS, Pettersson H, Lindstrand A, Stenstrom A, Swanson AJ. A long-term follow-up study of total meniscectomy in children. Clin Orthop. 1990;(257):166-170.

42.  Rosenberg TD, Paulos LE, Parker RD, Harner CD, Gurley WD. Discoid lateral meniscus: case report of arthroscopic attachment of a symptomatic Wrisberg-ligament type. Arthroscopy. 1987;3(4):277-282.

43.  Fleissner PR, Eilert RE. Discoid lateral meniscus. Am J Knee Surg. 1999;12(2):125-131.

44.  Woods GW, Whelan JM. Discoid meniscus. Clin Sports Med. 1990;9(3):695-706.

45.  Yue BW, Gupta AK, Moorman CT 3rd, Garrett WE, Helms CA. Wrisberg variant of the discoid lateral meniscus with flipped meniscal fragments simulating bucket-handle tear: MRI and arthroscopic correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(8):1089-1094.

46.  Weiss CB, Lundberg M, Hamberg P, DeHaven KE, Gillquist J. Non-operative treatment of meniscal tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(6):811-822.

47.  Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1756-1769.

48.  Kim SJ, Chun YM, Jeong JH, Ryu SW, Oh KS, Lubis AM. Effects of arthroscopic meniscectomy on the long-term prognosis for the discoid lateral meniscus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15(11):1315-1320.

49.  Kim JM, Bin SI. Meniscal allograft transplantation after total meniscectomy of torn discoid lateral meniscus. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1344-1350.e1.

50.   Ogut T, Kesmezacar H, Akgun I, Cansu E. Arthroscopic meniscectomy for discoid lateral meniscus in children and adolescents: 4.5 year follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2003;12(6):390-397.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Page Number
135-139
Page Number
135-139
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Wrisberg-Variant Discoid Lateral Meniscus: Current Concepts, Treatment Options, and Imaging Features With Emphasis on Dynamic Ultrasonography
Display Headline
Wrisberg-Variant Discoid Lateral Meniscus: Current Concepts, Treatment Options, and Imaging Features With Emphasis on Dynamic Ultrasonography
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, imaging series, imaging, wrisberg-variant, wrisberg, ultrasonography, discoid lateral menisci, knee, snapping knee syndrome, magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, soft-tissue, radiography, radiology, jose, buller, rivera, carvajal alba, baraga
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, imaging series, imaging, wrisberg-variant, wrisberg, ultrasonography, discoid lateral menisci, knee, snapping knee syndrome, magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, soft-tissue, radiography, radiology, jose, buller, rivera, carvajal alba, baraga
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Unstable Dorsal Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Fracture-Dislocations Treated With Extension-Block Pinning

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Unstable Dorsal Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Fracture-Dislocations Treated With Extension-Block Pinning

The proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint plays a crucial role in hand function, accounting for an estimated 85% of the motion required to grasp an object.1 The anatomy and biomechanics of the PIP joint, however, make it particularly prone to injury.2,3 Dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations represent a subset of PIP injuries that often require surgical intervention.2 The stability of these fracture-dislocations largely depends on the extent of articular involvement of the base of the middle phalanx. Fractures that involve less than 30% of the joint surface typically remain stable after reduction.2,4,5 In cases in which involvement ranges from 30% to 50%, PIP joint stability is more tenuous, and more joint flexion is required to maintain concentric reduction. Fractures that involve more than 50% of the articular surface are unstable and require operative intervention.2,5,6 Fractures that require more than 30° of flexion for reduction maintenance are generally considered unstable and may benefit from surgical intervention.2

The goals of treatment for this injury are to restore a stable, concentrically reduced joint and initiate early joint mobilization to prevent stiffness, pain, recurrent instability, and posttraumatic arthritis.3,7 Numerous surgical interventions for unstable PIP fracture-dislocations have been proposed, including open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF),8-10 extension-block pinning (EBP),11-13 dynamic external fixation,14-17 volar plate arthroplasty,18,19 and hemi-hamate resurfacing arthroplasty.20,21 Many of these techniques can be technically demanding and may require prolonged immobilization. EBP can be performed easily and efficiently and allows for early joint motion.

Extension-block pinning—placing a Kirschner wire (K-wire) into the head of the proximal phalanx at an angle that blocks PIP extension and prevents joint subluxation—was first described by Sugawa and colleagues12 in 1979. In a study by Inoue and Tamura,11 patients treated with EBP had a mean PIP range of motion (ROM) of 94° at a mean follow-up of 14 months. In a series of 3 case reports, Viegas22 noted an inverse relationship between extent of articular surface involvement and postoperative ROM in patients treated with EBP.

We conducted a study to expand on previous research on pain, function, and satisfaction outcomes in addition to ROM. We hypothesized that percutaneous EBP is an effective treatment for unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations and has efficacy similar to that of more complex and technically demanding methods of treatment.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patient charts to identify candidates for this study. Inclusion criteria were unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations treated with EBP and minimum 4-month follow-up. (Fracture-dislocations were deemed unstable if they involved at least 30% of the articular surface or required more than 30° of flexion for reduction maintenance.) Exclusion criteria were open injury, neurovascular or tendon injury, or any prior injury to the PIP joint.

Twelve patients (5 females, 7 males) treated over a 4-year period (2002–2006) met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 30 years (range, 15-64 years). Each surgery was performed by Dr. Hagberg or Dr. Balk. Half the cases involved the dominant hand. Two small fingers, 4 ring fingers, 2 long fingers, and 4 index fingers were injured. The injuries were sustained in an all-terrain vehicle accident (n = 1), in falls (n = 2), while swimming (n = 1), or while playing softball (n = 3), football (n = 4), or soccer (n = 1). Mean time from injury to surgery was 7.5 days (range, 4-27 days). Extent of articular surface involvement of the base of the fractured middle phalanx was calculated using preoperatively obtained lateral radiographs.

Surgical intervention was performed in a reproducible fashion. All patients were treated with closed reduction of the PIP joint under fluoroscopic guidance. Before pinning, joint stability was assessed fluoroscopically both at rest and through an arc of motion. A single smooth 0.045-in K-wire was then inserted percutaneously into the distal and dorsal aspects of the proximal phalanx in retrograde fashion (Figure 1). During wire insertion, the distal interphalangeal joint was flexed to relax the intrinsic mechanism, and the central slip tendon was pierced just proximal to its insertion. We have not noted significant adhesion formation about the central slip with this technique, likely because of limited tendon excursion in this location. Stable joint reduction was confirmed with fluoroscopy. No attempt was made to reduce the intra-articular fracture at the base of the middle phalanx.

A therapy program was initiated 2 to 9 days after surgery. At the first postoperative visit, patients were allowed to perform active ROM (AROM) with the pin in place (Figure 1). K-wires were removed a mean of 25 days (range, 17-31 days) after surgery. A static dorsal block splint was then applied, and patients were encouraged to remove it several times per day for AROM between 20° and full flexion until 6 weeks after surgery. At that time, formal occupational therapy was commenced for another 6 weeks. If there was residual flexion contracture of the PIP joint, dynamic extension splinting was initiated after fracture consolidation.

