An anatomic and 3D study of the development of the proximal humeral physis.

PURPOSE: During maturation, the ossification centers of the proximal humerus form a characteristic pattern consisting of a metaphyseal peak and corresponding epiphyseal valley. The surface topographies of the metaphyseal peak and epiphyseal valley are not well described and may have variation with age and structural importance to the pathogenesis of proximal humeral epiphysiolysis. METHODS: High-resolution 3-dimensional surface scans of 24 cadaveric proximal humeral epiphyses and metaphyses in specimens aged 3 to 18 years were obtained. Computer modeling software was used to measure the peak height of the metaphysis and maximal depth of the epiphysis relative to a perpendicular line drawn across the proximal humeral physis. RESULTS: The metaphyseal peak had a mean height of 12.7 ± 1.6 mm while the epiphyseal valley had a mean depth of 13.1 ± 2.1 mm, both consistently positioned in the posterolateral quadrant. Both the absolute metaphyseal peak height (R2 = 0.536; p < 0.001) and absolute epiphyseal valley depth (R2 = 0.524; p < 0.001) increase with advancing age. Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that normalized metaphyseal peak height + sex (adjusted R2 = 0.408; p < 0.002) correlated more with age than normalized epiphyseal valley depth + sex (adjusted R2 = 0.128; p < 0.091). CONCLUSION: Prominence of the metaphyseal peak and epiphyseal valley both increase with advancing age, with a lower correlation between normalized sizes with age as compared to the absolute sizes, suggesting that these structures stay relatively proportional with growth.

Outcomes of Nonoperative Pediatric Medial Humeral Epicondyle Fractures With and Without Associated Elbow Dislocation.

BACKGROUND: Medial epicondyle fractures may occur in isolation or with associated elbow dislocation. In the absence of open fracture or fragment incarceration, nonoperative management with immobilization has been shown to result in generally successfully outcomes comparable with those reported after surgical fixation. However, no comparative investigation has assessed outcomes after nonoperative treatment based on the presence or absence of elbow dislocation. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted investigating all studies in the literature reporting nonoperative outcomes for isolated medial epicondyle fractures and fracture-dislocations. Databases included in this review were PubMed, Biosis Preview, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and EMBASE. We sought to evaluate results related to the incidence and outcomes of bony nonunion and the incidence of elbow stiffness, pain, ulnar neuropathy, cubitus valgus deformity, and laxity between isolated fractures of the medial epicondyle and fracture-dislocations. RESULTS: Review of the literature yielded 7 studied meeting appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, comprising 81 total patients (n=42 patients with fracture-dislocations, n=39 patients with isolated fracture). Bony nonunion occurred in 69% (n=29) of patients with fracture-dislocation versus 49% (n=19) with isolated fractures (P=0.11); however, both groups had minimal clinical or functional disabilities at final follow-up. Decreased elbow flexion and extension range of motion were significantly more frequent after fracture-dislocation than isolated fractures [43% (n=18) vs. 15% (n=6), respectively, P=0.01], while patients rarely demonstrated pain, ulnar neuropathy, or deformity in the presence or absence of dislocation. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of absolute surgical indication, nonoperative management of isolated medical epicondyle fractures with or without concomitant elbow dislocation seems to be successful with few long-term complications leading to functional disability. However, increased rates of nonunion, elbow stiffness, and elbow laxity may occur with fracture-dislocations, and merit further study with validated functional outcome scores. Further comparative studies are necessary to determine the true indications and outcomes in nonoperatively managed medial epicondyle fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-systematic review of level-II or level-I studies with inconsistent results.

Imaging of Sarcopenia.

Sarcopenia is currently underdiagnosed and undertreated, but this is expected to change because sarcopenia is now recognized with a specific diagnosis code that can be used for billing in some countries, as well as an expanding body of research on prevention, diagnosis, and management. This article focuses on practical issues of increasing interest by highlighting 3 hot topics fundamental to understanding sarcopenia in older adults: definitions and terminology, current diagnostic imaging techniques, and the emerging role of opportunistic computed tomography.