Avoiding Injury to the Popliteal Neurovascular Bundle in All-Inside Suturing of the Posterior Horn of the Lateral Meniscus: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment of Portal Selection and Safety.

PURPOSE: We assessed the risk of injury to the popliteal neurovascular bundle (PNVB) while suturing the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus (PHLM). METHODS: We simulated all-inside suturing of the PHLM using magnetic resonance imaging of 60 knees. Lines were drawn from the medial and the lateral edges of the patellar tendon to the PHLM at increasing distances from the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) to simulate suturing device trajectory. Distance from each line to the PNVB was measured (d). A similar analysis was performed using lines drawn from 1 cm medial and 1 cm lateral to the patellar tendon. We compared the average "d" at increasing distances from the PCL, between the different simulated portal entry points. We have also analyzed the association between different demographic characteristics and the shortest distance from the PVNB to the PHLM. RESULTS: Of 1200 measurements performed, the simulated suturing trajectory transected the PNVB 343 times (28.6%). At 0 mm from the PCL, the safest portal was the 1-cm lateral portal (P < .001), with an average "d" of 2.7 mm. At 3 mm, 6 mm, 9 mm, and 12 mm from the PCL, the safest portal was the 1-cm medial portal (P < .001), with average "d" of 3.8 mm, 6.9 mm, 10.1 mm, and 13.5 mm, respectively. Average distance between the PHLM and the PNVB was 7.8 mm. Shorter distance between the PHLM and the PNVB was associated with younger age and female sex (P = .014 and .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: All-inside suturing of the PHLM at 0 mm from the PCL is safer with a more lateral portal. Beyond 3 mm from the PCL, a more medial portal carries a lower risk to the PNVB. Young and female patients have a shorter distance between the PHLM and the PNVB, suggesting a greater risk for injury to the PNVB. Careful preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment may assist in safer portal selection when planning repair of the PHLM. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study describes a magnetic resonance imaging-based risk assessment for injury of the PVNB while suturing the PHLM. It allows the orthopaedic surgeon a better understanding of the anatomic relationship between the popliteal neurovascular bundle and the lateral meniscus and can assist in portal selection and safety.

Incidence and management of arterial injuries during pancreatectomy.

PURPOSE: The incidence of intraoperative arterial injury during pancreatectomy is not well described. This study aims to evaluate the incidence, management, and outcome of arterial injuries during pancreatectomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 1535 consecutive patients undergoing pancreatectomy between 2006 and 2016 at Oslo University Hospital. The type of arterial injury and potential contributing factors were analyzed. Short-term outcomes were compared between patients with arterial injury and patients undergoing a planned arterial resection due to tumor involvement. RESULTS: Arterial injury was diagnosed in 14 patients (incidence 0.91%), while planned arterial resection was performed in 22 patients. The injuries were located in the superior mesenteric artery (n = 5), right hepatic artery (n = 5), common hepatic artery (n = 2), left hepatic artery (n = 1), and celiac trunk (n = 2). The artery was reconstructed in all except one patient. In 11 patients with injury, peripancreatic inflammation, aberrant arterial anatomy, close relationship between tumor and injured artery, or a combination of the three were found. Median estimated blood loss was 1100 ml in both groups. Rate of severe complications (≥ Clavien grade IIIa), comprehensive complication index, and 90-day mortality for patients with intraoperative arterial injury vs planned arterial resection were 43 vs 45% (p = 0.879), median 35.9 vs 21.8 (p = 0.287), and 14.3 vs 4.5% (p = 0.551), respectively. CONCLUSION: Arterial injury during pancreatectomy is an infrequent and manageable complication. Early recognition and primary repair in order to restore arterial liver perfusion may improve outcome. However, the morbidity is high and comparable to patients undergoing a planned arterial resection.

Cadaveric Assessment of Lip Injections: Locating the Serious Threats.

