Risk Factors for Upper Extremity Impairment after Mastectomy: A Single Institution Retrospective Review.

Background: Patients with breast cancer treated with mastectomy are more likely to develop upper extremity dysfunction compared with those treated with breast-conserving therapy. This study aimed to identify cancer and treatment characteristics that may be risk factors for development of upper extremity dysfunction in patients treated with mastectomy. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective chart review of patients at the University of Chicago who were treated with a unilateral or bilateral mastectomy from 2010 to 2020 and developed upper extremity dysfunction based on International Classification of Disease-10 codes. Patients were analyzed by side of body (left or right). Patient demographics and treatment characteristics were extracted from the electronic medical record. Results: In total, 259 patients met criteria and were included in our study. A total of 396 upper extremities were recorded as experiencing dysfunction and were analyzed. Mean age was 60 years (range = 28-96), and mean body mass index was 28.4 (SD = 7.5). An estimated 54% of patients underwent breast reconstruction. After multivariable analysis, chronic upper extremity pain was found to be associated with ipsilateral radiotherapy (P < 0.001) and ipsilateral in situ cancer (0.041). Limited range of motion was found to be associated with ipsilateral invasive cancer (P = 0.01), any ipsilateral mastectomy surgery (P < 0.001), and ipsilateral radiotherapy (P = 0.03). Musculoskeletal dysfunction was found to be associated with no ipsilateral modified radical mastectomy (P = 0.033). No oncological or treatment characteristics were found to be associated with decreased strength or adhesive capsulitis. Furthermore, breast reconstruction (implant or autologous tissue based) was not associated with upper extremity dysfunction. Conclusion: Breast cancer characteristics and treatment modalities may predispose patients treated with mastectomy to developing types of upper extremity dysfunction.

Management of Proximal Humerus Fractures in Adults-A Scoping Review.

Proximal humerus fractures are the third most common fracture type in adults, with their incidence increasing over time. There are varied approaches to both the classification and treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Optimal treatments for this fracture type are still widely open to debate. This review summarizes the current and historical treatment modalities for proximal humerus fractures. In this paper, we provide updates on the advances and trends in the epidemiology, classification, and operative and nonoperative treatments of proximal humerus fractures.

Effect of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Timing on Rotator Cuff Repair Revisions and Capsulitis.

INTRODUCTION: One variable that could potentially affect failure of a rotator cuff repair (RCR) is the timing of beginning physical therapy (PT) after the procedure. Although many studies have demonstrated decreased stiffness with beginning PT early, studies have also demonstrated that early PT increases repair failure. The goal of this study was to identify revision surgery and capsulitis rates after RCRs from an available database and determine whether an association was present with the timing of PT post-RCR. METHODS: Medicare patients within the PearlDiver database who underwent RCR were stratified based on the timing of their first PT session postoperatively, and revision surgery and capsulitis rates were determined among the groups for both open and arthroscopic RCR. Demographics and comorbidities of the cohort were also used to formulate a multivariate analysis for revision surgery rate. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 64,842 patients who underwent RCR and started PT within 13 weeks of surgery. Starting PT within 1 week postoperatively resulted in a significantly higher revision surgery rate compared with starting PT in weeks 2 to 5, 6 to 9, or 10 to 13 (6.9% vs. 3.6% among all other groups, P = <0.001). The multivariate analysis for revision surgery further demonstrated that starting PT within 1 week postoperatively was associated with a significantly higher rate of revision surgery compared with beginning PT after 1 week (OR = 2.086, P < 0.001). No association was found between timing of beginning PT and capsulitis rates. CONCLUSION: In the Medicare patient cohort, beginning PT within 1 week postoperatively was associated with a significantly higher revision surgery rate; however, no associated benefit was noted in capsulitis rates for beginning PT early. This calls into question the use of an early passive range of motion protocol for older patient cohort; however, further studies should be completed to conclusively determine the most efficacious time to begin rehabilitation post-RCR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Soft-Tissue Considerations in Shoulder Surgery in the Patient With Lymphedema.