 

 

Mean follow-up was 35.5 months (range, 4-94 months). Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were used to evaluate maintenance of joint congruity, fracture union, remodeling, and evidence of degenerative changes. At final follow-up, grip strength of injured and contralateral hands was measured with a dynamometer (Jamar; Patterson Medical, Warrenville, Illinois). AROM and passive ROM (PROM) of the PIP joint was documented at follow-up visits. In addition, patients rated their pain on a 0-to-10 visual analog scale (VAS), with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing excruciating pain. Patients also completed a questionnaire assessing satisfaction with surgical outcome. Physical function and disability were assessed with the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Any complications, including the need for further surgeries, were documented. Pearson correlation coefficients and Student t tests (with significance set at P < .05) were used to compare outcomes.

Results

Radiographic reduction of joint dislocation was achieved and maintained in 11 of the 12 patients at a mean follow-up of 35.5 months (range, 4-94 months). Extent of joint surface involvement, based on preoperative lateral radiographs, averaged 43% (range, 25%-75%). Although no direct articular reduction was performed, remodeling of the joint surface was consistently noted at follow-up (Figure 2). Mild radiographic degenerative changes were noted at final follow-up in 4 patients, and moderate changes were noted in 1 patient. Radiographic union was achieved in all cases, and no pin-tract infections were noted.

Mean AROM of the PIP joint at final follow-up was 84° (range, 50°-110°), with patients lacking a mean of 7° of full extension and achieving mean flexion of 91°. Mean PROM was 93° (range, 75°-110°). There was no correlation between extent of articular surface involvement and ROM. Furthermore, no correlation was found between time from injury to surgery and ROM. Patients regained full grip strength in the operative hand. At final follow-up, mean grip strength was 79.4 pounds in the operative hand and 79.6 pounds in the contralateral hand, demonstrating equal grip strengths bilaterally.

Patients overall had very low levels of pain; mean VAS score was 0.64 (range, 0-3). Mean QuickDASH score was 5.7 (range, 0-30), suggesting minimal functional impairment. One patient developed a malunion of the middle phalanx fracture resulting in a rotational deformity and required corrective osteotomy. This patient’s VAS score (3) and QuickDASH score (30) were significantly higher than those of the other patients in the study. No other complications were noted by final follow-up.

A higher level of patient satisfaction was found to be directly related to length of follow-up (P < .05). Satisfaction was inversely related to higher VAS score (P < .05) and higher QuickDASH score (P < .001). Pain at work correlated with lower satisfaction level (P < .05). There was no correlation between patient satisfaction and AROM or PROM.

Discussion

The results of this study demonstrate the efficacy of EBP in the treatment of dorsal PIP joint fracture-dislocations. EBP maintained joint dislocation reduction and allowed for early mobilization, which resulted in good ROM, minimal pain, and good functional outcomes. Of note, postoperative patient satisfaction correlated with pain but not with ROM. It is possible that EBP yielded sufficient functional ROM in all patients such that improvement beyond this threshold did not lead to further improvement in satisfaction. Hume and colleagues23 found that mean PIP joint flexion of 60° is needed for activities of daily living. As mean PIP active flexion was 91° (range, 70°-105°) in the present study, it is possible that satisfaction did not correlate with ROM, as all 12 patients achieved active flexion of more than 60°. Despite the lack of correlation between ROM and satisfaction, early PIP joint mobilization is likely a key contributor to positive outcomes because of its significant role in cartilage healing.24

Postoperative ROM in the present study is consistent with that in other reports of patients with PIP joint fracture-dislocations treated with EBP.11,12,22 In a study by Inoue and Tamura,11 14 such patients had mean PIP ROM of 94° at a mean follow-up of 14 months. Viegas22 followed a series of 3 patients for a mean of 7 weeks. At final follow-up, their mean PIP arc of motion was 71°; they lacked 12° of full extension and achieved 83° of flexion. The larger PIP arc of motion (84°) found in the present study may be due to our significantly longer follow-up (35 months). Unlike us, Viegas22 noted an inverse relationship between extent of articular surface involvement and postoperative ROM. Our finding a lack of correlation may be a result of the significant amount of joint remodeling noted on follow-up radiographs.

 

 

Studies of transarticular pinning of PIP joints after dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations have reported outcomes similar to ours.25,26 Newington and colleagues25 evaluated 10 cases of transarticular pinning of the PIP joint and found mean arc of motion of 85° and equal grip strengths between injured and contralateral hands. In a series of 19 patients with PIP fracture-dislocations, Aladin and Davis26 noted similar outcomes of transarticular K-wire fixation and ORIF. In both of their treatment groups, however, there was evidence of PIP joint incongruity and subluxation. Of note, PIP arc motion was lower in their study than in ours.

Recent studies have evaluated unstable PIP fracture-dislocations treated with both EBP and percutaneous reduction and pinning with a second K-wire.13,27 At a mean follow-up of 18 months, Vitale and colleagues13 noted maintenance of concentric fracture reduction, good PIP ROM (mean range, 4°-93°), and low VAS and DASH scores (1.4 and 8, respectively). Waris and Alanen27 noted mean PIP AROM of 83° and low VAS and DASH scores (1 and 4, respectively). The EBP technique used in the present study did not involve percutaneous fracture reduction but achieved equally good ROM and VAS and QuickDASH scores.

Clinical outcomes of EBP of PIP joint fracture-dislocations are also comparable to outcomes of more complex treatment methods.8-10,15-19,21,26,28-33 Dynamic distraction external fixation has led to equally good ROM (mean AROM, 80°-85°15,16) and VAS scores, but with a higher incidence of pin-site infection.14-17 ORIF of the intra-articular middle phalanx fracture has the advantage of obtaining a direct anatomical reduction, but clinical outcomes are similar to those in the present study (mean AROM, 70°; 78% pain-free9), and flexion contractures have been noted.8-10 Furthermore, reduction of the fractured PIP joint articular surface has not been shown to be necessary for good outcomes.16,34 This may be explained in part by PIP joint remodeling, which has been routinely observed on long-term follow-up by the senior authors of the present study. Hemi-hamate autografting and volar plate arthroplasty are other options that have had promising results in the treatment of acute and chronic unstable PIP fracture-dislocations.18-21 However, the postoperative ROM (mean AROM, 61°-85°18,21), VAS scores, and patient satisfaction (91% very satisfied21) of these operations are similar to those of EBP in the present study and may not justify the longer operative times and technical challenges associated with these techniques.

We believe that our study group’s 1 complication, a malunion that was treated with corrective osteotomy, resulted from lack of appreciation of the degree of injury. The teenaged female patient’s index finger PIP joint had a rotational malalignment that was not appreciated before or during surgery. After pinning and after ROM was restored, the index finger was observed crossing over the middle finger with digital flexion. The patient returned to the operating room for corrective osteotomy.

We recommend that surgeons assess alignment carefully, before and during surgery, when considering this technique. Although complications are rare, the technique is not for patients with rotational malalignment; ORIF may be more suitable in these cases. In addition, though EBP may be appropriate for pilon-type injuries, as it allows for early AROM, our procedure of choice for pilon fracture is dynamic external fixation, which in addition to allowing for AROM provides ligamentotaxis. In the event that a large volar articular fragment extends into the middle phalanx diaphysis, we typically proceed with ORIF through a volar shotgun approach. At our institution, injuries lasting more than 3 months are often treated with volar plate arthroplasty or hemi-hamate resurfacing. Finally, we believe that caution should be exercised when using this technique in patients with more than 50% articular involvement. In the present study, though we used this treatment in cases of up to 75% surface involvement, alternative techniques, such as hemi-hamate resurfacing arthroplasty, may provide a better volar bony buttress and limit the risk for recurrent instability. Despite its relative contraindications, our technique has been appropriate for more than 90% of the acute PIP fracture-dislocations we have seen.

