Relationship between ultrasonographic hand muscle thickness measurements and muscle strength following median or ulnar nerve reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between ultrasonographic hand muscle thickness measurements and hand muscle strength in patients who underwent median or ulnar nerve reconstruction. METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional study, intrinsic hand muscle thicknesses were measured using ultrasound with a 4- to 13-MHz linear-array probe. Measurements of hand strength were performed using a dynamometer and a pinchmeter. RESULTS: In the median nerve group (n = 11), a moderate correlation (r = 0.694; P = .018) was observed between lateral pinch strength and transverse thenar thickness. In the ulnar nerve group (n = 11), longitudinal thenar thickness below the flexor pollicis longus tendon was moderate to highly correlated with pinch and handgrip strengths (r = 0.726-0.893; P < .05); whole transverse thenar thickness was moderate to highly correlated with pinch strengths (r = 0.724-0.836; P < .05). DISCUSSION: Sonographic measurements of intrinsic hand muscle thickness may be a useful tool for the assessment and follow-up of patients with median or ulnar nerve injury.

Bypass surgery in a mangled forearm using an intramedullary tunnel through the radius.

Critical ischemia in the upper extremity is rare. A surgical bypass is thought to be the superior treatment option. We describe a rare case where regular tunneling options of the bypass were not available and an intramedullary tunnel was used.

Union Rates and Reported Range of Motion Are Acceptable After Open Forearm Fractures in Military Combatants.

BACKGROUND: High-energy open forearm fractures are unique injuries frequently complicated by neurovascular and soft tissue injuries. Few studies have evaluated the factors associated with nonunion and loss of motion after these injuries, particularly in the setting of blast injuries. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) In military service members with high-energy open forearm fractures, what proportion achieved primary or secondary union? (2) What is the pronation-supination arc of motion as stratified by the presence or absence of heterotopic ossification (HO) and synostosis? (3) What are the risks of heterotopic ossification and synostosis? (4) What factors may be associated with forearm fracture nonunion? METHODS: A retrospective study of all open forearm fractures treated at a tertiary military referral center from January 2004 to December 2014 was performed. In all, 76 patients were identified and three were excluded, leaving 73 patients for inclusion. All 73 patients had serial radiographs to assess for HO and union. Only 64 patients had rotational range of motion (ROM) data. All patients returned to the operating room at least once after initial irrigation and débridement to ensure the soft tissue envelope was stable before definitive fixation. The indication for repeat irrigation and débridement was determined by clinical appearance. Patient demographics, fracture and soft tissue injury patterns, surgical treatments, neurovascular status at the time of injury, incidence of infection, heterotopic ossification (defined as the presence of heterotopic bone visible on serial radiographs), radioulnar synostosis, bony status after initial definitive treatment (union, nonunion, or amputation), and forearm rotation at final followup were retrospectively obtained from chart review by someone other than the operating surgeon. Seventy-six open forearm fractures in 76 patients were reviewed; 73 patients were examined for osseous union as three went on to early amputation, and 64 patients had forearm ROM data available for analysis. Union was determined by earliest radiology or orthopaedic staff official dictation stating the fracture was healed. Nonunion was defined as the clinical determination by the orthopaedist for a repeat procedure to achieve bony union. Secondary union was defined as union after reoperation to achieve bony union, and final union was defined as overall percentage of patients who were healed at final followup. Of the patients analyzed for union, 20 had less than 1 year of followup, and of these, none had nonunion. Of the patients analyzed for ROM, eight patients had less than 6 months of followup (range, 84-176 days). Of these, one patient had decreased ROM, none had a synostosis, and the remaining had > 140° of motion. RESULTS: Initial treatment resulted in primary union in 62 of 73 patients (85%); secondary union was achieved in eight of 11 patients (73%); and final union was achieved in 70 of 73 patients (96%). Although pronation-supination arc in patients without HO was 140° ± 35°, a limited pronation-supination arc was primarily associated with synostosis (arc: 40° ± 40°; mean difference from patients without HO: 103° [95% confidence interval {CI}, 77°-129°], p < 0.001); patients with HO but without synostosis had fewer limitations to ROM than those with synostosis (arc: 110° ± 80°, mean difference: 77° [35°-119°], p < 0.001). Heterotopic ossification developed in 40 of 73 patients (55%), including a radioulnar synostosis in 14 patients (19%). Bone loss at the fracture site (relative risk (RR) 6.2; 95% CI, 1.8-21) and healing complicated by infection (RR, 9.9; 95% CI, 4.9-20) were associated with the development of nonunion after initial treatment. Other potential factors such as smoking status, vascular injury, both-bone involvement, need for free flap coverage and blast mechanism were not associated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high-energy mechanism of injury and high rate of soft tissue defects, the ultimate probability of fracture union in our series was high with a low infection risk. Nonunions were associated with bone loss and deep infection. Functional motion was achieved in most patients despite increased burden of HO and synostosis compared with civilian populations. However, if synostosis did not develop, HO itself did not appear to interfere with functional ROM. Future investigations may provide improved decision-making tools for timing of fixation and prophylactic means against HO synostosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Recovery of Bone Mineral Mass After Upper Limb Fractures in Children and Teenagers.