BACKGROUND: Lip augmentation could be a possible cause of blindness following filler injections. This study evaluated the risk by simulating clinical scenarios of marginal injections to the upper and lower lips and then evaluated the risk of vascular injuries. METHODS: A 22G cannula was inserted bilaterally along the wet-dry junction of the upper and lower lip margins in fifteen cadavers, and then both lips were dissected to verify possible injuries to the superior and inferior labial arteries. The position of the labial arteries in the vermilion zone was documented to determine the appropriate injection technique. RESULTS: In the marginal injections to the lips, arterial injuries occurred at the medial segment of the vermilion zone of both the upper and lower lips, at the terminal part of the labial arteries or a distal branch. Considering arterial anatomy, the upper lip has a higher chance of arterial injury than the lower lip. The cannula should not be inserted in the submucosa as it is recommended to evert the vermilion because both the superior and inferior labial arteries are located in the submucosa of the medial and middle segments of the vermilion in all specimens. CONCLUSION: Awareness of the possibility of vascular injury is necessary during injections of the medial segments of the vermilion of the lips. Vermilion border and marginal injections are recommended for safe and effective lip augmentation. Deep injection around the oral commissure and submucosal injection of the medial and middle segments of the vermilion zone are prohibited because of the high risk of arterial injury. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Risk Management for Avoidance of Major Vascular Injury due to Lateral Transpsoas Approach.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study using 323 contrast-enhanced, multi-planner three-dimensional computed (3D-CT) scans. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for injury to the major vessels in the lateral transpsoas approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To avoid critical complications such as major vessel injury, it is essential to examine anatomical information related to preoperative risk management that is specific to the lateral transpsoas approach. METHODS: The abdominal contrast-enhanced, multi-planner 3D-CT scans of 323 consecutive subjects (203 males and 120 females, 15-89 years old) were retrospectively reviewed. The true axial views were used for evaluation of the locations of the major vein and artery at L3 to L4 and L4 to L5. According to the Moro system, the axial view was divided into 6 zones from the front side (A, I II, III, IV, P) and the locations of the dorsal tangential line of the major vessels were evaluated. RESULTS: At the L3 to L4 level, the dorsal tangential line of the major vein located in zone A was found in 18% of subjects, in zone I in 74%, and in zone II in 8%. The line of the major artery was located in zone A in 92.6% of subjects and in zone I in 7.1%. At the L4 to L5 level, the line of the major vein was located in zone A in 5% of subjects, in zone I in 75%, in zone II in 20%, and in zone III in only 1 subject. The line of the major artery was identified in zone A in 87% of subjects, in zone I in 12%, and in zone II in 1%. Women had significant dorsal-migrated veins and arteries at both spinal levels (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: To avoid critical complications in extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion, careful preoperative radiological evaluation of the major vessels and intraoperative care are important. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Safety and efficacy of LigaSure usage in pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Over recent years, use of the LigaSure™ vessel sealing device has increased in major abdominal surgery to include pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). LigaSure™ use during PD has expanded to include all steps of the procedure, including the division of the uncinate margin. This introduces the potential for thermal major vascular injury or margin positivity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LigaSure™ usage in PD in comparison to established dissection techniques. METHODS: One hundred and forty-eight patients who underwent PD from 2007 to 2012 at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital were identified from a retrospective database. Two groups were recognized: those in which the LigaSure™ device was used (N = 114), and in those it was not (N = 34). Peri-operative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Vascular intra-operative complications directly caused by thermal injury from LigaSure™ use occurred in 1.8% of patients. Overall vascular intra-operative complications, uncinate margin positivity, blood loss, length of stay, and complication severity were not significantly different between groups. The mean operative time was 77 min less (P < 0.010) in the LigaSure™ group. Savings per case where the LigaSure™ was used amounted to $1776.73. CONCLUSION: LigaSure™ usage during PD is safe and effective. It is associated with decreased operative times, which may decrease operative costs in PD.

Anthropometric assessment of cervical neurovascular structures using CTA to determine zone-specific vulnerability to penetrating fragmentation injuries.

AIM: To determine military-specific cervical neurovascular and external anthropometric data to scale future numerical injury models of the neck and improve body armour design with a view to prevention or mitigation of combat neck injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) angiograms of 50 UK servicemen were analysed. Mean diameters and distances from the skin surface were determined for the carotid artery (CA), internal jugular vein (IJV), vertebral artery (VA) and spinal cord (SC) at the three surgical neck zones. Horizontal neck circumference at C6 and three potential vertical cervical anthropometric measurements were analysed to determine which had the least variability between subjects. RESULTS: The diameters of cervical vascular structures are greater and the vessels more superficial as the anatomical plane moves caudally. The SC and VA are better protected than the IJV and CA due to their greater depth and bony coverage, except for the VA in zone 1. CONCLUSION: Future cervical anthropometric assessments should use the vertical angle of mandible to mid-claviclular distance in combination with the horizontal neck circumference as these demonstrated the least variability. Cervical neurovascular structures are least vulnerable posterosuperiorly and therefore extending the posterior aspect of a ballistic helmet inferiorly or adding a nape protector would appear to be less justified. Cervical vessels are most vulnerable in zone 1 and a circumferential collar of ballistic material at least 75 mm high would cover this area in 95% of this population.

[Minimal provider volume in total knee replacement : an analysis of the external quality assurance program of North Rhine-Westphalia (QS-NRW)]. / Mindestmengen in der Kniegelenkendoprothetik : Analyse der externen Qualitätssicherung für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen.

BACKGROUND: A minimal provider volume for total knee replacement (TKR) was introduced in 2006. Does this lead to an improvenment in quality or not? The records of treatment in the compulsory external quality assurance program of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia (QS-NRW) were evaluated. METHOD: A total of 125,324 comparable records from the QS-NRW program were available to determine the appearance of general and surgical complications. In a logistical regression model the risk factors age, gender, ASA classification, comorbidity and duration were taken into account. RESULTS: A significant reduction could only be shown for pneumonia, thrombotic events and lung embolisms as well as vascular injury. In 2006 and 2007 malpositioning of implants was significantly higher and from 2005 to 2008 the number of fractures rose compared to 2004. Deep infections and reoperations did not change significantly during the whole study period. CONCLUSION: This evaluation could not show an improvement in quality due to the minimal provider volume. Thus the minimal provider volume should not be taken into account as a main criterion to improve quality. Further outcome studies and creating an arthroplasty register in Germany are more useful.