Tuberosity refixation improves functional outcome following primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty in proximal humeral fracture.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this prospective study was to examine clinical results of tuberosity refixation in RSA for the treatment of displaced PHF in elderly patients. We hypothesized that tuberosity refixation would increase clinical outcome. METHODS: In this prospective study, 50 patients were included after receive a primary RSA for complex proximal humeral fracture between March 2013 and December 2015 for follow-up after three, 12 and 24 months. A functional and radiological assessment was performed on the patients. RESULTS: At final follow-up after a mean period of 25.1 months, data were available for 30 women and 6 men (74% of the included overall study collective) with a mean age of 77 years (range 55-93 years) at time of surgery. The tuberosities were refixated in 74% (n = 37) and in 26% (n = 13) resected. RSA with tuberosity refixation resulted in better clinical shoulder function compared to RSA with non-refixated tuberosities. The data show an external rotation with a significant difference (24.9° vs. 14°, p < 0.05) in favor of participants with refixation. The raw CMS was statistically significant (71.3 vs. 56.3, p < 0.05) after refixation, and SSV was significant improved (82.7% vs. 68%, p < 0.05) in the same group. Among 3 of 50 patients a total of 3 complications occurred with a total of 6% surgical revision. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, tuberosity refixation as part of fracture treatment using RSA results in better external rotation, subjective assessment of shoulder recovery (measured by SSV and by raw CMS) in elderly patients, compared with tuberosity excision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Prospective comparative study.

Fracture-pattern-related therapy concepts in distal humeral fractures.

Around one third of humeral fractures and 2-6% of all fractures occur to the distal part of the humerus. There is a bimodal distribution differentiating between young male patients with high-energy and elderly female patients with low-energy trauma related to osteoporosis. The AO classification and Dubberley subclassification are used in daily routine. Most fractures are diagnosed on radiographs. For further evaluation, three-dimensional computed tomography is recommended, especially for comminuted or complex fractures. Owing to the long immobilization and resultant poor functional outcome, conservative treatment is followed for inoperable patients. The operative approach and osteosynthesis depend on the fracture pattern. In A1 avulsion fractures, open reduction and screw fixation are recommended. In A2/A3 fractures, a triceps-sparing approach following a 90° double-plate construction (radial dorsal/ulnar lateral) with locking plates is favored. Partial articular B1/B2 fractures are exposed via a medial or lateral approach using unilateral locking plates to stabilize the medial/lateral column. Coronal shear fractures (B3) are classified after Dubberley and are treated via an extended Kocher approach and headless compression screws in anteroposterior direction. If there is a further posterior comminution or a lateral column fragment, stabilization is needed for the lateral/medial column with a precontoured locking plate. In solely articular fracture patterns, a dorsal approach with either a 90° or 180° double-plate construction is advised. If a reconstruction is not possible owing to fracture complexity or bone quality, total elbow arthroplasty is a viable option. However, lifelong limitation in weight-bearing up to 5 kg, limited longevity, and the potential for complicated revision surgery should be considered.

How sensitive and specific is 1.5 Tesla MRI for diagnosing injuries in patients with knee dislocation?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing and identifying the specific injury pattern in patients with knee dislocation. The hypothesis was that the sensitivity and specificity are low in patients with posterolateral corner injury and/or PCL tear. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 38 patients (m:f = 29:9, mean age ± SD 34.3 ± 14.0) with traumatic knee dislocation, who underwent 1.5 T MRI prior to surgery. MRI scans were analysed by a musculoskeletal radiologist, and the presence and type of tears to ligaments, tendons and meniscus or bone were recorded. Comparison was made with the intraoperative findings from the surgical records using the same reporting scheme. The agreement between MRI and surgical findings was assessed using kappa statistics, and the sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: In patients with knee dislocation, MRI was found to have low sensitivity (25-38 %) but high specificity (94-97 %) for diagnosing injury to the posterolateral corner. There was high sensitivity in the diagnosis of tears in the cruciate and collateral ligaments (97-100 %); the specificity, however, was lower (50-67 %). The diagnosis of meniscal injury showed low sensitivity (36-56 %) and moderate specificity (69-83 %). CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a sensitive measure of cruciate and collateral ligament injury in acute knee dislocation; however, it does not reliably diagnose injury to the posterolateral corner or meniscus, and therefore, a higher index of suspicion is required during arthroscopy to prevent misdiagnosis which could affect long-term clinical outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level II.