BACKGROUND: Loss of bone mineral mass and muscle atrophy are predictable consequences of cast-mediated immobilization following wrist and forearm fractures. This study aimed to prospectively determine whether previously reported lower bone mineral mass following immobilization for wrist and forearm fractures in children and teenagers had recovered at 6- and 18-month follow-up. METHODS: We recruited 50 children and teenagers who underwent a cast-mediated immobilization for a forearm or wrist fracture. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans of different skeletal sites were performed at the time of fracture, at cast removal, at 6 and at 18-month follow-up. Injured patients were paired with healthy controls according to sex and age. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry values were compared between groups and the injured and uninjured forearms of the patients. RESULTS: At the time of fracture, injured and healthy subjects showed no differences between their bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) z-scores at the lumbar spine, or between their BMDs at the peripheral wrist. At cast removal, upper limb bone mineral variables were significantly lower in the injured group (except for the ultradistal radius) than in the uninjured group, with differences ranging from 3.8% to 10.2%. No residual decrease in bone mineral variables was observed at any upper limb site at 6- and 18-month follow-up (28 injured patients). Significant residual increases in the BMDs and BMCs were observed for the injured group's ultradistal radius and whole wrists (+4.8% to +5.2%). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid bone mass reversal occurs by resumption of mobilization, with full bone recovery 6 months after a forearm or wrist fracture. Finally, healing bone callus could introduce a bias into the interpretation of BMD and BMC data at the fracture site, not only at cast removal but also 18 months after the fracture.

[Posttraumatic torsional deformities of the forearm : Methods of measurement and decision guidelines for correction]. / Posttraumatische Torsionsfehler am Unterarm : Messmethoden und Entscheidungsleitfaden für die Korrektur.

Forearm fractures are common in all age groups. Even if the adjacent joints are not directly involved, these fractures have an intra-articular character. One of the most common complications of these injuries is a painful limitation of the range of motion and especially of pronation and supination. This is often due to an underdiagnosed torsional deformity; however, in recent years new methods have been developed to make these torsional differences visible and quantifiable through the use of sectional imaging. The principle of measurement corresponds to that of the torsion measurement of the lower limbs. Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are created at defined heights. By searching for certain landmarks, torsional angles are measured in relation to a defined reference line. A new alternative is the use of 3D reformation models. The presence of a torsional deformity, especial of the radius, leads to an impairment of the pronation and supination of the forearm. In the presence of torsional deformities, radiological measurements can help to decide if an operation is needed or not. Unlike the lower limbs, there are still no uniform cut-off values as to when a correction is indicated. Decisions must be made together with the patient by taking the clinical and radiological results into account.

Single- versus double-bundle suture button reconstruction of the forearm interosseous membrane for the chronic Essex-Lopresti lesion.

PURPOSE: Reconstruction of the ruptured interosseous membrane (IOM) is critical to restore forearm stability for the chronic Essex-Lopresti injury. Positive outcomes have been reported following IOM reconstruction with a single-bundle suture button (Mini-Tightrope) construct, although recent work suggests that double-bundle Mini-TightRope® IOM reconstruction is biomechanically superior. The purpose of this study was to determine whether double-bundle Mini-TightRope® reconstruction of the forearm IOM results in superior clinical outcomes to the single-bundle technique. METHODS: Five patients with chronic Essex-Lopresti injuries treated with double-bundle Mini-TightRope® IOM reconstruction were matched to five patients treated with single-bundle Mini-TightRope® reconstruction. Improvement in clinical examination measures and patient-reported outcomes was compared between the groups. RESULTS: Results were good to excellent in all 10 patients. At final follow-up, forearm rotation was significantly better in the single-bundle group, while maintenance of ulnar variance was better in the double-bundle group. No significant differences were noted between the two groups for any other numerical outcomes, and no complications occurred. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that while IOM reconstruction with a double-bundle Mini-TightRope® construct results in greater resistance to proximal migration of the radius in the intermediate term, there is a modest concomitant loss of forearm rotation when compared to single-bundle reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV.

