Using External Joint Stabilizer - Elbow (EJS-E) for treating elbow instability-biomechanical assessment and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of using an External Joint Stabilizer - Elbow (EJS-E) for persistent elbow instability based on biomechanical experiments and analysis of clinical results. METHODS: An EJS-E was used in 17 elbow instability patients. The median follow-up was 26 months (range, 12-42 months). We evaluated the flexion-extension and pronation-supination movement arcs, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Broberg and Morrey classification system, and occurrence of complications in these patients. Moreover, construct stiffness and maximum strength tests were performed to evaluate the strength of the fixation techniques. RESULTS: The final median range of the extension-to-flexion and pronation-to-supination arc of the elbow was 135° (range, 110°-150°) and 165° (range, 125°-180°), respectively. The VAS pain scores were > 3 in two patients. The median MEPS was 90 (range, 80-100 points). Five patients showed signs of grade I post-traumatic osteoarthritis according to the Broberg and Morrey radiographic classification system, while grade II changes were observed in three patients. Complications included axis pin loosening with pin-tract infection in two patients, transient ulnar nerve symptoms in two patients, heterotopic ossification in two patients, and suture anchors infection in one patient. Based on the biomechanical testing results, the EJS-E exhibited higher stiffness and resisting force in varus loading. It was 0.5 (N/mm) stiffer and 1.8 (N·m) stronger than the internal joint stabilizer (IJS) by difference of medians (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanical and clinical outcomes show that EJS-E via the posterior approach can restore mobility and stability in all patients, thus serving as a valuable alternative option for the treatment of persistent instability of the elbow.

A cost and efficacy analysis of performing arthroscopic excision of wrist ganglions under wide-awake anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic excision has currently become popular for the treatment of wrist ganglions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic wrist ganglion excisions under Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet versus general anaesthesia. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent arthroscopic ganglionectomy from April 2009 to October 2016 at our institute. They were separated into two groups according to anaesthesia techniques: general anaesthesia and Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet. We compared the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the two groups. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included. Both groups were matched with regard to the demographics and preoperative clinical assessments. We found no significant differences between groups in postoperative visual analog scale, modified Mayo wrist score, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, recurrence, residual pain, or complications. Recurrence was found in five of 74 patients, one (4.3%) in the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet group and four (7.8%) in the general anaesthesia group. One extensor tendon injury and four extensor tenosynovitis cases occurred in the general anaesthesia group. Regarding cost effectiveness, the mean operating time in the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet and general anaesthesia groups were 88.7 ± 24.51 and 121.5 ± 25.75 min, respectively (p < 0.001). The average total costs of the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet and general anaesthesia groups were €487.4 ± 89.15 and €878.7 ± 182.13, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For arthroscopic wrist ganglion resections, both anaesthesia techniques were effective and safe regarding recurrence rates, complications, and residual pain. The most important finding of this study was that arthroscopic ganglionectomy under Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet was superior to that under general anaesthesia for cost-effectiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective comparative study.

Metaphyseal locking plate as an external fixator for open tibial fracture: Clinical outcomes and biomechanical assessment.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of using a metaphyseal locking plate as a definitive external fixator for treating open tibial fractures based on biomechanical experiments and analysis of clinical results. METHODS: A metaphyseal locking plate was used as an external fixator in 54 open tibial fractures in 52 patients. The mean follow-up was 38 months (range, 20-52 months). Moreover, static axial compression and torsional tests were performed to evaluate the strength of the fixation techniques. RESULTS: The average fracture healing time was 34.5 weeks (range, 12-78 weeks). At 4 weeks postoperatively and at the final follow-up, the average Hospital for Special Surgery knee score was 85 (range, 81-100) and 94 (range, 88-100), respectively, and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was 88 (range, 80-100) and 96 (range, 90-100), respectively. Based on the static test result, the axial stiffness was significantly different among groups (p=0.002), whereas the torsional stiffness showed no significant difference (p=0.068). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes show that the use of locking plate as a definitive external fixator is an alternative choice for tibial fractures after obtaining appropriate fracture reduction. However, external locked plating constructs were not as strong as standard locked plating constructs. Therefore, the use of external locked plating constructs as a definitive treatment warrants further biomechanical study for construct strength improvement.