Extracranial Meningioma in the Scalp with Concurrent Steatocystoma.

This report documents a rare case of an extracranial meningioma on the posterior scalp without apparent dural connection. Additionally, a sebaceous steatocystoma of the anterior scalp presented alongside the meningioma. A steatocystoma localized to the scalp is also remarkably rare. To our knowledge, this is the first report documenting both an extracranial meningioma and a steatocystoma presenting concurrently on the scalp. A male patient in his thirties presented with a mass lesion on the scalp. A CT scan revealed one posterior scalp mass with no intracranial abnormalities. Post excision histologic examination confirmed an extracranial meningioma (meningothelial variant, WHO Grade I). A second anterior scalp mass, not revealed by CT scan, was discovered during surgery. It was excised and diagnosed as a steatocystoma. Meningiomas predominantly occur intracranially but, in some instances, may present as a standalone extracranial tumor without intracranial abnormalities. Because extracranial meningioma is uncommon, it may be overlooked during clinical diagnosis of scalp masses. We recommend that this neoplasm be routinely considered in the differential diagnosis of extracranial tumors. The discovery of another rare tumor-a steatocystoma located in immediate proximity on the scalp-is further remarkable. We briefly review relevant case reports and etiologies and consider a potential relationship between the two neoplasms. However, it remains more likely that the concurrence of these tumors in our patient was simply coincidental.

Biomechanical analysis of plate osteosynthesis systems for proximal humerus fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To biomechanically assess five proximal, humeral, fracture-plate-fixation systems. METHODS: Surgical neck fractures, with and without cortical contact, were created in 25 fresh-frozen cadaveric humeri. Five methods of plate fixation were used for repair: construct A [an eight-hole, low contact dynamic compression (LCDC) plate contoured into a blade shape, supported by one, 70-mm-long, 4.5-mm-diameter cortical screw acting as a truss], construct B (a 10-hole LCDC plate arrangement identical to construct A, but using one, 70-mm-long, 3.5-mm-diameter cortical screw as a truss), construct C [a five-hole dynamic compression (DC) blade plate with one, 6.5-mm-diameter cancellous screw], construct D (a five-hole T-plate supported by three, 6.5-mm-diameter cancellous screws), and construct E (a five-hole cloverleaf plate supported by five, 4-mm-diameter cancellous screws). Plates were posterior to the bicipital groove, 10 mm distal to the greater tuberosity tip, on the lateral aspect of the humeral shaft. Screw fixation was done using standard AO compression plating techniques. Stiffness of constructs was measured in bending and axial compression. Locked plates were not assessed. RESULTS: For cortical contact [abduction of 20 degrees (P=0.02), flexion of 20 degrees (P=0.02), flexion of 90 degrees (P=0.005)] and no cortical contact [flexion of 90 degrees (P=0.0001)], construct A was significantly stiffer than other constructs. For no cortical contact in abduction of 90 degrees (P=0.05), construct A was significantly stiffer than other constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Construct A was significantly stiffer than other constructs.