When is it ok to use a splint versus cast and what remodeling can one expect for common pediatric forearm fractures.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of common pediatric forearm fractures, clarify the descriptions used to identify and thereby appropriately treat them with a splint or cast, and explain osseous remodeling that is unique to the skeletally immature. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent literature addresses the gap in standard treatment protocols. There is variability in the management of pediatric forearm fractures because of the multiple subspecialty physicians that care for children's fractures and a lack of well established guidelines. CONCLUSION: The following review will expound upon the assortment of pediatric forearm fractures, address suitable treatment options, and illustrate the expected restoration of bony deformity in an effort to update practitioners of the most recent advances in research and clinical practice of this common orthopedic injury.

Forearm Instability: Anatomy, Biomechanics, and Treatment Options.

The forearm unit consists of the radius and ulna, a complex and interrelated set of joints (distal radioulnar joint, proximal radioulnar joint) and the soft tissue stabilizers between the 3 bones. Distally, this is represented by the triangular fibrocartilage complex at the wrist, proximally by the annular ligament at the elbow, and in the forearm by the interosseous membrane. Disruptions in any of these structures may lead to forearm instability, with consequences at each of the remaining structures.

Compartment Pressures in Children With Normal and Fractured Forearms: A Preliminary Report.

INTRODUCTION: Acute compartment syndrome (ACS) can lead to irreversible damage if fasciotomy is not performed in a timely manner. Needle manometry is a tool to confirm suspected ACS. The threshold for compartment pressures that can be tolerated has been debated. The aim of this study is to assess the normal compartment pressures in noninjured forearms of children. Further, we sought to quantify the maximum tolerable compartment pressures in fractured forearms of children, thus establishing a baseline and providing guidance in evidence-based decision making to evaluate children with suspected ACS. METHODS: This prospective study included children up to the age of 16 years with forearm fractures that needed reduction with or without osteosynthesis. Between June 2009 and March 2013, 41 children were included. Mean age was 9.25 years (range, 4 to 15.4 y). We used needle manometry to measure the pressures in the superficial and deep volar as well as in the dorsal compartments (DCs) on both the forearms. The mean pressures between compartments in healthy versus injured arms were analyzed using a 1-sided, paired t test. RESULTS: On the injured side, the mean compartment pressure was 19.12 mm Hg (range, 3 to 49 mm Hg) in the deep volar compartment, 15.56 mm Hg (range, 5 to 37 mmHg) in the DC, and 14.8 mm Hg (range, 2 to 35 mm Hg) in the superficial volar compartment. On the noninjured side, the mean compartment pressure was 12.9 mm Hg (range, 6 to 31 mm Hg) in the DC, 10.22 mm Hg (range, 3 to 22 mm Hg) in the deep volar compartment, and 9.66 mm Hg (range, 3 to 21 mm Hg) in the superficial volar compartment. We measured an absolute compartment pressure of >30 mm Hg in 15 patients on the fractured side. Three of them had an absolute compartment pressure of >45 mm Hg. Only 1 had ACS. This patient underwent fasciotomy and was excluded for further analysis. On follow-up (mean, 24.84 mo), no patient was found to have any sequelae of ACS. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to report normal compartment pressure measurements in noninjured forearms and in fractured forearms without clinical suspicion of ACS in children.The mean compartment pressure measured in the deep volar compartment (DVC) in healthy children was 10.22 mm Hg (range, 3 to 22 mm Hg) and therefore slightly higher than in adults. Some children with fractures tolerated absolute compartment pressures >30 mm Hg without clinical signs of ACS. Fasciotomy in children under close observation could eventually be delayed despite surpassing the accepted pressure limits for adults. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I-prognostic.

Flexible Intramedullary Nailing of Pediatric Humeral Fractures: Indications, Techniques, and Tips.

