Nonsurgical treatment of Mason type II radial head fractures in athletes. A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The best treatment for moderately displaced radial head fractures (Mason type II) still remains controversial. In cases of isolated fractures, there is no evidence that a fragment displacement of ≥ 2 mm gives poor results in conservatively treated fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 52 patients (31M, 21F) affected by an isolated Mason type II fracture, treated with a long arm cast for two weeks between 2008 and 2013. All patients had practiced sports before being injured. They were all either bicyclists, or baseball, boxers, basketball, rugby, tennis or football players. The mean follow-up was 36 months. Elbow and forearm range of motion were measured. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score, the Broberg and Morrey rating system and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH score) were analyzed. Follow-up radiographs were examined for evidence of consolidation, late displacement, early arthritis and non-unions. RESULTS: Flexion was slightly impaired in the injured limb when compared to the uninjured limb (137°± 6° versus 139°±5°) as were extension (-3°±6° versus 1°±4°, p < 0.05), supination (86°±6° versus 88°±3°), pronation (87°±4° versus 88°±6°) and valgus deviation (10°±4° versus 8°±3°, p < 0.05). 40 patients had no elbow complaints; 9 patients experienced occasional pain, 2 a mild instability of the elbow, and 4 a mild loss of grip strength. The DASH score was excellent in 48 patients (92.31%). In only 6 cases (11.53%) degenerative changes were greater in formerly injured elbows than in uninjured elbows. All patients returned to their previous sports activities. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated Mason type II fractures can have a good or excellent mid-term functional outcome even when treated conservatively.

ACL reconstruction with hamstrings: how different technique and fixation devices influence bone tunnel enlargement.

BACKGROUND: Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is well documented in the literature. The cause of this tunnel enlargement is unclear, but is thought to be multifactorial, with mechanical and biological factors playing a role. AIM: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate how the different techniques may affect the bone tunnel enlargement and clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-five consecutive patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with autologous doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons entered this study. They were randomly assigned to enter group A (In-Out technique, with cortical fixation and Interference screw) and group B (Out-In technique, metal cortical fixation on the femour and tibia). At a mean follow-up of 10 months, all the patients underwent CT scan exam to evaluate the post-operative diameters of both femoral and they underwent tibial tunnels clinical examination after 24 months. RESULTS: The mean femoral tunnel diameter increased significantly from 9.05±0.3 mm to 10.01±2.3 mm in group A and from 9.04±0.8 mm to 9.3±1.12 mm in group B. The mean increase in femoral tunnel diameters observed in group A was significantly higher than that observed in group B (p < 0.05) The mean tibial tunnel diameter increased significantly from 9.03±0.04 mm to 10.68±2.5 mm in group A and from 9.04±0.03 mm to 10.±0.78 mm in group B. The mean increase in tibial tunnel diameters observed in group A was significantly higher than that observed in group B (p < 0.05). No clinical differences were found between two groups and no correlations between clinical and radiological results were found in any patients of both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study suggest that different mechanical fixation devices could influence tunnel widening. The lower stiffness of the fixation devices is probably responsible of the tunnel widening through the fixation devices's micromotions in the femoral and tibial tunnels.

Nanohydroxyapatite-based bone graft substitute in tunnel enlargement after ACL surgery: RMN study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: A successful anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) requires solid healing of the tendon graft in the bone tunnel. New biological strategies have already been proposed with the aim of improving ACL graft healing and therefore allowing a faster rehabilitative program. The aim of this prospective study was to clinically and radiologically evaluate the efficacy of nanohydroxyapatite bone-base grafts in facilitating bone-tendon incorporation after ACL reconstruction with hamstrings (HS). As far as we know, this is the first study that has tried to asses the efficacy of such a type of bone substitute on human beings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 male patients with chronic ACL rupture who underwent surgical reconstruction with 4-strand semitendinosus and gracilis tendon autograft via a single-bundle technique. Patients were randomly assigned to enter group A (20 patients, nanohydroxyapatite group) or group B (20 patients, control group). Preoperative and postoperative clinical evaluation was always performed, in a blinded way, assessing the Lachman and Pivot-shift tests and range of motion (ROM) of the affected knee. The Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level, subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) forms, and 30 lb KT-1000 arthrometer evaluations. Patients underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exam at 30, 90 and 180 days after surgery by the same musculoskeletal radiologist in a blinded way. RESULTS: As for the clinical evaluation, Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC scales, and KT-1000 arthrometer results did not show any significant difference between the two groups. Radiological data show a tendency toward better results in regard to the graft strength signal, the graftbone interface, and bone edema remodeling process, these parameters show significant differences between the two groups only at the short or mid-term follow-ups, while they are never significant at the mid-to long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion the use of nanohydroxyapatite bone substitute does not provide significant clinical improvements in terms of better knee stability or patient satisfaction.