Does the coronoid fracture in terrible triad injury always need to be fixed?

BACKGROUND: The ideal treatment of terrble triad injuries and whether fixation of coronoid process fractures is needed or not are still debated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate if terrible triad injuries necessitate coronoid fracture fixation and evaluate if non-fixation treatments have similar efficacies and outcomes as fixation-treatments in cases of terrible triad injuries. METHODS: From August 2011 to July 2020, 23 patients with acute terrible triad injuries without involvement of the anteromedial facet of the coronoid process were included to evaluate the postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes (minimum follow-up of 20 months). According to the preoperative height loss evaluation of the coronoid process and an intraoperative elbow stability test, seven patients underwent coronoid fracture fixation, and the other eight patients were treated conservatively. The elbow range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and modified Broberg-Morrey score were evaluated at the last follow-up. In addition, plain radiographs were reviewed to evaluate joint congruency, fracture union, heterotopic ossification, and the development of arthritic changes. RESULTS: At the last follow-up, the mean arcs of flexion-extension and supination-pronation values were 118.2° and 146.8° in the fixation group and 122.5° and 151.3° in the non-fixation group, respectively. The mean MEPSs were 96.4 in the fixation group (excellent, nine cases; good, tow cases) and 96.7 in the non-fixation group (excellent, ten cases; good, two cases). The mean modified Broberg-Morrey scores were 94.0 in the fixation group (excellent, sevev cases; good, four cases) and 94.0 in the non-fixation group (excellent, ten cases; good, tow cases). No statistically significant differences in clinical scores and ROM were identified between the two groups. However, the non-fixation group showed a significantly lower height loss of the coronoid process than the fixation group (36.3% versus 54.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the fixation and non-fixation groups in terrible triad injuries.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux in chronic rhinosinusitis patients and the role of endoscopic sinus surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Latest literature proposes laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) as the underlying contributory factor for chronic inflammation in both upper and lower airways. In this study, we investigated LPR symptoms and signs of CRS patients and the various factors on their LPR symptoms and signs. We also evaluated the effect of the LPR symptoms and signs of CRS patients after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis from 91 patients who underwent primary ESS. They were assessed for LPR symptoms with Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Scores (RFS) before ESS. Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22, Lund-Mackay (LM) scoring system, and Lund-Kennedy (LK) scoring system were evaluated for CRS severity. They had to fulfill SNOT-22, RSI, and RFS at 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Nasal polyps, smoking, asthma, allergy, LM scores and LK scores didn't have significant correlations with preoperative RSI and RFS (P > .05 for all). RSI had significant correlations with SNOT-22 preoperatively and postoperatively (P < .05 for all). RFS had a significant correlation with postoperative SNOT-22 (P = 0.034). RSI and RFS decreased significantly more after ESS (P < 0.001 for both). Smoking had a significant effect on the postoperative RFS (P = 0.003). Non-smoker showed significantly lower scores of postoperative RFS (P = .0.003). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that subjective CRS symptoms were related with subjective LPR symptoms and ESS was effective in reducing signs and symptoms of LPR in CRS patients. Especially, smoking was associated with less improvement of laryngoscopic findings after ESS.

Synergistic antinociception of intrathecal sildenafil with clonidine in the rat formalin test.

Spinal sildenafil (phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor) and clonidine (alpha-2 adrenoceptor agonist) have shown antinociception. The author examined the properties of drug interaction after concurrent administration of intrathecal sildenafil-clonidine, and further clarified the reciprocity of sildenafil and clonidine. Catheters were inserted into the intrathecal space of male Sprague-Dawley rats. The formalin test was used as a nociceptive test, which was induced by subcutaneous injection of 50 microl of 5% formalin solution into the hindpaw. The pharmacological interaction was characterized using an isobolographic analysis. Intrathecal sildenafil and clonidine dose-dependently suppressed the flinching response observed during phase 1 and phase 2 in the formalin test. Isobolographic analysis revealed a synergistic interaction after intrathecal delivery of sildenafil-clonidine in both phases. Intrathecal yohimbine antagonized the antinociceptive action of intrathecal sildenafil during both phases in the formalin test. However, intrathecal ODQ failed to antagonize the antinociceptive action of intrathecal clonidine. These results suggest that sildenafil and clonidine, and the mixture of the two are effective against acute pain and facilitated pain state at the spinal level. Furthermore, synergism was noted after delivery of sildenafil-clonidine mixture. The antinociception of sildenafil can be modulated by spinal alpha-2 adrenoceptor, while the effect of clonidine is independent on the guanyly cyclase.

Roles of opioid receptor subtypes on the antinociceptive effect of intrathecal sildenafil in the formalin test of rats.

Recently, it has been known that the antinociception of sildenafil, a phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, is mediated through the opioid receptors. There are common three types of opioid receptors mu, delta, and kappa. We characterized the role of subtypes of opioid receptor for the antinociception of sildenafil at the spinal level. Intrathecal catheters were placed for drug delivery and formalin solution (5%, 50 microl) was injected for induction of nociception within male SD rats. The effect of mu opioid receptor antagonist (CTOP), delta opioid receptor antagonist (naltrindole), and kappa opioid receptor antagonist (GNTI) on the activity of sildenafil was examined. Intrathecal sildenafil decreased the flinching responses during phases 1 and 2 in the formalin test. Intrathecal CTOP and naltrindole reversed the antinociception of sildenafil during both phases in the formalin test. Intrathecal GNTI reversed the effect of sildenafil during phase 2, but not phase 1. These results suggest that sildenafil is effective to acute pain and the facilitated pain state at the spinal level. Both mu and delta opioid receptors are involved. However, it seems that kappa opioid receptors play in the effect of sildenafil.

Additive antinociception between intrathecal sildenafil and morphine in the rat formalin test.

The possible characteristics of spinal interaction between sildenafil (phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor) and morphine on formalin-induced nociception in rats was examined. Then the role of the opioid receptor in the effect of sildenafil was further investigated. Catheters were inserted into the intrathecal space of male Sprague-Dawley rats. For induction of pain, 50 microL of 5% formalin solution was applied to the hind-paw. Isobolographic analysis was used for the evaluation of drug interaction between sildenafil and morphine. Furthermore, naloxone was intrathecally given to verify the involvement of the opioid receptor in the antinociception of sildenafil. Both sildenafil and morphine produced an antinociceptive effect during phase 1 and phase 2 in the formalin test. The isobolographic analysis revealed an additive interaction after intrathecal delivery of the sildenafil-morphine mixture in both phases. Intrathecal naloxone reversed the antinociception of sildenafil in both phases. These results suggest that sildenafil, morphine, and the mixture of the two drugs are effective against acute pain and facilitated pain state at the spinal level. Thus, the spinal combination of sildenafil with morphine may be useful in the management of the same state. Furthermore, the opioid receptor is contributable to the antinocieptive mechanism of sildenafil at the spinal level.