Most proximal and diaphyseal pediatric humeral fractures can be treated successfully by closed means; however, certain patient factors or fracture characteristics may make surgical stabilization with flexible intramedullary nails (FIN) a better choice. Common indications for FIN of pediatric humeral fractures include unstable proximal-third fractures in children nearing skeletal maturity, unstable distal metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction fractures, shaft fractures in polytraumatized patients or patients with ipsilateral both-bone forearm fractures (floating elbow), and prophylactic stabilization of benign diaphyseal bone cysts or surgical stabilization of pathologic fractures. FIN can be safely inserted in an antegrade or retrograde manner depending on the fracture location and configuration. Careful dissection at the location of rod insertion can prevent iatrogenic nerve injuries. Rapid fracture union and return to full function can be expected in most cases. Implant prominence is the most common complication.

Injury complexity factors predict heterotopic ossification restricting motion after elbow trauma.

BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a common extrinsic cause of elbow stiffness after trauma. However, factors associated with the development of HO are incompletely understood. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We retrospectively identified (1) patient-related demographic factors, (2) injury-related factors, and (3) treatment-related factors associated with the development of HO severe enough to restrict motion after surgery for elbow trauma. We also determined what percentage of the variation in HO restricting motion was explained by the variables studied. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2007, we performed surgery on 417 adult patients for elbow fractures; of these, 284 (68%) were available for radiographs at a minimum of 4 months and clinical review at a minimum of 6 months after surgery (mean, 7.9 months; range, 6­31 months). HO was classified according to the Hastings and Graham system. Patients with HO restricting motion (defined as a Hastings and Graham Class II or III) were compared with patients without HO restricting motion in terms of demographics, fracture location, elbow dislocation, open wound, mechanism of injury, ipsilateral fracture, head trauma, time from injury to surgery, number of surgeries within 4 weeks, total number of surgeries, bone graft, and infection, using bivariate and multivariable analyses. A total of 96 patients had radiographic HO, and in 27 (10% of those available for followup), it restricted motion. RESULTS: There were no patient-related demographic factors that predicted the formation of symptomatic HO. Ulnohumeral dislocation in addition to fracture (odds ratio, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.01­5.64; p = 0.048) but not fracture location was associated with HO. Longer time from injury to definitive surgery and number of surgical procedures in the first 4 weeks were also independent predictors of HO (p = 0.01 and 0.004, respectively). These factors explained 20% of the variance in risk for HO restricting motion. CONCLUSIONS: HO restricting motion after operative elbow fracture treatment associates with factors that seem related to injury complexity, in particular, ulnohumeral dislocation, delay, and number of early surgeries; however, a substantial portion of the variation among patients with elbow fracture who develop restrictive HO remains unexplained. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparative study of simple and complex open elbow dislocations.

