Importance of detection of capitellar cartilage injuries concomitant with isolated radial head fractures: A retrospective clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the injury pattern and clinical importance of concomitant capitellar cartilage defects (CCDs) among patients treated surgically for radial head fracture (RHF). METHODS: A total of 74 patients who were treated surgically for isolated RHFs were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 12 patients with CCDs (16.2%) were classified as Group I (10 men; mean age, 41.3±12.8 years) and the remaining 62 patients without CCD as Group II (control group) (48 men; mean age, 50.8±13 years). The mean follow-up was 21.3±3.2 months in Group I and 18.7±6.4 in Group II. In Group I, 11 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation, whereas 1 patient was treated by radial head resection. The preoperative range of motion (ROM) was recorded; the severity of RHF was assessed using the Mason classification. The location, size, and thickness of CCD injuries at the time of surgery were also documented. At the final follow-up, radiological assessment was performed to determine the bone union, and clinical measurements, including ROM and the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), were performed. The clinical features of the 2 groups were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: In Group I, 10 patients showed limited forearm rotation. CCD was located posterolaterally in 11 patients and anterolaterally in 1 patient. At the final follow-up, 11 patients from Group I who underwent open reduction and internal fixation showed complete union of RHF and full recovery of pronation and supination. According to the MEPS, 9 patients exhibited excellent results, and 3 patients exhibited good results. In Group I, RHFs were classified as Mason type II in 7 patients (58.3%) and type III in 4 patients (58.3%). In Group II, RHFs were type II in 45 patients (72.6%) and type III in 17 patients (27.4%). In comparative analyses, there was a significant difference in age (41.3±12.8 versus 50.8±13.0, p=0.041) between the 2 groups. Preoperative pronation/supination was higher in Group II (131.7±36.2) than in Group I (106.3±31.6) (p=0.021). There were no significant differences in sex (p=0.097), follow-up period (p=0.326), Mason type (p=0.482), preoperative extension/flexion (102.3±43.3 [Group I] versus 107.6±44.9 [Group II]) (p=0.584), final follow-up extension/flexion (133.3±10.7 [Group I] versus 126.9±21.2 [Group II]) (p=0.384), pronation/supination (151.2±9.1 [Group I] versus 151.2±13.3 [Group II]) (p=0.558), and the MEPSs (92.9±6.6 [Group I] versus 93.3±7.5 [Group II]) (p=0.701). CONCLUSION: If a thorough physical examination of a patient with RHF reveals limited forearm rotation, effort must be made to identify the cause, and the possibility of CCD must be considered. Moreover, there is a need for careful observation during RHF surgery for not only fracture reduction or fixation but also possible CCD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Study.

Treatment of unusual locked posterior fracture-dislocation of the shoulder: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Locked posterior fracture-dislocation of the shoulder (LPFDS) is a very rare injury that occurs predominantly in young patients following high-energy trauma. The long-term outcome of the treatment of this injury is often poor. This study sought to present the characteristics of injury, discuss the pathological anatomy, and to report the treatment outcomes of our case series. METHODS: Between January 2012 and May 2018, a total of 234 patients who underwent surgical treatment for proximal humerus fractures were reviewed. Among them, six patients (mean age, 54.7 years; range, 35-76 years) with LPFDS were included in this study. Four patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with locking plates, one with hemiarthroplasty, and one with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Clinical results were evaluated by Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores and radiologic evaluation was conducted using follow-up radiographs. RESULTS: The mean length of follow-up was 26.2 months (range, 12-54). The mean Constant, ASES, and VAS scores were 66.7, 65.5, and 2.2, respectively. Four patients who underwent ORIF achieved bony union, but avascular necrosis (AVN) of the humeral head was observed in two patients. No complications were observed in the patients who underwent arthroplasty surgery until final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of LPFDS, replacement arthroplasty can produce predictable results. The approach of ORIF may be considered as a first choice of treatment in young patients but is sometimes correlated with postoperative complications such as AVN and the functional outcomes may be unpredictable. Therefore, patients should undergo careful diagnosis and treatment of this type of injury.