This study expands on prior research by demonstrating good function, satisfaction, and pain outcomes of percutaneous EBP in the treatment of unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations. In addition, this study demonstrated that the efficacy of EBP is similar to that of more complex and technically demanding methods of treatment. Our technique has the advantage of simplicity. It obviates the soft-tissue damage required for ORIF and more complex fixation techniques. Furthermore, use of this simple technique may save time and costs and lead to more reproducible outcomes.

One limitation of this study is its small sample size. It is possible that outcomes may have been different with a larger sample. Furthermore, we did not make a direct comparison with other treatment methods. To better determine the optimal treatment method for this fracture type, future studies should prospectively evaluate outcomes for multiple treatment modalities in a randomized fashion.

References

1.    Leibovic SJ, Bowers WH. Anatomy of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Hand Clin. 1994;10(2):169-178.

2.    Kiefhaber TR, Stern PJ. Fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(3):368-380.

3.    Ng CY, Oliver CW. Fractures of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(6):705-712.

4.    Isani A. Small joint injuries requiring surgical treatment. Orthop Clin North Am. 1986;17(3):407-419.

5.    McElfresh EC, Dobyns JH, O’Brien ET. Management of fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joints by extension-block splinting. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972;54(8):1705-1711.

6.    Hastings H 2nd, Carroll C 4th. Treatment of closed articular fractures of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints. Hand Clin. 1988;4(3):503-527.

7.    O’Rourke SK, Gaur S, Barton NJ. Long-term outcome of articular fractures of the phalanges: an eleven year follow up. J Hand Surg Br. 1989;14(2):183-193.

8.    Grant I, Berger AC, Tham SK. Internal fixation of unstable fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(5):492-498.

9.    Hamilton SC, Stern PJ, Fassler PR, Kiefhaber TR. Mini-screw fixation for the treatment of proximal interphalangeal joint dorsal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31(8):1349-1354.

10.  Lee JY, Teoh LC. Dorsal fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint treated by open reduction and interfragmentary screw fixation: indications, approaches and results. J Hand Surg Br. 2006;31(2):138-146.

11.  Inoue G, Tamura Y. Treatment of fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint using extension-block Kirschner wire. Ann Chir Main Memb Super. 1991;10(6):564-568.

12.  Sugawa I, Otani K, Kobayashi A. Treatment of fracture dislocation PIP-joint by Kirschner wire extension block method. Cent Jpn J Orthop Traumat. 1979;22:1409-1412.

13.  Vitale MA, White NJ, Strauch RJ. A percutaneous technique to treat unstable dorsal fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(9):1453-1459.

14.  Badia A, Riano F, Ravikoff J, Khouri R, Gonzalez-Hernandez E, Orbay JL. Dynamic intradigital external fixation for proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30(1):154-160.

15.  Ellis SJ, Cheng R, Prokopis P, et al. Treatment of proximal interphalangeal dorsal fracture-dislocation injuries with dynamic external fixation: a pins and rubber band system. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(8):1242-1250.

16.  Morgan JP, Gordon DA, Klug MS, Perry PE, Barre PS. Dynamic digital traction for unstable comminuted intra-articular fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(4):565-573.

17.  Ruland RT, Hogan CJ, Cannon DL, Slade JF. Use of dynamic distraction external fixation for unstable fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(1):19-25.

18.  Dionysian E, Eaton RG. The long-term outcome of volar plate arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2000;25(3):429-437.

19.  Durham-Smith G, McCarten GM. Volar plate arthroplasty for closed proximal interphalangeal joint injuries. J Hand Surg Br. 1992;17(4):422-428.

20.  Calfee RP, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Hemi-hamate arthroplasty provides functional reconstruction of acute and chronic proximal interphalangeal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(7):1232-1241.

21.  Williams RM, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Treatment of unstable dorsal proximal interphalangeal fracture/dislocations using a hemi-hamate autograft. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28(5):856-865.

22.  Viegas SF. Extension block pinning for proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocations: preliminary report of a new technique. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17(5):896-901.

23.  Hume MC, Gellman H, McKellop H, Brumfield RH Jr. Functional range of motion of the joints of the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1990;15(2):240-243.

24. Salter RB. The physiologic basis of continuous passive motion for articular cartilage healing and regeneration. Hand Clin. 1994;10(2):211-220.

25.    Newington DP, Davis TR, Barton NJ. The treatment of dorsal fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint by closed reduction and Kirschner wire fixation: a 16-year follow up. J Hand Surg Br. 2001;26(6):537-540.

26.  Aladin A, Davis TR. Dorsal fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint: a comparative study of percutaneous Kirschner wire fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(2):120-128.

27.  Waris E, Alanen V. Percutaneous, intramedullary fracture reduction and extension block pinning for dorsal proximal interphalangeal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(12):2046-2052.

28.  Bain GI, Mehta JA, Heptinstall RJ, Bria M. Dynamic external fixation for injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(6):1014-1019.

29.  Eaton RG, Malerich MM. Volar plate arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint: a review of ten years’ experience. J Hand Surg Am. 1980;5(3):260-268.

30.  Green A, Smith J, Redding M, Akelman E. Acute open reduction and rigid internal fixation of proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocation. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17(3):512-517.

31.  Inanami H, Ninomiya S, Okutsu I, Tarui T. Dynamic external finger fixator for fracture dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1993;18(1):160-164.

32.  Suzuki Y, Matsunaga T, Sato S, Yokoi T. The pins and rubbers traction system for treatment of comminuted intraarticular fractures and fracture-dislocations in the hand. J Hand Surg Br. 1994;19(1):98-107.

33.  Weiss AP. Cerclage fixation for fracture dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Clin Orthop. 1996;(327):21-28.

34.   Agee JM. Unstable fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Treatment with the force couple splint. Clin Orthop. 1987;(214):101-112.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

David M. Bear, MD, Matthew T. Weichbrodt, DO, Chris Huang, MD, William C. Hagberg, MD, and Marshall L. Balk, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
122-126
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, original study, study, proximal interphalangeal, PIP, joint, fracture, fracture management, trauma, PIP fracture-dislocations, dislocations, hand, fingers, finger, phalanx, osteotomy, hands, open reduction internal fixation, ORIF, extension-block pinning, EBP, pain, function, bear, weichbrodt, huang, hagberg, balk
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

David M. Bear, MD, Matthew T. Weichbrodt, DO, Chris Huang, MD, William C. Hagberg, MD, and Marshall L. Balk, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

David M. Bear, MD, Matthew T. Weichbrodt, DO, Chris Huang, MD, William C. Hagberg, MD, and Marshall L. Balk, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint plays a crucial role in hand function, accounting for an estimated 85% of the motion required to grasp an object.1 The anatomy and biomechanics of the PIP joint, however, make it particularly prone to injury.2,3 Dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations represent a subset of PIP injuries that often require surgical intervention.2 The stability of these fracture-dislocations largely depends on the extent of articular involvement of the base of the middle phalanx. Fractures that involve less than 30% of the joint surface typically remain stable after reduction.2,4,5 In cases in which involvement ranges from 30% to 50%, PIP joint stability is more tenuous, and more joint flexion is required to maintain concentric reduction. Fractures that involve more than 50% of the articular surface are unstable and require operative intervention.2,5,6 Fractures that require more than 30° of flexion for reduction maintenance are generally considered unstable and may benefit from surgical intervention.2

The goals of treatment for this injury are to restore a stable, concentrically reduced joint and initiate early joint mobilization to prevent stiffness, pain, recurrent instability, and posttraumatic arthritis.3,7 Numerous surgical interventions for unstable PIP fracture-dislocations have been proposed, including open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF),8-10 extension-block pinning (EBP),11-13 dynamic external fixation,14-17 volar plate arthroplasty,18,19 and hemi-hamate resurfacing arthroplasty.20,21 Many of these techniques can be technically demanding and may require prolonged immobilization. EBP can be performed easily and efficiently and allows for early joint motion.