BACKGROUND: Open elbow dislocations are rare injuries. Most of the evidence related to these dislocations is found in case reports or in series with closed injuries. We reviewed the experiences of three centers in the treatment of open elbow dislocations. QUESTION/PURPOSES: We compared the results after operative treatment of simple and complex open dislocations in terms of (1) ROM, (2) functional score, and (3) complications. METHODS: Eighteen patients were retrospectively included in this study: 11 with simple open elbow dislocations and seven with complex open elbow dislocations. Mean age was 40 years. Thirteen were men. Eight patients presented neurovascular injuries. Evaluation included ROM of the elbow and forearm as measured by hand-held goniometer. We then classified the results using the 100-point Broberg and Morrey functional rating index based on ROM, grip strength, elbow stability, and pain. Scores of 95 to 100 were considered excellent, 80 to 94 good, 60 to 79 fair, and less than 60 poor. Complications were recorded. Minimum followup was 6 months (mean, 25 months; range, 6-72 months). RESULTS: We found no differences between simple and complex open elbow dislocations related to ROM (median flexion/extension: 117° versus 110°, p = 0.12; forearm rotation: 160° versus 170°, p = 0.67). According to the Broberg and Morrey score, four patients had excellent results, five good, and one fair in the simple dislocation group, whereas in the complex dislocation group, four patients had excellent results, two good, and one fair (p = 0.8). No difference in complication rate was found between groups (p = 0.63). All complications in the simple dislocation group were neurovascular. In the complex dislocation group, there was one case of brachial artery occlusion, two cases of heterotopic ossification, one case of infection and nonunion, and one case of infection. No patients had recurrent elbow instability. CONCLUSIONS: No differences between simple and complex open elbow dislocations were found in terms of ROM, functional results, and rate of complications. Complications in the simple dislocation group were related to neurovascular injuries in contrast to the complex dislocation group where complications were associated with the bony injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The management of elbow instability using an internal joint stabilizer: preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical and surgical treatments such as immobilization, transarticular pinning, and hinged or nonhinged external fixation have been used to treat unstable elbows. These methods all have drawbacks. We thought that a bent Steinmann pin introduced through the axis of ulnohumeral rotation and attached to the ulna could provide an improved method of treatment and that this could result in the development of a proper internal joint fixator that may have widespread application. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Does a fully internal hinged fixator crafted intraoperatively by the surgeon from a Steinmann pin for patients undergoing surgery for severe elbow instability result in restoration of range of motion and elbow stability? Does it result in new complications? METHODS: We reviewed the first 10 patients treated with the method for elbow instability. Diagnoses included fracture-dislocations of the elbow that remain unstable after fracture repair and unstable elbows that result from release of contracture or ulnohumeral synostosis. During that time, all patients meeting these criteria who underwent surgery by this surgeon (JLO) were treated with this approach. Charts, radiographs, and therapy notes were assessed at a minimum of 14 months (mean, 32 months; range, 14-59 months); no patients were lost to followup. Data recorded included age, sex, and elbow and forearm range of motion as well as any complications and reoperations that occurred. The absence of elbow instability was determined initially by radiographically observing concentric reduction of the ulnohumeral and radiocapitellar joints and later by radiography plus the absence of clinical signs and symptoms of elbow instability. RESULTS: Mean range of motion at latest followup was flexion 134°, extension -19°, pronation 75°, and supination 64°. All elbows were clinically and radiographically stable. Complications resulting in additional procedures occurred in four patients, including one recurrent deep infection in a patient with a remote history of sepsis, one wound hematoma that resolved after a drainage procedure performed in the office, one prominent implant treated by partial removal, and one patient with heterotopic ossification treated with excision of the heterotopic bone. CONCLUSIONS: This technique restores elbow stability and permits motion without the use of transcutaneous pins. It seems promising for the treatment of patients with severe elbow instability but requires a second procedure for removal. Further investigation is needed to understand its place in the surgeon's toolbox and what drawbacks it may have. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Complications of hinged external fixation compared with cross-pinning of the elbow for acute and subacute instability.

BACKGROUND: Elbows that are unstable after injury or reconstructive surgery often are stabilized using external fixation or cross-pinning of the joint supplemented by cast immobilization. The superiority of one approach or the other remains a matter of debate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared patients treated with external fixation or cross-pinning in terms of (1) adverse events, (2) Broberg and Morrey scores, and (3) ROM. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2010, 19 patients (19 elbows) had hinged external fixation and 10 patients (11 elbows) cross-pinning and casting for subacute or acute posttraumatic elbow instability. Our general indications for both techniques were persistent elbow instability after usual treatment. Initially, we used external fixation for delayed treatment of fracture-dislocations and cross-pinning for simple elbow dislocations in patients who could not tolerate surgery, but more recently we have used cross-pinning for both indications. Adverse events, elbow scores, and ROM were retrospectively evaluated by chart review, with the latter two end points being calculated at a mean of 31 months (range, 5-83 months) and 10 months (range, 5-21 months) after index procedure for the patients treated with external fixation and cross-pinning, respectively. RESULTS: Seven of 19 patients treated with external fixation experienced nine device-related adverse events: three pin tract infections, two nerve problems, one broken pin, one residual subluxation, one suture abscess, and one pin tract fracture of the ulna resulting in a nonunion. Of the 10 patients (11 elbows) treated with cross-pinning, one patient had pin tract inflammation that resolved with pin removal. Mean Broberg and Morrey score was 90 (95% CI, 84-95) after external fixation and 90 (95% CI, 84-96) after cross-pinning (p = 0.88). There were no differences between the external fixation and cross-pinning groups in mean flexion (123° versus 128°, p = 0.49), extension (29° versus 29°, p = 0.97), forearm pronation (68° versus 74°, p = 0.56), and forearm supination (47° versus 68°, p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: When the elbow remains unstable after reduction and usual treatment for fractures and dislocations or has been out of place for more than 2 weeks, both cross-pinning and external fixation can help maintain elbow alignment while structures heal. Hinged external fixation is associated with more adverse events related to the device, but Broberg and Morrey score and ROM are similar between techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcomes of free adipofascial flaps combined with tenolysis in scarred beds.