Lymphedema is a chronic, progressive, and often debilitating condition that results in swelling of the affected tissue. Secondary lymphedema is most commonly recognized by unilateral swelling of the ipsilateral extremity after the treatment of cancer. It is estimated that nearly 1.45 million women suffer from breast cancer-related lymphedema in the United States. The number of patients suffering from upper extremity lymphedema is expected to increase because multimodal treatment of breast cancer increases the long-term survival after diagnosis. Because this population ages, the likelihood of encountering a patient with concurrent lymphedema and shoulder pathology requiring orthopaedic intervention is likely to rise. A patient with an already edematous arm and/or impaired drainage of that arm is likely to have different and more complex intraoperative and postoperative courses than patients with normal lymphatic drainage. Although a lymphedematous arm should not preclude surgical intervention, there are considerations when approaching shoulder surgery in the setting of upper extremity lymphedema that may help mitigate complications and aid the patient in their orthopaedic recovery.

A Majority of Single Versus Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Comparisons Fail to Consider Modern Single-Row Techniques: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable published research comparing single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) rotator cuff repairs. Conclusions of primary studies as well as multiple meta-analyses have differed. One underexplored factor has been the variability in techniques that are identified as "single-row" or "double-row." Our goal was to conduct a systematic review of primary research and meta-analyses comparing SR and DR fixation techniques, with attention to the specific technique types compared. METHODS: We evaluated meta-analyses and individual studies that directly compared SR and DR repairs. Primary studies from 8 high-quality meta-analyses published prior to 2014, and any Level-III or higher studies published from 2014 to 2019, were included. Specific techniques of repair were identified, and the manuscripts were classified on the basis of the specific type of simple or complex SR or DR repair that was performed. Conclusions of the studies were then assessed according to these classifications. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the eligibility criteria; 9 were Level-I studies, 7 were Level-II, and 6 were Level-III. Of the 22 studies, only 3 (14%) of the studies compared a biomechanically superior complex SR technique and a DR repair. The remaining 19 (86%) of the studies utilized biomechanically inferior, simple SR techniques in their comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: While there is a large amount of published evidence comparing SR and DR rotator cuff repair techniques, there are few studies assessing how the strongest SR techniques compare with DR techniques. This identifies a deficiency in the current understanding of rotator cuff repair techniques. Future studies specifically designed with these techniques in mind will help to further the understanding of which technique is clinically and financially superior in this continuously changing medical environment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cortical suture button fixation vs. bicortical screw fixation in the Latarjet procedure: a biomechanical comparison.

BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure traditionally has been performed with 2 screws in an open manner. Recently, cortical suture button fixation for coracoid transfer has been used in hopes of mitigating complications seen with screw placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate a cortical suture button and technique currently available in the United States compared with screw fixation in the Latarjet procedure in a cadaveric model. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (N = 18) to undergo the Latarjet procedure with either screw fixation or cortical suture button fixation. After fixation, all shoulders underwent biomechanical testing with direct loading on the graft vas a material testing system. Cyclic testing was performed for 100 cycles to determine axial displacement with time; each graft was then monotonically loaded to failure. RESULTS: The maximum cycle displacement was significantly less for screw fixation vs. cortical suture button fixation (3.1 ± 1.3 mm vs. 8.9 ± 2.1 mm, P < .0001). The total load at failure was 481.1 ± 88.8 N for screws and 175.5 ± 95.8 N for cortical suture buttons (P < .0001). Bony damage to the surrounding anatomy was more extensive at failure in the screw-fixation group. CONCLUSION: At time zero, the cortical button fixation and technique did not resist direct loads to the graft as much as traditional screw fixation, although bony damage to the surrounding anatomy was more extensive in screw fixation than button fixation. In the event of unanticipated loading, this could place a patient at higher risk of graft migration, which could lead to unintended early outcomes. These results support the need for implants and techniques specifically tailored to the Latarjet procedure and should bring into question the adoption of a cortical button and technique not specific to the procedure.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Humerus Fracture After Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With Interference Screw Versus Unicortical Button.