Extension-block pinning—placing a Kirschner wire (K-wire) into the head of the proximal phalanx at an angle that blocks PIP extension and prevents joint subluxation—was first described by Sugawa and colleagues12 in 1979. In a study by Inoue and Tamura,11 patients treated with EBP had a mean PIP range of motion (ROM) of 94° at a mean follow-up of 14 months. In a series of 3 case reports, Viegas22 noted an inverse relationship between extent of articular surface involvement and postoperative ROM in patients treated with EBP.

We conducted a study to expand on previous research on pain, function, and satisfaction outcomes in addition to ROM. We hypothesized that percutaneous EBP is an effective treatment for unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations and has efficacy similar to that of more complex and technically demanding methods of treatment.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patient charts to identify candidates for this study. Inclusion criteria were unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations treated with EBP and minimum 4-month follow-up. (Fracture-dislocations were deemed unstable if they involved at least 30% of the articular surface or required more than 30° of flexion for reduction maintenance.) Exclusion criteria were open injury, neurovascular or tendon injury, or any prior injury to the PIP joint.

Twelve patients (5 females, 7 males) treated over a 4-year period (2002–2006) met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 30 years (range, 15-64 years). Each surgery was performed by Dr. Hagberg or Dr. Balk. Half the cases involved the dominant hand. Two small fingers, 4 ring fingers, 2 long fingers, and 4 index fingers were injured. The injuries were sustained in an all-terrain vehicle accident (n = 1), in falls (n = 2), while swimming (n = 1), or while playing softball (n = 3), football (n = 4), or soccer (n = 1). Mean time from injury to surgery was 7.5 days (range, 4-27 days). Extent of articular surface involvement of the base of the fractured middle phalanx was calculated using preoperatively obtained lateral radiographs.

Surgical intervention was performed in a reproducible fashion. All patients were treated with closed reduction of the PIP joint under fluoroscopic guidance. Before pinning, joint stability was assessed fluoroscopically both at rest and through an arc of motion. A single smooth 0.045-in K-wire was then inserted percutaneously into the distal and dorsal aspects of the proximal phalanx in retrograde fashion (Figure 1). During wire insertion, the distal interphalangeal joint was flexed to relax the intrinsic mechanism, and the central slip tendon was pierced just proximal to its insertion. We have not noted significant adhesion formation about the central slip with this technique, likely because of limited tendon excursion in this location. Stable joint reduction was confirmed with fluoroscopy. No attempt was made to reduce the intra-articular fracture at the base of the middle phalanx.

A therapy program was initiated 2 to 9 days after surgery. At the first postoperative visit, patients were allowed to perform active ROM (AROM) with the pin in place (Figure 1). K-wires were removed a mean of 25 days (range, 17-31 days) after surgery. A static dorsal block splint was then applied, and patients were encouraged to remove it several times per day for AROM between 20° and full flexion until 6 weeks after surgery. At that time, formal occupational therapy was commenced for another 6 weeks. If there was residual flexion contracture of the PIP joint, dynamic extension splinting was initiated after fracture consolidation.

 

 

Mean follow-up was 35.5 months (range, 4-94 months). Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were used to evaluate maintenance of joint congruity, fracture union, remodeling, and evidence of degenerative changes. At final follow-up, grip strength of injured and contralateral hands was measured with a dynamometer (Jamar; Patterson Medical, Warrenville, Illinois). AROM and passive ROM (PROM) of the PIP joint was documented at follow-up visits. In addition, patients rated their pain on a 0-to-10 visual analog scale (VAS), with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing excruciating pain. Patients also completed a questionnaire assessing satisfaction with surgical outcome. Physical function and disability were assessed with the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Any complications, including the need for further surgeries, were documented. Pearson correlation coefficients and Student t tests (with significance set at P < .05) were used to compare outcomes.

Results

Radiographic reduction of joint dislocation was achieved and maintained in 11 of the 12 patients at a mean follow-up of 35.5 months (range, 4-94 months). Extent of joint surface involvement, based on preoperative lateral radiographs, averaged 43% (range, 25%-75%). Although no direct articular reduction was performed, remodeling of the joint surface was consistently noted at follow-up (Figure 2). Mild radiographic degenerative changes were noted at final follow-up in 4 patients, and moderate changes were noted in 1 patient. Radiographic union was achieved in all cases, and no pin-tract infections were noted.

Mean AROM of the PIP joint at final follow-up was 84° (range, 50°-110°), with patients lacking a mean of 7° of full extension and achieving mean flexion of 91°. Mean PROM was 93° (range, 75°-110°). There was no correlation between extent of articular surface involvement and ROM. Furthermore, no correlation was found between time from injury to surgery and ROM. Patients regained full grip strength in the operative hand. At final follow-up, mean grip strength was 79.4 pounds in the operative hand and 79.6 pounds in the contralateral hand, demonstrating equal grip strengths bilaterally.

Patients overall had very low levels of pain; mean VAS score was 0.64 (range, 0-3). Mean QuickDASH score was 5.7 (range, 0-30), suggesting minimal functional impairment. One patient developed a malunion of the middle phalanx fracture resulting in a rotational deformity and required corrective osteotomy. This patient’s VAS score (3) and QuickDASH score (30) were significantly higher than those of the other patients in the study. No other complications were noted by final follow-up.

A higher level of patient satisfaction was found to be directly related to length of follow-up (P < .05). Satisfaction was inversely related to higher VAS score (P < .05) and higher QuickDASH score (P < .001). Pain at work correlated with lower satisfaction level (P < .05). There was no correlation between patient satisfaction and AROM or PROM.

Discussion

The results of this study demonstrate the efficacy of EBP in the treatment of dorsal PIP joint fracture-dislocations. EBP maintained joint dislocation reduction and allowed for early mobilization, which resulted in good ROM, minimal pain, and good functional outcomes. Of note, postoperative patient satisfaction correlated with pain but not with ROM. It is possible that EBP yielded sufficient functional ROM in all patients such that improvement beyond this threshold did not lead to further improvement in satisfaction. Hume and colleagues23 found that mean PIP joint flexion of 60° is needed for activities of daily living. As mean PIP active flexion was 91° (range, 70°-105°) in the present study, it is possible that satisfaction did not correlate with ROM, as all 12 patients achieved active flexion of more than 60°. Despite the lack of correlation between ROM and satisfaction, early PIP joint mobilization is likely a key contributor to positive outcomes because of its significant role in cartilage healing.24

Postoperative ROM in the present study is consistent with that in other reports of patients with PIP joint fracture-dislocations treated with EBP.11,12,22 In a study by Inoue and Tamura,11 14 such patients had mean PIP ROM of 94° at a mean follow-up of 14 months. Viegas22 followed a series of 3 patients for a mean of 7 weeks. At final follow-up, their mean PIP arc of motion was 71°; they lacked 12° of full extension and achieved 83° of flexion. The larger PIP arc of motion (84°) found in the present study may be due to our significantly longer follow-up (35 months). Unlike us, Viegas22 noted an inverse relationship between extent of articular surface involvement and postoperative ROM. Our finding a lack of correlation may be a result of the significant amount of joint remodeling noted on follow-up radiographs.