PURPOSE: To review our outcomes of transferring vascularized free adipofascial flaps used to change the local tissue conditions at the time of tenolysis in adhesion-prone beds. METHODS: Eleven free adipofascial flaps were transplanted in 10 patients after tenolysis on the forearm (3 cases), the dorsum of the hand (5 cases), or the dorsum of the proximal phalanx (3 cases). All recipient areas had badly scarred beds, 7 of which had previously failed tenolyses. In addition to tenolysis (10) or the insertion of bridging tendon grafts (1), arthrolysis of several involved joints and bone fixation for nonunion (3 cases) were carried out simultaneously. The adipofascial flap was then wrapped around the tendons or interposed between the scarred tissue and the freed tendons. In 8 cases, the flap was the lateral arm adipofascial flap, whereas adipose flaps from the toes were used for the fingers. RESULTS: All flaps survived without vascular crisis. In all cases, total active motion was similar to the passive motion obtained at surgery. Average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score improved from 69 to 10, and average Patient-Rated Wrist Hand Evaluation score improved from 65 to 9. Secondary surgery was needed to reduce the bulk of the flap in 3 patients. One patient required an additional procedure to obtain an optimum result. CONCLUSIONS: Free adipofascial flaps provided satisfying results in this group of patients. The flaps should be considered when the bed is scarred or after a failed tenolysis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Factors affecting supination strength after a distal biceps rupture.

HYPOTHESIS: This study quantified pain (visual analog pain scale [VAPS]), disability (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH]) and isometric supination torque at 3 forearm positions in a prospective cohort of biceps-deficient arms to assess the potential for functional return with nonoperative treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three men (50 ± 11 years) with complete unilateral distal biceps avulsion underwent isometric supination strength testing of both limbs at 60° of supination, 0° (neutral), and 60° of pronation. After exclusion of 1 outlier patient, the mean time from injury to evaluation was 44 days (range, 4-455 days). Pain level (VAPS) and functional outcome (DASH) were assessed; supination strength was normalized to the uninjured arm. RESULTS: The uninjured arm was stronger (P < .001), and peak torque varied with forearm position (P < .043). Peak torque was greater in pronation compared with supination, regardless of injury (P < .002). No differences were detected in supination strength as a result of forearm position or arm dominance. Supination strength did not correlate with time from injury to evaluation. One patient regained supination strength (115%) at 60° of pronation and 72% in neutral with a lengthy time from injury. VAPS (5 of 10) and DASH (39 of 100) scores decreased with time and did not relate to supination strength. CONCLUSION: Biceps tendon rupture led to a 60% decrease in supination strength in the neutrally oriented forearm. Peak torque observations can be explained using forearm moment arms. VAPS and DASH scores decreased with time but did not affect strength. We speculate that supination strength from pronation to neutral can improve as one strengthens the brachioradialis but strength deficits from neutral to supination are more difficult to overcome.

Think twice before re-manipulating distal metaphyseal forearm fractures in children.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of displaced paediatric distal forearm fractures is not always successful. Re-occurrence of angular deformity is a frequent complication. No consensus exists when to perform secondary manipulations. The purpose of this study was to analyse the long-term outcome of re-angulated paediatric forearm fractures to determine if re-manipulations can be avoided. METHODS: Children who underwent closed reduction for distal forearm fractures and presented with re-angulation at follow-up were included in this retrospective cohort study. We compared those that were re-manipulated to those managed conservatively. Re-angulation was defined as ≥15° of angulation on either the AP or lateral view. Children were reviewed after 1-8 years post injury. Outcome measures were residual angulation on radiographs, active range of motion, grip strength, Visual Analogue Scales (satisfaction, cosmetics and pain) and the ABILHANDS-kids questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty-six children (mean age of 9.6 years) were included. Twenty-four fractures were re-manipulated and 42 fractures had been left to heal in angulated position. At time of re-angulation, children <12 years in the conservative group had similar angulations to those re-manipulated. Children ≥12 years in the re-manipulation group had significantly greater angulations than children in the conservative group. At final follow-up, after a mean of 4.0 years, near anatomical alignment was seen on radiographs in all patients. Functional outcome was predominantly excellent. There was no significant difference in functional, subjective or radiological outcomes between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Re-manipulation of distal forearm fractures in children <12 years did not improve outcomes, deeming re-manipulations unnecessary. Children ≥12 years in the conservative group achieved satisfactory outcomes despite re-angulations exceeding current guidelines. Based on observed remodelling, we now accept up to 30° angulation in children <9 years; 25° angulation in children aged 9-<12; 20° angulation in children ≥12 years, when re-angulation occurs. We conclude that clinicians should be more reluctant to perform re-manipulations.

