Intraoperative visualization of the posterolateral ulnohumeral joint space is reliable to indicate overlengthening in radial head arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Avoiding overlengthening in radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is essential for the prognosis of the elbow joint. An overlengthening from 2 mm is visible due to widening of the anterolateral ulnohumeral joint space but intraoperatively, this particular joint space is difficult to visualize. The commonly used Kocher approach allows visualization of the posterolateral joint space without additional instruments or further surgical release of the already unstable elbow. The aim of our study was to investigate whether the visualization of the posterolateral joint space is also a reliable method to indicate overlengthening in RHA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: RHA was performed in five human cadaveric specimens with the forearm, wrist, and hand intact. The lateral ligament complex was detached and an anatomic transosseous refixation was performed. Six stages of implantation heights were documented: native joint (1), RHA at the anatomic height (2), + 2 mm (3), + 4 mm (4), + 6 mm (5) and - 2 mm (6). Macroscopic measurement and digital image analysis of the posterolateral and anterolateral ulnohumeral joint spaces were performed. RESULTS: All stages of overlengthening showed a significant increase in posterolateral and anterolateral joint space widening (p < 0.05). The posterior and anterior joint space showed excellent intraclass correlation. CONCLUSION: Visualization of the posterolateral aspect of the ulnohumeral joint space is a reliable indicator for overlengthening in RHA without further compromising an already unstable elbow. Correlation to the findings of the anterolateral ulnohumeral joint space in different implants leads to the assumption that visualization of either the anterior or posterior ulnohumeral joint space is universally applicable to determine overlengthening in RHA, regardless of the type of the radial head implant.

A Novel Sensor-Based Application for Home-Based Rehabilitation Can Objectively Measure Postoperative Outcomes following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

In order to successfully implement individualized patient rehabilitation and home-based rehabilitation programs, the rehabilitation process should be objectifiable, monitorable and comprehensible. For this purpose, objective measurements are required in addition to subjective measurement tools. Thus, the aim of this prospective, single-center clinical trial is the clinical validation of an objective, digital medical device (DMD) during the rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with regards to an internationally accepted measurement tool. Sixty-seven patients planned for primary ACLR (70:30% male-female, aged 25 years [21-32], IKDC-SKF 47 [31-60], Tegner Activity Scale 6 [4-7], Lysholm Score 57 [42-72]) were included and received physical therapy and the DMD after surgery. For clinical validation, combined measures of range of motion (ROM), coordination, strength and agility were assessed using the DMD in addition to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at three and six months after ACLR. Significant correlations were detected for ROM (rs = 0.36-0.46, p < 0.025) and strength/agility via the single-leg vertical jump (rs = 0.43, p = 0.011) and side hop test (rs = 0.37, p = 0.042), as well as for coordination via the Y-Balance test (rs = 0.58, p ≤ 0.0001) regarding the IKDC-SKF at three months. Additionally, DMD test results for coordination, strength and agility (Y-Balance test (rs = 0.50, p = 0.008), side hop test (rs = 0.54, p = 0.004) and single-leg vertical jump (rs = 0.44, p = 0.018)) correlate significantly with the IKDC-SKF at six months. No adverse events related to the use of the sensor-based application were reported. These findings confirm the clinical validity of a DMD to objectively quantify knee joint function for the first time. This will have further implications for clinical and therapeutic decision making, quality control and monitoring of rehabilitation measures as well as scientific research.

[Epicondylosis : Open surgical procedure-when and how for lateral and medial epicondylitis?] / Epikondylopathie des Ellenbogens : Offenes operatives Vorgehen ­ wann, wie für lateral und medial?

BACKGROUND: Epicondylosis of the elbow are common pathologies, with a higher incidence for radial epicondylosis. Approximately 90% are self-limiting under conservative treatment. TREATMENT: Multiple surgical procedures exist for the treatment of refractory cases. Arthroscopic treatment has been described for both radial and medial pathologies. Open and arthroscopic procedures show equivalent results in the surgical treatment of radial epicondylosis. This paper describes the most common open surgical procedures for the treatment of radial epicondylosis. Furthermore, the pros and cons of the arthroscopic versus the open approach are discussed, and the indications for an open surgical procedure for radial pathologies are highlighted. The authors believe that the open technique represents the standard treatment in the surgical treatment of ulnar epicondylosis. LIMITATIONS: Arthroscopic procedures have been described, but studies comparing the clinical outcome versus open surgical treatment are lacking. The anatomic proximity of the flexor origin to the ulnar nerve with the risk of iatrogenic damage is another limiting factor. In addition, concomitant pathologies on the ulnar side can better be ruled out preoperatively, so that arthroscopy has a rather low significance in the treatment of ulnar epicondylosis.

Patients with combined pelvic and spinal injuries have worse clinical and operative outcomes than patients with isolated pelvic injuries analysis of the German Pelvic Registry.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic fractures are often associated with spine injury in polytrauma patients. This study aimed to determine whether concomitant spine injury influence the surgical outcome of pelvic fracture. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data of patients registered in the German Pelvic Registry between January 2003 and December 2017. Clinical characteristics, surgical parameters, and outcomes were compared between patients with isolated pelvic fracture (group A) and patients with pelvic fracture plus spine injury (group B). We also compared apart patients with isolated acetabular fracture (group C) versus patients with acetabular fracture plus spine injury (group D). RESULTS: Surgery for pelvic fracture was significantly more common in group B than in group A (38.3% vs. 36.6%; p = 0.0002), as also emergency pelvic stabilizations (9.5% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.0001). The mean time to emergency stabilization was longer in group B (137 ± 106 min vs. 113 ± 97 min; p < 0.0001), as well as the mean time until definitive stabilization of the pelvic fracture (7.3 ± 4 days vs. 5.4 ± 8.0 days; p = 0.147). The mean duration of treatment and the morbidity and mortality rates were all significantly higher in group B (p < 0.0001). Operation time was significantly shorter in group C than in group D (176 ± 81 min vs. 203 ± 119 min, p < 0.0001). Intraoperative blood loss was not significantly different between the two groups with acetabular injuries. Although preoperative acetabular fracture dislocation was slightly less common in group D, postoperative fracture dislocation was slightly more common. The distribution of Matta grades was significantly different between the two groups. Patients with isolated acetabular injuries were significantly less likely to have neurological deficit at discharge (94.5%; p < 0.0001). In-hospital complications were more common in patients with combined spine plus pelvic injuries (groups B and D) than in patients with isolated pelvic and acetabular injury (groups A and C). CONCLUSIONS: Delaying definitive surgical treatment of pelvic fractures due to spinal cord injury appears to have a negative impact on the outcome of pelvic fractures, especially on the quality of reduction of acetabular fractures.