 

 

Studies of transarticular pinning of PIP joints after dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations have reported outcomes similar to ours.25,26 Newington and colleagues25 evaluated 10 cases of transarticular pinning of the PIP joint and found mean arc of motion of 85° and equal grip strengths between injured and contralateral hands. In a series of 19 patients with PIP fracture-dislocations, Aladin and Davis26 noted similar outcomes of transarticular K-wire fixation and ORIF. In both of their treatment groups, however, there was evidence of PIP joint incongruity and subluxation. Of note, PIP arc motion was lower in their study than in ours.

Recent studies have evaluated unstable PIP fracture-dislocations treated with both EBP and percutaneous reduction and pinning with a second K-wire.13,27 At a mean follow-up of 18 months, Vitale and colleagues13 noted maintenance of concentric fracture reduction, good PIP ROM (mean range, 4°-93°), and low VAS and DASH scores (1.4 and 8, respectively). Waris and Alanen27 noted mean PIP AROM of 83° and low VAS and DASH scores (1 and 4, respectively). The EBP technique used in the present study did not involve percutaneous fracture reduction but achieved equally good ROM and VAS and QuickDASH scores.

Clinical outcomes of EBP of PIP joint fracture-dislocations are also comparable to outcomes of more complex treatment methods.8-10,15-19,21,26,28-33 Dynamic distraction external fixation has led to equally good ROM (mean AROM, 80°-85°15,16) and VAS scores, but with a higher incidence of pin-site infection.14-17 ORIF of the intra-articular middle phalanx fracture has the advantage of obtaining a direct anatomical reduction, but clinical outcomes are similar to those in the present study (mean AROM, 70°; 78% pain-free9), and flexion contractures have been noted.8-10 Furthermore, reduction of the fractured PIP joint articular surface has not been shown to be necessary for good outcomes.16,34 This may be explained in part by PIP joint remodeling, which has been routinely observed on long-term follow-up by the senior authors of the present study. Hemi-hamate autografting and volar plate arthroplasty are other options that have had promising results in the treatment of acute and chronic unstable PIP fracture-dislocations.18-21 However, the postoperative ROM (mean AROM, 61°-85°18,21), VAS scores, and patient satisfaction (91% very satisfied21) of these operations are similar to those of EBP in the present study and may not justify the longer operative times and technical challenges associated with these techniques.

We believe that our study group’s 1 complication, a malunion that was treated with corrective osteotomy, resulted from lack of appreciation of the degree of injury. The teenaged female patient’s index finger PIP joint had a rotational malalignment that was not appreciated before or during surgery. After pinning and after ROM was restored, the index finger was observed crossing over the middle finger with digital flexion. The patient returned to the operating room for corrective osteotomy.

We recommend that surgeons assess alignment carefully, before and during surgery, when considering this technique. Although complications are rare, the technique is not for patients with rotational malalignment; ORIF may be more suitable in these cases. In addition, though EBP may be appropriate for pilon-type injuries, as it allows for early AROM, our procedure of choice for pilon fracture is dynamic external fixation, which in addition to allowing for AROM provides ligamentotaxis. In the event that a large volar articular fragment extends into the middle phalanx diaphysis, we typically proceed with ORIF through a volar shotgun approach. At our institution, injuries lasting more than 3 months are often treated with volar plate arthroplasty or hemi-hamate resurfacing. Finally, we believe that caution should be exercised when using this technique in patients with more than 50% articular involvement. In the present study, though we used this treatment in cases of up to 75% surface involvement, alternative techniques, such as hemi-hamate resurfacing arthroplasty, may provide a better volar bony buttress and limit the risk for recurrent instability. Despite its relative contraindications, our technique has been appropriate for more than 90% of the acute PIP fracture-dislocations we have seen.

This study expands on prior research by demonstrating good function, satisfaction, and pain outcomes of percutaneous EBP in the treatment of unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations. In addition, this study demonstrated that the efficacy of EBP is similar to that of more complex and technically demanding methods of treatment. Our technique has the advantage of simplicity. It obviates the soft-tissue damage required for ORIF and more complex fixation techniques. Furthermore, use of this simple technique may save time and costs and lead to more reproducible outcomes.

One limitation of this study is its small sample size. It is possible that outcomes may have been different with a larger sample. Furthermore, we did not make a direct comparison with other treatment methods. To better determine the optimal treatment method for this fracture type, future studies should prospectively evaluate outcomes for multiple treatment modalities in a randomized fashion.

The proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint plays a crucial role in hand function, accounting for an estimated 85% of the motion required to grasp an object.1 The anatomy and biomechanics of the PIP joint, however, make it particularly prone to injury.2,3 Dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations represent a subset of PIP injuries that often require surgical intervention.2 The stability of these fracture-dislocations largely depends on the extent of articular involvement of the base of the middle phalanx. Fractures that involve less than 30% of the joint surface typically remain stable after reduction.2,4,5 In cases in which involvement ranges from 30% to 50%, PIP joint stability is more tenuous, and more joint flexion is required to maintain concentric reduction. Fractures that involve more than 50% of the articular surface are unstable and require operative intervention.2,5,6 Fractures that require more than 30° of flexion for reduction maintenance are generally considered unstable and may benefit from surgical intervention.2

The goals of treatment for this injury are to restore a stable, concentrically reduced joint and initiate early joint mobilization to prevent stiffness, pain, recurrent instability, and posttraumatic arthritis.3,7 Numerous surgical interventions for unstable PIP fracture-dislocations have been proposed, including open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF),8-10 extension-block pinning (EBP),11-13 dynamic external fixation,14-17 volar plate arthroplasty,18,19 and hemi-hamate resurfacing arthroplasty.20,21 Many of these techniques can be technically demanding and may require prolonged immobilization. EBP can be performed easily and efficiently and allows for early joint motion.

Extension-block pinning—placing a Kirschner wire (K-wire) into the head of the proximal phalanx at an angle that blocks PIP extension and prevents joint subluxation—was first described by Sugawa and colleagues12 in 1979. In a study by Inoue and Tamura,11 patients treated with EBP had a mean PIP range of motion (ROM) of 94° at a mean follow-up of 14 months. In a series of 3 case reports, Viegas22 noted an inverse relationship between extent of articular surface involvement and postoperative ROM in patients treated with EBP.