The sensory restoration in radial nerve injury using the first branch of dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve--a cadaveric study for the feasibility of procedure and case demonstration.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the new sensory restoration technique in radial nerve injury using the first branch of dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve as the donor sensory nerve. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Forty formalin-preserved cadavers (18 males and 22 females) were used as the subjects of the present study. The localization of the origin of first branch of dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve was performed. The measurement was done to determine the origin of this nerve in relation to the tip of ulnar styloid. The simulated transfer was done. The length of the superficial radial nerve that had to be cut was determined. The measurement was done by two observers to determine the reliability of measurement. RESULTS: The mean horizontal distance (X) to the origin of first branch of dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve measured from the tip of ulnar styloid on the right and left side were 5.22 mm and 6.51 mm respectively. The mean vertical distance (Y) to the origin of first branch of dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve measured from the tip of ulnar styloid on the right and left side were -7.72 mm and -4.37 mm respectively. The mean length of superficial radial nerve that had to be cut to allow tension free anastomosis, measured from the tip of radial styloid on the right and left side were 68.21 mm and 65.92 mm respectively. The estimated average size of the transferred branch of ulnar cutaneous nerve was about 70% of the size of superficial radial nerve. CONCLUSION: The sensory restoration in radial nerve injury using sensory nerve transfer from the first branch of dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve was technically feasible regarding to the comparable size between two nerves and anatomic consistency of the first branch of dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve.

Women with previous fragility fractures can be classified based on bone microarchitecture and finite element analysis measured with HR-pQCT.

UNLABELLED: High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) measurements of distal radius and tibia bone microarchitecture and finite element (FE) estimates of bone strength performed well at classifying postmenopausal women with and without previous fracture. The HR-pQCT measurements outperformed dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at classifying forearm fractures and fractures at other skeletal sites. INTRODUCTION: Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) is the primary measurement used to assess osteoporosis and fracture risk; however, it does not take into account bone microarchitecture, which also contributes to bone strength. Thus, our objective was to determine if bone microarchitecture measured with HR-pQCT and FE estimates of bone strength could classify women with and without low-trauma fractures. METHODS: We used HR-pQCT to assess bone microarchitecture at the distal radius and tibia in 44 postmenopausal women with a history of low-trauma fracture and 88 age-matched controls from the Calgary cohort of the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) study. We estimated bone strength using FE analysis and simulated distal radius aBMD from the HR-pQCT scans. Femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) aBMD were measured with DXA. We used support vector machines (SVM) and a tenfold cross-validation to classify the fracture cases and controls and to determine accuracy. RESULTS: The combination of HR-pQCT measures of microarchitecture and FE estimates of bone strength had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.82 when classifying forearm fractures compared to an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 from DXA-derived aBMD of the forearm and 0.63 from FN and spine DXA. For all fracture types, FE estimates of bone strength at the forearm alone resulted in an AUC of 0.69. CONCLUSION: Models based on HR-pQCT measurements of bone microarchitecture and estimates of bone strength performed better than DXA-derived aBMD at classifying women with and without prior fracture. In future, these models may improve prediction of individuals at risk of low-trauma fracture.

Temporal trends in the incidence of osteoporotic fractures.

Osteoporotic fractures are associated with excess mortality and decreased functional capacity and quality of life. Age-standardized incidence rates of fragility fractures, particularly of the hip and forearm, have been noted to be decreasing in the last decade across many countries with the notable exception of Asia. The causes for the observed changes in fracture risk have not been fully identified but are likely the result of multiple factors, including birth cohort and period effects, increasing obesity, and greater use of anti-osteoporosis medications. Changing rates of fragility fractures would be expected to have an important impact on the burden of osteoporosis.