PURPOSE: To compare the torsional failure strength of the humerus after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw versus a unicortical button in a human cadaveric model. METHODS: Thirteen matched pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric upper extremities were randomized to receive either 2.6 × 12 mm unicortical button or 6.25-mm interference screw subpectoral biceps tenodesis. After the procedure, the humeri were loaded into a materials testing machine. The humeri were loaded in external rotation with respect to the elbow at 1.0°/s until failure. Rotation angle to failure, failure torque, energy absorbed, and stiffness were compared by paired t-tests with alpha set at 0.05. RESULTS: Humeri that were fixed with unicortical buttons showed statistically significant higher rotation to failure (26.87 ± 5.83 vs 19.04 ± 3.86°, P < .001), failure torque (54.11 ± 22.01 vs 44.95 ± 17.47 Nm, P < .001), and energy absorbed (883.93 ± 582.28 vs 451.40 ± 216.19 Nm-Deg, P = .002) than humeri fixed with interference screws. CONCLUSIONS: In a cadaveric biomechanical model, at time 0, the use of a 2.7 × 12-mm unicortical button fixation in biceps tenodesis resulted in higher loads required to fracture the humerus when compared with a 6.25-mm interference screw fixation in a torsion model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates a significant biomechanical difference with regards to fracture of the humerus, between 2 commonly used fixations methods and implant sizes, interference screw, and unicortical button. The results of this study can aid surgeons in implant selection as well as help to improve patient education prior to surgery.

The Incidence and Risk Factors of Scaphoid Fracture Associated With Radial Head and Neck Fracture in Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Scaphoid and radial head fractures are two injuries derived from the common fall on outstretched hand. How these injuries are related has not been fully investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for having concomitant proximal radius and scaphoid fractures. The goal was to identify at-risk patient populations and drive improvement in diagnosis and management of these injuries. METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 through 2012 identified 11,309 patients with proximal radius fracture, and, as a proxy for low-energy injury, an injury severity score of less than 15. These patients were then categorized by presence of concomitant scaphoid injury. Presence of scaphoid fracture was then analyzed based on age, sex, race, trauma type, mechanism, and injury severity score. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-eight (3%) scaphoid fractures among the 11,309 proximal radius fractures were identified. Both age and sex reached statistical significance as risk factors for concomitant scaphoid and radial head injury. There was an incremental increase in risk for concomitant injury with younger age. Subset analysis demonstrated a 10% incidence of concomitant fractures in men aged 18 to 30 years. DISCUSSION: This study provides a better understanding of how these two fractures are related. There is a markedly higher risk for concomitant injuries in male and young patients, especially those whose mechanism is a fall. Close examination of the wrist should be performed for any proximal radius fracture, and any pain should be a cause for further investigation of scaphoid injury.

Treatment of a 4-Part Proximal Humeral Fracture with a Concomitant Glenoid Fracture in an Elderly Patient: A Case Report.

CASE: Reported here is a single case of a highly comminuted fracture of the proximal aspect of the humerus with substantial humeral head displacement and a concomitant glenoid fracture encompassing >20% of the glenoid width. The fractures were treated simultaneously with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and open reduction and internal fixation, respectively. CONCLUSION: The 1-year follow-up demonstrated excellent pain control and a good functional outcome, with no signs of instability or implant complications.

Effect of Elbow Position on Load to Failure in Olecranon Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates if relative flexion or extension of the ulnohumeral joint affects the strength of repair in olecranon fractures treated with a precontoured locking plate. METHODS: A cadaveric study was performed in matched pair cadaveric elbows. All soft tissue was dissected from the radius, ulna, and elbow of each specimen, leaving interosseous ligaments and joint capsules intact. Soft tissue from the humerus was dissected away, leaving only the triceps tendon and ulnar insertions intact. An oblique proximal to distal olecranon osteotomy was created in each specimen 1 cm from the tip of the olecranon. Internal fixation with standard precontoured locking plates and a Krackow augmentation suture with #2 FiberWire followed. Specimens were randomized to elbow position of 90 or 20 degrees° and loaded to failure via axial pull through the triceps. Load at failure, displacement at the time of failure, peak load, stiffness, and mechanism of failure was recorded and compared. The study was repeated a second time with the osteotomy more proximal, 0.6 cm creating a smaller fragment with less opportunities for locking screw fixation. This small fragment group was then tested as the large fragment group had. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in load at failure, peak load, or stiffness between the elbow position in the large fragment group. Displacement at time of failure was significantly different, although not clinically relevant. Failure of fixation in this group was a mix of triceps avulsion and failure through fracture site. The smaller fragment group with less points of fixation demonstrated no statistically significant differences in any parameters. A majority of the failures were at the fracture site. CONCLUSIONS: Ulnohumeral position does not significantly affect overall construct strength even in olecranon fractures with small proximal fragments with limited points of fixation.