We conducted a study to expand on previous research on pain, function, and satisfaction outcomes in addition to ROM. We hypothesized that percutaneous EBP is an effective treatment for unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations and has efficacy similar to that of more complex and technically demanding methods of treatment.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patient charts to identify candidates for this study. Inclusion criteria were unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations treated with EBP and minimum 4-month follow-up. (Fracture-dislocations were deemed unstable if they involved at least 30% of the articular surface or required more than 30° of flexion for reduction maintenance.) Exclusion criteria were open injury, neurovascular or tendon injury, or any prior injury to the PIP joint.

Twelve patients (5 females, 7 males) treated over a 4-year period (2002–2006) met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 30 years (range, 15-64 years). Each surgery was performed by Dr. Hagberg or Dr. Balk. Half the cases involved the dominant hand. Two small fingers, 4 ring fingers, 2 long fingers, and 4 index fingers were injured. The injuries were sustained in an all-terrain vehicle accident (n = 1), in falls (n = 2), while swimming (n = 1), or while playing softball (n = 3), football (n = 4), or soccer (n = 1). Mean time from injury to surgery was 7.5 days (range, 4-27 days). Extent of articular surface involvement of the base of the fractured middle phalanx was calculated using preoperatively obtained lateral radiographs.

Surgical intervention was performed in a reproducible fashion. All patients were treated with closed reduction of the PIP joint under fluoroscopic guidance. Before pinning, joint stability was assessed fluoroscopically both at rest and through an arc of motion. A single smooth 0.045-in K-wire was then inserted percutaneously into the distal and dorsal aspects of the proximal phalanx in retrograde fashion (Figure 1). During wire insertion, the distal interphalangeal joint was flexed to relax the intrinsic mechanism, and the central slip tendon was pierced just proximal to its insertion. We have not noted significant adhesion formation about the central slip with this technique, likely because of limited tendon excursion in this location. Stable joint reduction was confirmed with fluoroscopy. No attempt was made to reduce the intra-articular fracture at the base of the middle phalanx.

A therapy program was initiated 2 to 9 days after surgery. At the first postoperative visit, patients were allowed to perform active ROM (AROM) with the pin in place (Figure 1). K-wires were removed a mean of 25 days (range, 17-31 days) after surgery. A static dorsal block splint was then applied, and patients were encouraged to remove it several times per day for AROM between 20° and full flexion until 6 weeks after surgery. At that time, formal occupational therapy was commenced for another 6 weeks. If there was residual flexion contracture of the PIP joint, dynamic extension splinting was initiated after fracture consolidation.

 

 

Mean follow-up was 35.5 months (range, 4-94 months). Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were used to evaluate maintenance of joint congruity, fracture union, remodeling, and evidence of degenerative changes. At final follow-up, grip strength of injured and contralateral hands was measured with a dynamometer (Jamar; Patterson Medical, Warrenville, Illinois). AROM and passive ROM (PROM) of the PIP joint was documented at follow-up visits. In addition, patients rated their pain on a 0-to-10 visual analog scale (VAS), with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing excruciating pain. Patients also completed a questionnaire assessing satisfaction with surgical outcome. Physical function and disability were assessed with the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Any complications, including the need for further surgeries, were documented. Pearson correlation coefficients and Student t tests (with significance set at P < .05) were used to compare outcomes.

Results

Radiographic reduction of joint dislocation was achieved and maintained in 11 of the 12 patients at a mean follow-up of 35.5 months (range, 4-94 months). Extent of joint surface involvement, based on preoperative lateral radiographs, averaged 43% (range, 25%-75%). Although no direct articular reduction was performed, remodeling of the joint surface was consistently noted at follow-up (Figure 2). Mild radiographic degenerative changes were noted at final follow-up in 4 patients, and moderate changes were noted in 1 patient. Radiographic union was achieved in all cases, and no pin-tract infections were noted.

Mean AROM of the PIP joint at final follow-up was 84° (range, 50°-110°), with patients lacking a mean of 7° of full extension and achieving mean flexion of 91°. Mean PROM was 93° (range, 75°-110°). There was no correlation between extent of articular surface involvement and ROM. Furthermore, no correlation was found between time from injury to surgery and ROM. Patients regained full grip strength in the operative hand. At final follow-up, mean grip strength was 79.4 pounds in the operative hand and 79.6 pounds in the contralateral hand, demonstrating equal grip strengths bilaterally.

Patients overall had very low levels of pain; mean VAS score was 0.64 (range, 0-3). Mean QuickDASH score was 5.7 (range, 0-30), suggesting minimal functional impairment. One patient developed a malunion of the middle phalanx fracture resulting in a rotational deformity and required corrective osteotomy. This patient’s VAS score (3) and QuickDASH score (30) were significantly higher than those of the other patients in the study. No other complications were noted by final follow-up.

A higher level of patient satisfaction was found to be directly related to length of follow-up (P < .05). Satisfaction was inversely related to higher VAS score (P < .05) and higher QuickDASH score (P < .001). Pain at work correlated with lower satisfaction level (P < .05). There was no correlation between patient satisfaction and AROM or PROM.

Discussion

The results of this study demonstrate the efficacy of EBP in the treatment of dorsal PIP joint fracture-dislocations. EBP maintained joint dislocation reduction and allowed for early mobilization, which resulted in good ROM, minimal pain, and good functional outcomes. Of note, postoperative patient satisfaction correlated with pain but not with ROM. It is possible that EBP yielded sufficient functional ROM in all patients such that improvement beyond this threshold did not lead to further improvement in satisfaction. Hume and colleagues23 found that mean PIP joint flexion of 60° is needed for activities of daily living. As mean PIP active flexion was 91° (range, 70°-105°) in the present study, it is possible that satisfaction did not correlate with ROM, as all 12 patients achieved active flexion of more than 60°. Despite the lack of correlation between ROM and satisfaction, early PIP joint mobilization is likely a key contributor to positive outcomes because of its significant role in cartilage healing.24

Postoperative ROM in the present study is consistent with that in other reports of patients with PIP joint fracture-dislocations treated with EBP.11,12,22 In a study by Inoue and Tamura,11 14 such patients had mean PIP ROM of 94° at a mean follow-up of 14 months. Viegas22 followed a series of 3 patients for a mean of 7 weeks. At final follow-up, their mean PIP arc of motion was 71°; they lacked 12° of full extension and achieved 83° of flexion. The larger PIP arc of motion (84°) found in the present study may be due to our significantly longer follow-up (35 months). Unlike us, Viegas22 noted an inverse relationship between extent of articular surface involvement and postoperative ROM. Our finding a lack of correlation may be a result of the significant amount of joint remodeling noted on follow-up radiographs.

 

 

Studies of transarticular pinning of PIP joints after dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations have reported outcomes similar to ours.25,26 Newington and colleagues25 evaluated 10 cases of transarticular pinning of the PIP joint and found mean arc of motion of 85° and equal grip strengths between injured and contralateral hands. In a series of 19 patients with PIP fracture-dislocations, Aladin and Davis26 noted similar outcomes of transarticular K-wire fixation and ORIF. In both of their treatment groups, however, there was evidence of PIP joint incongruity and subluxation. Of note, PIP arc motion was lower in their study than in ours.

Recent studies have evaluated unstable PIP fracture-dislocations treated with both EBP and percutaneous reduction and pinning with a second K-wire.13,27 At a mean follow-up of 18 months, Vitale and colleagues13 noted maintenance of concentric fracture reduction, good PIP ROM (mean range, 4°-93°), and low VAS and DASH scores (1.4 and 8, respectively). Waris and Alanen27 noted mean PIP AROM of 83° and low VAS and DASH scores (1 and 4, respectively). The EBP technique used in the present study did not involve percutaneous fracture reduction but achieved equally good ROM and VAS and QuickDASH scores.

