The biomechanical stability of distal clavicle excision versus symmetric acromioclavicular joint resection.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for acromioclavicular (AC) joint pain may include distal clavicle excision (DCE). It is possible that DCE can disrupt the surrounding ligaments, leading to increased AC joint laxity. PURPOSE: To determine the load to failure and stiffness of the AC joint after DCE and symmetric acromioclavicular joint resection (ACJR). STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Specimens were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: 1-cm DCE (n = 10) or symmetric (5-mm excision of acromion and distal clavicle) ACJR (n = 10). The specimens were loaded intact in the anterior-posterior plane to determine anteroposterior translation. This was repeated after surgery and compared. The specimens were loaded at 2 mm/s until clinical failure. Force and displacement were recorded, and stiffness was calculated. RESULTS: The peak load to failure for the DCE group was 387.8 N (standard error of the mean [SEM], 31.4 N) and for the ACJR group was 468.5 N (SEM, 30.9 N) (P = .035). The average stiffness for the DCE group was 35.2 N/mm (SEM, 2.5 N/mm) and for the ACJR group was 37.4 N/mm (SEM, 2.3 N/mm) (P = .11). There was no significant difference in the anteroposterior translation before and after resection for either group (P > .05). CONCLUSION: This cadaveric study demonstrates that the anterior-posterior load to clinical failure of the AC joint after 5 mm of resection from the distal clavicle and medial acromion is significantly greater than 1 cm of the resected distal clavicle alone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Performing ACJR may improve joint stability, leading to fewer complications when compared with DCE.

Incidence of os acromiale in patients with shoulder pain.

A prospective case series was undertaken to determine the incidence of os acromiale in patients presenting to an orthopedic clinic with shoulder pain during a 6-month period. Ninety-three shoulders in 88 consecutive patients were evaluated by history, physical examination, and radiographs. Radiographs included anteroposterior, scapular Y, and axillary views in all patients. Based on history and physical examination, no patient was given a primary diagnosis of os acromiale. However, when the plain films were specifically reviewed for this entity, it was present in 6 (6.82%) of the 88 patients. It was seen on the axillary view in each case. Five (83.3%) of the 6 patients had been given a diagnosis of either impingement or rotator cuff tear based on physical examination. Os acromiale is an infrequent but not rare entity that must be kept in mind when evaluating patients with shoulder pain, as failure to recognize an os acromiale may negatively influence treatment results. An axillary view should be obtained when evaluating patients with shoulder pain.

Primary aortoduodenal fistula: a case report and review of the literature.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) can cause aortoenteric fistulae (AEF). AEF can either be primary, arising from the aneurysm or other diseases, causing the aorta to erode into the bowel, or secondary, from previous aortic grafting. Primary aortoduodenal fistula (ADF) is a rare clinical entity that usually presents with gastrointestinal bleeding that can be occult, intermittent, or massive. We report a 71-year-old woman with acute onset of abdominal pain and massive hematemesis. Esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy (EGD) and arteriography were nondiagnostic. The patient's condition became unstable, and she was brought emergently to the operating room where the diagnosis of an ADF was made. The ADF and AAA were surgically repaired, and the patient recovered without complications. This case represents an example of a rare complication of AAA with the unusual presentation of multiple aortic aneurysms. We will address the pathophysiology, diagnostic evaluation, and management of AEF.

Impact of cost reduction programs on short-term patient outcome and hospital cost of total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: During the 1990s, cost reduction programs were developed to decrease the hospital cost of total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of hospital cost reduction programs for total knee arthroplasty on patient outcome at our hospital. METHODS: We evaluated 159 patients who had undergone unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty for the treatment of osteoarthritis at the Lahey Clinic. The results of fifty-six knee replacements performed in 1992 without a clinical pathway or a knee-implant standardization program (the control group) were compared with the results of 103 knee replacements performed in 1995 with a clinical pathway and a knee-implant standardization program (the study group). Before the operation, the two patient populations were similar in terms of age, pain score on a visual analog scale, and clinical knee scores; the groups were also similar with regard to the surgical approach and the time in the operating room. The minimum duration of follow-up was eight years for the control group and five years for the study group. RESULTS: All patients in both groups had excellent relief of pain and improvement in function. There were no differences in clinical outcome between the patient groups. The rate of patient satisfaction was 98% in the control group and 99% in the study group. Implementation of the clinical pathway was associated with a reduction in the average length of the stay in the hospital from 6.79 days in 1992 to 4.16 days in 1995. Implementation of the knee-implant standardization program was associated with increased use of all-polyethylene tibial components in 1995. Hospital cost adjusted for medical inflation was reduced 19% with the implementation of the clinical pathway and the knee-implant standardization program. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical pathway and the knee-implant standardization program reduced resource utilization and hospital cost for total knee arthroplasty without affecting short-term patient outcome in our hospital. Orthopaedic surgeons should carefully evaluate cost reduction programs, which may affect their patients, in order to maintain high-quality orthopaedic care and consistently successful patient outcomes.