Functional performance tests, clinical measurements, and patient-reported outcome measures do not correlate as outcomes 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are evaluated by laxity measures, functional tests, and patients' perception by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). It is not known, if one of these evaluation instruments is representative or if outcome scores from all must be reported to obtain a full evaluation of the condition. The aim was to study the correlations between these three types of outcomes 1 year after primary ACLR. METHOD: All adult patients (range 18-45 years) who had an ACLR between 1.1.2019 and 31.12.2021 were offered 1-year follow-up by an independent observer. Preoperative information about knee laxity and peroperative information about the condition of menisci and cartilage were registered. At 1-year follow-up clinical and instrumented knee stability and function assessed by four different hop tests were registered. Patients completed four PROMs (the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Lysholm score) and Tegner activity scale and answered anchor questions regarding satisfaction and willingness to repeat the operation. RESULTS: A total of 190 adults attended the 1-year follow-up and 151 had all assessments. There were only a few positive and weak correlations between performance tests and PROMS and between clinical measurements and PROMS (r = 0.00-0.38), and the majority were of negligible strength. Tegner score had in general the highest correlation (low to moderate). The highest correlation was 0.53 (moderate) between the anchor question about patient satisfaction and Lysholm/IKDC scores. There was no difference in the correlations depending on meniscal condition. CONCLUSIONS: In ACLR patients there was no clinically relevant correlation between scores obtained by PROMs, a battery of functional performance tests and instrumented laxity of the knee at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, one type of outcome cannot represent the others. This is an argument for always to include and report all three types of outcomes, and conclusions based on one type of outcome may not be sufficient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Single branch arch stent graft combined with laser fenestration in the treatment of a zone two penetrating thoracic aortic ulcer.

We present the case of a 75-year-old man with a symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcer located in zone 2 on the arch inner curve between the left subclavian artery and left carotid artery treated using a single branch thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with in situ laser fenestration. The patient underwent a successful procedure with no neurologic impairment and was discharged on the second postoperative day. The postoperative follow-up showed a well-excluded penetrating aortic ulcer.

Low risk of postoperative ulnar nerve affection in surgically treated distal humeral fractures when the nerve is released in situ.

BACKGROUND: Adult distal humeral fractures (DHF) comprise 2%-5% of all fractures and 30% of all elbow fractures. Treatment of DHF may be technically demanding due to fracture complexity and proximity of neurovascular structures. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) are often the treatment of choice, but arthroplasty is considered in case of severe comminution or in elderly patients with poor bone quality. Ulnar nerve affection following surgical treatment of distal humerus fractures is a well-recognized complication. AIM: To report the risk of ulnar nerve affection after surgery for acute DHFs. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 239 consecutive adult patients with acute DHFs who underwent surgery with ORIF, elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) or total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) between January 2011 and December 2019. In all cases, the ulnar nerve was released in situ without anterior transposition. We used our institutional database to review patients' medical records for demographics, fracture morphology, type of surgery and ulnar nerve affection immediately; records were reviewed after surgery and at 2 wk and 12 wk of routine clinical outpatient follow-up. Twenty-nine percent patients were excluded due to pre- or postoperative conditions. Final follow-up examination was a telephone interview in which ulnar nerve affection was reported according to the McGowen Classification Score. A total of 210 patients were eligible for interview, but 13 patients declined participation and 17 patients failed to respond. Thus, 180 patients were included. RESULTS: Mean age at surgery was 64 years (range 18-88 years); 121 (67.3%) patients were women; 59 (32.7%) were men. According to the AO/OTA classification system, we recorded 47 patients with type A3, 55 patients with type B and 78 patients with type C fractures. According to the McGowen Classification Score, mild ulnar nerve affection was reported in nine patients; severe affection, in two. A total of 69 patients were treated with ORIF of whom three had mild temporary ulnar nerve affection and one had severe ulnar nerve affection. In all, 111 patients were treated with arthroplasty (67 EHA, 44 TEA) of whom seven had mild ulnar nerve affection and one had severe persistent ulnar nerve affection. No further treatment was provided. CONCLUSION: The risk of ulnar nerve affection after surgical treatment for acute DHF is low when the ulnar nerve is released in situ without nerve transposition, independently of the treatment provided.