Clinical outcomes of EBP of PIP joint fracture-dislocations are also comparable to outcomes of more complex treatment methods.8-10,15-19,21,26,28-33 Dynamic distraction external fixation has led to equally good ROM (mean AROM, 80°-85°15,16) and VAS scores, but with a higher incidence of pin-site infection.14-17 ORIF of the intra-articular middle phalanx fracture has the advantage of obtaining a direct anatomical reduction, but clinical outcomes are similar to those in the present study (mean AROM, 70°; 78% pain-free9), and flexion contractures have been noted.8-10 Furthermore, reduction of the fractured PIP joint articular surface has not been shown to be necessary for good outcomes.16,34 This may be explained in part by PIP joint remodeling, which has been routinely observed on long-term follow-up by the senior authors of the present study. Hemi-hamate autografting and volar plate arthroplasty are other options that have had promising results in the treatment of acute and chronic unstable PIP fracture-dislocations.18-21 However, the postoperative ROM (mean AROM, 61°-85°18,21), VAS scores, and patient satisfaction (91% very satisfied21) of these operations are similar to those of EBP in the present study and may not justify the longer operative times and technical challenges associated with these techniques.

We believe that our study group’s 1 complication, a malunion that was treated with corrective osteotomy, resulted from lack of appreciation of the degree of injury. The teenaged female patient’s index finger PIP joint had a rotational malalignment that was not appreciated before or during surgery. After pinning and after ROM was restored, the index finger was observed crossing over the middle finger with digital flexion. The patient returned to the operating room for corrective osteotomy.

We recommend that surgeons assess alignment carefully, before and during surgery, when considering this technique. Although complications are rare, the technique is not for patients with rotational malalignment; ORIF may be more suitable in these cases. In addition, though EBP may be appropriate for pilon-type injuries, as it allows for early AROM, our procedure of choice for pilon fracture is dynamic external fixation, which in addition to allowing for AROM provides ligamentotaxis. In the event that a large volar articular fragment extends into the middle phalanx diaphysis, we typically proceed with ORIF through a volar shotgun approach. At our institution, injuries lasting more than 3 months are often treated with volar plate arthroplasty or hemi-hamate resurfacing. Finally, we believe that caution should be exercised when using this technique in patients with more than 50% articular involvement. In the present study, though we used this treatment in cases of up to 75% surface involvement, alternative techniques, such as hemi-hamate resurfacing arthroplasty, may provide a better volar bony buttress and limit the risk for recurrent instability. Despite its relative contraindications, our technique has been appropriate for more than 90% of the acute PIP fracture-dislocations we have seen.

This study expands on prior research by demonstrating good function, satisfaction, and pain outcomes of percutaneous EBP in the treatment of unstable dorsal PIP fracture-dislocations. In addition, this study demonstrated that the efficacy of EBP is similar to that of more complex and technically demanding methods of treatment. Our technique has the advantage of simplicity. It obviates the soft-tissue damage required for ORIF and more complex fixation techniques. Furthermore, use of this simple technique may save time and costs and lead to more reproducible outcomes.

One limitation of this study is its small sample size. It is possible that outcomes may have been different with a larger sample. Furthermore, we did not make a direct comparison with other treatment methods. To better determine the optimal treatment method for this fracture type, future studies should prospectively evaluate outcomes for multiple treatment modalities in a randomized fashion.

References

1.    Leibovic SJ, Bowers WH. Anatomy of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Hand Clin. 1994;10(2):169-178.

2.    Kiefhaber TR, Stern PJ. Fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(3):368-380.

3.    Ng CY, Oliver CW. Fractures of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(6):705-712.

4.    Isani A. Small joint injuries requiring surgical treatment. Orthop Clin North Am. 1986;17(3):407-419.

5.    McElfresh EC, Dobyns JH, O’Brien ET. Management of fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joints by extension-block splinting. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972;54(8):1705-1711.

6.    Hastings H 2nd, Carroll C 4th. Treatment of closed articular fractures of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints. Hand Clin. 1988;4(3):503-527.

7.    O’Rourke SK, Gaur S, Barton NJ. Long-term outcome of articular fractures of the phalanges: an eleven year follow up. J Hand Surg Br. 1989;14(2):183-193.

8.    Grant I, Berger AC, Tham SK. Internal fixation of unstable fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(5):492-498.

9.    Hamilton SC, Stern PJ, Fassler PR, Kiefhaber TR. Mini-screw fixation for the treatment of proximal interphalangeal joint dorsal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31(8):1349-1354.

10.  Lee JY, Teoh LC. Dorsal fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint treated by open reduction and interfragmentary screw fixation: indications, approaches and results. J Hand Surg Br. 2006;31(2):138-146.

11.  Inoue G, Tamura Y. Treatment of fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint using extension-block Kirschner wire. Ann Chir Main Memb Super. 1991;10(6):564-568.

12.  Sugawa I, Otani K, Kobayashi A. Treatment of fracture dislocation PIP-joint by Kirschner wire extension block method. Cent Jpn J Orthop Traumat. 1979;22:1409-1412.

13.  Vitale MA, White NJ, Strauch RJ. A percutaneous technique to treat unstable dorsal fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(9):1453-1459.

14.  Badia A, Riano F, Ravikoff J, Khouri R, Gonzalez-Hernandez E, Orbay JL. Dynamic intradigital external fixation for proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30(1):154-160.

15.  Ellis SJ, Cheng R, Prokopis P, et al. Treatment of proximal interphalangeal dorsal fracture-dislocation injuries with dynamic external fixation: a pins and rubber band system. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(8):1242-1250.

16.  Morgan JP, Gordon DA, Klug MS, Perry PE, Barre PS. Dynamic digital traction for unstable comminuted intra-articular fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(4):565-573.

17.  Ruland RT, Hogan CJ, Cannon DL, Slade JF. Use of dynamic distraction external fixation for unstable fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(1):19-25.

18.  Dionysian E, Eaton RG. The long-term outcome of volar plate arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2000;25(3):429-437.

19.  Durham-Smith G, McCarten GM. Volar plate arthroplasty for closed proximal interphalangeal joint injuries. J Hand Surg Br. 1992;17(4):422-428.

20.  Calfee RP, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Hemi-hamate arthroplasty provides functional reconstruction of acute and chronic proximal interphalangeal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(7):1232-1241.

21.  Williams RM, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Treatment of unstable dorsal proximal interphalangeal fracture/dislocations using a hemi-hamate autograft. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28(5):856-865.

22.  Viegas SF. Extension block pinning for proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocations: preliminary report of a new technique. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17(5):896-901.

23.  Hume MC, Gellman H, McKellop H, Brumfield RH Jr. Functional range of motion of the joints of the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1990;15(2):240-243.

24. Salter RB. The physiologic basis of continuous passive motion for articular cartilage healing and regeneration. Hand Clin. 1994;10(2):211-220.

25.    Newington DP, Davis TR, Barton NJ. The treatment of dorsal fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint by closed reduction and Kirschner wire fixation: a 16-year follow up. J Hand Surg Br. 2001;26(6):537-540.

