Discrimination between pain and contracture in limited passive motion patients with rotator cuff tear: A STROBE-compliant cross-sectional study.

Either pain or contracture may limit shoulder passive range of motion (PROM) in patients with rotator cuff disease, and an appropriate treatment may be determined according to its cause. If there is no change in PROM under general anesthesia, contracture, rather than pain, may be the underlying condition. Our goal was to devise a physical examination that would help discriminate between pain and contracture in limited PROM patients with rotator cuff tear.This is a STROBE-compliant cross-sectional study. Patients with rotator cuff tears (N = 28) were scheduled for arthroscopic repair. The main outcome measure was PROM, including flexion, external rotation (ER), and abduction obtained by a blinded examiner before and after the induction of general anesthesia, and the abduction/ER ratio was calculated. In order to perform a subgroup analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups, one where abduction difference after the general anesthesia was 8°≤ (n = 22) and the other 8°> (n = 6).Patients' average age (62.6 ±â€Š7.2 years), symptom duration (13.0 ±â€Š10.0 months), intensity of shoulder pain on a visual analog scale (4.8 ±â€Š2.1), and Constant-Murley functional score (63.4 ±â€Š8.9); the ratio of gender (male: female = 12:16); and the arthroscopic findings were recorded. According to the correlation analysis, the abduction/ER ratio before general anesthesia was correlated best with the change in PROM after general anesthesia (correlation coefficient -0.74, P < .001); the correlations for abduction and flexion were -0.69 and -0.57, respectively (P < .001 and .002, respectively). The age, gender, height, weight, duration of symptoms, trauma history, visual analog score for shoulder pain, Constant-Murley functional score, size of rotator cuff tear, and biceps pathology did not differ significantly between the 2 groups in the subgroup analysis (P > .05). The only significant difference between the 2 groups was in the synovitis status (P = .04).Patients with greater abduction/ER ratio before anesthesia exhibited fewer PROM changes after anesthesia. The abduction/ER ratio was strongly and inversely correlated with PROM changes, allowing physicians to choose an appropriate treatment for limited PROM in patients with rotator cuff tears.

Preoperative evaluation of left common iliac vein in oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1.

PURPOSE: Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) L5-S1 is essentially to perform an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral position. Because the surgical procedures are performed "obliquely" over the left common iliac vein (LCIV), ensuring that the vein is protected which is particularly important. We aimed to evaluate the configuration of LCIV and its risk of mobilization during anterior approach at L5-S1 segment. METHODS: This study involved 65 consecutive patients who underwent anterior lumbar fusion (ALIF, n = 39; OLIF, n = 26) at the L5-S1 segment. Three independent examiners evaluated the configuration of the LCIV at the L5-S1 disc on axial magnetic resonance images of the lumbar spine. The LCIV was categorized into three types according to the difficulty of mobilization: type I (no requirement for mobilization; LCIV runs laterally for more than two-thirds of the length of the left side of the L5-S1 disc), type II (easy mobilization; LCIV obstructs the L5-S1 disc space, but the perivascular adipose tissue is present under the LCIV), and type III (potentially difficult mobilization; no perivascular adipose tissue under the LCIV). The patient records were reviewed for vascular complications. RESULTS: There were 21 men and 44 women in this study, with a mean age of 63.4 years (range 19-83 years). Type I LCIV configuration was found in 32 (49.2%) patients, type II in 18 (27.7%), and type III in 15 (23.1%). There were 7 (10.8%) patients with LCIV injury (type I, n = 0; type II, n = 2; type III, n = 5) (P = 0.003). Intraobserver reliability for the LCIV classification ranged from substantial to excellent, and interobserver reliability ranged from moderate to excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative evaluation for anterior approach to the L5-S1 segment should take account of the LCIV position, as well as the difficulty of its mobilization. The type III LCIV configuration showed a high rate of vascular injury.

Stepwise Percutaneous Leverage Technique to Avoid Posterior Interosseous Nerve Injury in Pediatric Radial Neck Fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce a stepwise percutaneous leverage technique to avoid posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) injury in pediatric patients with radial neck fractures and to evaluate the clinical outcome and the predisposing factors affecting the outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective case series study. SETTING: University level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: Thirty-four children with a radial neck fracture, who were treated using a stepwise percutaneous leverage technique, were included in the study. INTERVENTION: The radial head fragment was reduced by pulling the first Steinmann pin proximally as a lever. Then, the kinked soft tissue was released by removal of the Steinmann pin with buttressing the radial head by the operator's thumb. The second Steinmann pin was inserted into relaxed soft tissue for fixation of the radial head. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: We used the Métaizeau classification as a radiologic result and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) as a clinical outcome. Regression analysis was performed to identify the predisposing factors affecting the outcome. RESULTS: There was no occurrence of PIN palsy. According to the Métaizeau classification, 23 cases were classified as excellent, 9 as good, 1 as fair, and 1 as poor. The average MEPS was 97.6 points. Based on the regression analysis, only the postoperative Métaizeau classification was confirmed as a risk factor of a relatively poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The stepwise percutaneous leverage technique can be considered a good option in the treatment of pediatric radial neck fractures, because it ensures excellent results by avoiding injury to soft tissues including the PIN. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.