The Relationship Between the Intercrease Line and the A1 Digital Pulley: A Cadaveric Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of surface anatomy is critical to identify the location of the A1 pulley. The intercrease line (ICL) describes a transverse line between the radial edge of the proximal palmar crease and the ulnar edge of the distal palmar crease. We hypothesize that this easily identifiable surface landmark approximates the location of the A1 pulley. METHODS: The ICL was marked on 7 cadaver hands. We marked a point proximal to the proximal digital crease (PDC) equal to the distance between each digit's proximal interphalangeal crease (PIC) and PDC (the PIC/PDC point). We calculated the distance between PIC/PDC points and proximal edge of the A1 pulleys. RESULTS: The ICL was proximal to A1 in all digits. The PIC/PDC point was distal to A1 in the ring finger, and proximal to A1 in the index, middle, and small fingers. The PIC/PDC point was closer to the A1 pulley than the ICL in the middle and ring fingers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite less accuracy than the PIC/PDC point at approximating the location of the A1 pulley, the ICL is reliably proximal to the A1 pulley.

Side-to-Side Versus Pulvertaft Extensor Tenorrhaphy-A Biomechanical Study.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that a side-to-side (STS) tendon repair has biomechanical characteristics that match those of a Pulvertaft (PT) weave. METHODS: Thirty extensor tendons were harvested (4 extensor digitorum communis and 1 extensor indicis proprius from 6 cadaver arms). Three hand surgery fellows with similar backgrounds of training under the same conditions and precise standardized technique performed the repairs (5 PT and 5 STS per surgeon). After the repairs, the tendons were passed through a graft-sizing guide to determine bulk and results were expressed as a repaired versus native diameter ratio. The specimens were then tested for ultimate strength and fatigue properties. Failure type and mechanical properties were recorded and compared with those of the native tendon. RESULTS: The average peak force to failure was 93 ± 20 N for the STS and 62 ± 32 N for PT group. Relative strength ratio (repair strength compared with native tendon strength) was 37% ± 21% for the STS and 22% ± 11% for the PT group. In the STS group, all failures occurred as a result of tissue failure; however, in the PT, suture failures occurred in 3 tendons before tissue failure. The mean bulk ratio of the repaired site versus native proximal tendon was 37 ± 14% and 40% ± 22% more for the STS and PT groups, respectively. These values for native distal tendon were 28% ± 9.9% and 26% ±24 %, respectively for STS and PT repair. Furthermore, the bulk of the repaired site for the STS and PT groups was 4.2 ± 0.50 and 4.7 ± 1.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Side-to-side repair technique showed superior biomechanical properties while demonstrating comparable repair bulk of the tendon coaptation compared with the Pulvertaft weave. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study may help guide a surgeon's choice of repair technique when addressing tendon injuries or tendon transfers.

A cost analysis of single-row versus double-row and suture bridge rotator cuff repair methods.

PURPOSE: To calculate the costs to the US healthcare system of transition from single-row (SR) to double-row (DR) rotator cuff repair (RCR) and to calculate the decrease in re-operations for re-tear that DR RCR would need to accomplish in order to render the transition cost-neutral. METHODS: Standard accounting methods were used to determine the cost of a single RCR, the annual cost to the US healthcare system of rotator cuff surgery, the cost of a single-revision RCR, and the decrease in revision for re-tear rate necessary to make DR or suture bridge (SB) methods cost-neutral in comparison with SR methods. We varied tear size, operating room cost, time required for implant placement, annual tear size distribution, and repair method. RESULTS: The cost of RCR ranged from $7,572 (SR, <1 cm tear) to $12,979 (DR, >5 cm tear). Complete conversion from SR RCR to a DR technique without an associated decrease in revision surgeries would increase the annual US healthcare cost between $80 million and $262 million per year. To obtain cost neutrality, use of DR or SB methods would need to result in one fewer revision in every 17 primary repairs (for tears <1 cm) to one fewer in every four primary repairs (for tears >5 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Conversion from SR to DR or SB RCR techniques would result in considerable increases in healthcare expenditures. Since the large decreases in revision surgery rates necessary to justify DR or SB repairs purely on a cost basis may not be realistic or even possible, the use of these methods should be supported by evidence of improved structural healing rates and quality-adjusted life years in comparison with SR methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Combining mandatory health insurance and medical savings accounts.

The American tradition of freedom of choice is mirrored exceptionally well in the health care industry. The consequences of this system are the highest health care costs in the world and 38.7 million uninsured. Implementation of mandatory, high-deductible health insurance in conjunction with a medical savings account for every resident could have several benefits, and it may engender bipartisan support.