26.  Aladin A, Davis TR. Dorsal fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint: a comparative study of percutaneous Kirschner wire fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(2):120-128.

27.  Waris E, Alanen V. Percutaneous, intramedullary fracture reduction and extension block pinning for dorsal proximal interphalangeal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(12):2046-2052.

28.  Bain GI, Mehta JA, Heptinstall RJ, Bria M. Dynamic external fixation for injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(6):1014-1019.

29.  Eaton RG, Malerich MM. Volar plate arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint: a review of ten years’ experience. J Hand Surg Am. 1980;5(3):260-268.

30.  Green A, Smith J, Redding M, Akelman E. Acute open reduction and rigid internal fixation of proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocation. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17(3):512-517.

31.  Inanami H, Ninomiya S, Okutsu I, Tarui T. Dynamic external finger fixator for fracture dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1993;18(1):160-164.

32.  Suzuki Y, Matsunaga T, Sato S, Yokoi T. The pins and rubbers traction system for treatment of comminuted intraarticular fractures and fracture-dislocations in the hand. J Hand Surg Br. 1994;19(1):98-107.

33.  Weiss AP. Cerclage fixation for fracture dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Clin Orthop. 1996;(327):21-28.

34.   Agee JM. Unstable fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Treatment with the force couple splint. Clin Orthop. 1987;(214):101-112.

References

1.    Leibovic SJ, Bowers WH. Anatomy of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Hand Clin. 1994;10(2):169-178.

2.    Kiefhaber TR, Stern PJ. Fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(3):368-380.

3.    Ng CY, Oliver CW. Fractures of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(6):705-712.

4.    Isani A. Small joint injuries requiring surgical treatment. Orthop Clin North Am. 1986;17(3):407-419.

5.    McElfresh EC, Dobyns JH, O’Brien ET. Management of fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joints by extension-block splinting. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972;54(8):1705-1711.

6.    Hastings H 2nd, Carroll C 4th. Treatment of closed articular fractures of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints. Hand Clin. 1988;4(3):503-527.

7.    O’Rourke SK, Gaur S, Barton NJ. Long-term outcome of articular fractures of the phalanges: an eleven year follow up. J Hand Surg Br. 1989;14(2):183-193.

8.    Grant I, Berger AC, Tham SK. Internal fixation of unstable fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(5):492-498.

9.    Hamilton SC, Stern PJ, Fassler PR, Kiefhaber TR. Mini-screw fixation for the treatment of proximal interphalangeal joint dorsal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31(8):1349-1354.

10.  Lee JY, Teoh LC. Dorsal fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint treated by open reduction and interfragmentary screw fixation: indications, approaches and results. J Hand Surg Br. 2006;31(2):138-146.

11.  Inoue G, Tamura Y. Treatment of fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint using extension-block Kirschner wire. Ann Chir Main Memb Super. 1991;10(6):564-568.

12.  Sugawa I, Otani K, Kobayashi A. Treatment of fracture dislocation PIP-joint by Kirschner wire extension block method. Cent Jpn J Orthop Traumat. 1979;22:1409-1412.

13.  Vitale MA, White NJ, Strauch RJ. A percutaneous technique to treat unstable dorsal fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(9):1453-1459.

14.  Badia A, Riano F, Ravikoff J, Khouri R, Gonzalez-Hernandez E, Orbay JL. Dynamic intradigital external fixation for proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30(1):154-160.

15.  Ellis SJ, Cheng R, Prokopis P, et al. Treatment of proximal interphalangeal dorsal fracture-dislocation injuries with dynamic external fixation: a pins and rubber band system. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(8):1242-1250.

16.  Morgan JP, Gordon DA, Klug MS, Perry PE, Barre PS. Dynamic digital traction for unstable comminuted intra-articular fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(4):565-573.

17.  Ruland RT, Hogan CJ, Cannon DL, Slade JF. Use of dynamic distraction external fixation for unstable fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(1):19-25.

18.  Dionysian E, Eaton RG. The long-term outcome of volar plate arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2000;25(3):429-437.

19.  Durham-Smith G, McCarten GM. Volar plate arthroplasty for closed proximal interphalangeal joint injuries. J Hand Surg Br. 1992;17(4):422-428.

20.  Calfee RP, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Hemi-hamate arthroplasty provides functional reconstruction of acute and chronic proximal interphalangeal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(7):1232-1241.

21.  Williams RM, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Treatment of unstable dorsal proximal interphalangeal fracture/dislocations using a hemi-hamate autograft. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28(5):856-865.

22.  Viegas SF. Extension block pinning for proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocations: preliminary report of a new technique. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17(5):896-901.

23.  Hume MC, Gellman H, McKellop H, Brumfield RH Jr. Functional range of motion of the joints of the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1990;15(2):240-243.

24. Salter RB. The physiologic basis of continuous passive motion for articular cartilage healing and regeneration. Hand Clin. 1994;10(2):211-220.

25.    Newington DP, Davis TR, Barton NJ. The treatment of dorsal fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint by closed reduction and Kirschner wire fixation: a 16-year follow up. J Hand Surg Br. 2001;26(6):537-540.

26.  Aladin A, Davis TR. Dorsal fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint: a comparative study of percutaneous Kirschner wire fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(2):120-128.

27.  Waris E, Alanen V. Percutaneous, intramedullary fracture reduction and extension block pinning for dorsal proximal interphalangeal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(12):2046-2052.

28.  Bain GI, Mehta JA, Heptinstall RJ, Bria M. Dynamic external fixation for injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(6):1014-1019.

29.  Eaton RG, Malerich MM. Volar plate arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint: a review of ten years’ experience. J Hand Surg Am. 1980;5(3):260-268.

30.  Green A, Smith J, Redding M, Akelman E. Acute open reduction and rigid internal fixation of proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocation. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17(3):512-517.

31.  Inanami H, Ninomiya S, Okutsu I, Tarui T. Dynamic external finger fixator for fracture dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1993;18(1):160-164.

32.  Suzuki Y, Matsunaga T, Sato S, Yokoi T. The pins and rubbers traction system for treatment of comminuted intraarticular fractures and fracture-dislocations in the hand. J Hand Surg Br. 1994;19(1):98-107.

33.  Weiss AP. Cerclage fixation for fracture dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Clin Orthop. 1996;(327):21-28.

34.   Agee JM. Unstable fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Treatment with the force couple splint. Clin Orthop. 1987;(214):101-112.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 44(3)
Page Number
122-126
Page Number
122-126
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Unstable Dorsal Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Fracture-Dislocations Treated With Extension-Block Pinning
Display Headline
Unstable Dorsal Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Fracture-Dislocations Treated With Extension-Block Pinning
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, original study, study, proximal interphalangeal, PIP, joint, fracture, fracture management, trauma, PIP fracture-dislocations, dislocations, hand, fingers, finger, phalanx, osteotomy, hands, open reduction internal fixation, ORIF, extension-block pinning, EBP, pain, function, bear, weichbrodt, huang, hagberg, balk
Legacy Keywords
american journal of orthopedics, AJO, original study, study, proximal interphalangeal, PIP, joint, fracture, fracture management, trauma, PIP fracture-dislocations, dislocations, hand, fingers, finger, phalanx, osteotomy, hands, open reduction internal fixation, ORIF, extension-block pinning, EBP, pain, function, bear, weichbrodt, huang, hagberg, balk
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media