Location of the posterior interosseous nerve in relation to common lateral approaches to the elbow.

PURPOSE: The risk of posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) injury during surgical approaches to the lateral elbow varies depending on the chosen approach, level of dissection, and rotational position of the forearm. Previous studies evaluated the trajectory of the PIN in specific surgical applications to reduce iatrogenic nerve injuries. The goal of this study is to examine the location of the PIN using common lateral approaches with varying forearm rotation. METHODS: The Kaplan, extensor digitorum communis (EDC) split, and Kocher approaches were performed on 18 cadaveric upper extremity specimens. Measurements were recorded with a digital caliper from the radiocapitellar (RC) joint and the lateral epicondyle to the point where the PIN crosses the approach in full supination, neutral, and full pronation with the elbow at 90°. The ratio of the nerve's location in relation to the entire length of the radius was also evaluated to account for different-sized specimens. RESULTS: The PIN was not encountered in the Kocher interval. For Kaplan and EDC split, with the forearm in full supination, the mean distance from the lateral epicondyle to the PIN was 52.0 ± 6.1 mm and 59.1 ± 5.5 mm, respectively, and the mean distance from the RC joint to the PIN was 34.7 ± 5.5 mm and 39.3 ± 4.7 mm, respectively; with the forearm in full pronation, the mean distance from the lateral epicondyle to the PIN was 63.3 ± 9.7 mm and 71.4 ± 8.3 mm, respectively, and the mean distance from the RC joint to the PIN was 44.2 ± 7.7 mm and 51.1 ± 8.7 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PIN is closer to the lateral epicondyle and RC joint in the Kaplan than EDC split approach and is not encountered during the Kocher approach. The PIN was not encountered within 26 mm from the RC joint and 39 mm from the lateral epicondyle in any approach and forearm position and is generally safe from iatrogenic injury within these distances.

Avoiding the posterior interosseous nerve during 2-incision distal biceps tendon repair: an anatomic study.

BACKGROUND: The posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) is the most commonly injured motor nerve during distal biceps tendon repair resulting in severe functional deficits. Anatomic studies of distal biceps tendon repairs have evaluated the proximity of the PIN to the anterior radial shaft in supination, but limited studies have evaluated the location of the PIN in relation to the radial tuberosity (RT), and none have examined its relation to the subcutaneous border of the ulna (SBU) with varying forearm rotation. This study evaluates the location of the PIN in relation to the RT and SBU to help guide surgeons in safe placement of the dorsal incision and the safest zones of dissection. METHODS: The PIN was dissected from arcade of Frohse to 2 cm distal to the RT in 18 cadaver specimens. Four lines were drawn perpendicular to the radial shaft at the proximal, middle, and distal aspect of and 1 cm distal to the RT in the lateral view. Measurements were recorded with a digital caliper along these lines to quantify the distance between the SBU and RT to the PIN with the forearm in neutral, supination, and pronation with the elbow at 90° flexion. Measurements were also made along the length of the radius at the volar, middle, and dorsal surfaces at the distal aspect of the RT to assess its proximity to the PIN. RESULTS: Mean distances to the PIN were greater in pronation than supination and neutral. The PIN crossed the volar surface of the distal aspect of the RT -6.9 ± 4.3 mm (-13, -3.0) in supination, -0.4 ± 5.8 mm (-9.9, 2.5) in neutral, and 8.5 ± 9.9 mm (-2.7, 13) in pronation. One centimeter distal to the RT, mean distance to the PIN was 0.54 ± 4.3 mm (-4.5, 8.8) in supination, 8.5 ± 3.1 mm (3.2, 14) in neutral, and 10 ± 2.7 mm (4.9, 16) in pronation. In pronation, mean distances from the SBU to the PIN at points A, B, C, and D were 41.3 ± 4.2, 38.1 ± 4.4, 34.9 ± 4.2, and 30.8 ± 3.9 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: PIN location is quite variable, and to avoid iatrogenic injury during 2-incision distal biceps tendon repair, we recommend placement of the dorsal incision no more than 25 mm anterior to the SBU and carrying out deep dissection proximally first to identify the RT before continuing the dissection distally to expose the tendon footprint. The PIN was at risk of injury along the volar surface at the distal aspect of the RT in 50% with neutral rotation and 17% with full pronation.

Spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma management: a case series and literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma (SSEH) manifests from blood accumulating in the epidural space, compressing the spinal cord and leading to acute neurological deficits. Standard therapy is decompressive laminectomy, although spontaneous recoveries have been reported. Sub-optimal therapeutic principles contribute to SSEH's 5.7% mortality-which patient will benefit from surgery remains unclear. This study aims to investigate parameters that affect SSEH's progression, outlining a best-practice therapeutic approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review yielded 65 cases from 12 studies. Furthermore, 6 cases were presented from our institution. All data were analyzed under American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty percent of SSEH patients do not fully recover. In all, 30% of patients who presented with an ASIA score of A did not improve with surgery, although every SSEH patient who presented at C or D improved. Spontaneous recovery is rare-only 23% of patients were treated conservatively. Seventy-three percent of those made a full recovery, as opposed to the 48% improvement in patients managed surgically. Thirty-three percent of patients managed conservatively had an initial score of A or B, all improving to a score of D or E without surgery. Regardless, conservative management tends toward low-risk presentations. Patients managed conservatively were three times as likely to have an initial score of D than their surgically managed counterparts. DISCUSSION: The degree of pre-operative neural deficit is a major prognostic factor. Conservative management has proven effective, although feasible only if spontaneous recovery is manifested. Decompressive laminectomy should continue to remain readily available, given the inverse correlation between operative interval and recovery.