Arthroscopically Assisted Fixation of Fractures Around the Knee

2001 ◽  
pp. 559-572
Author(s):  
Janos P. Ertl ◽  
Richard A. Marder
2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (11) ◽  
pp. 2670-2677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Maziak ◽  
Laurent Audige ◽  
Carmen Hann ◽  
Marvin Minkus ◽  
Markus Scheibel

Background: Factors influencing the outcome after arthroscopically assisted stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations remain poorly investigated. Purpose: To identify determinants of the radiological outcome and investigate associations between radiological and clinical outcome parameters. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent arthroscopically assisted stabilization for acute high-grade AC joint dislocations. The following potential determinants of the radiological outcome were examined using univariable and multivariable regression analyses: timing of surgery, initial AC joint reduction, isolated coracoclavicular (CC) versus combined CC and AC stabilization, ossification of the CC ligaments, age, and overweight status. In addition, associations between radiological (ie, CC difference, dynamic posterior translation [DPT]) and clinical outcome parameters (Subjective Shoulder Value, Taft score [TS] subjective subcategory, and Acromioclavicular Joint Instability Score [ACJI] pain subitem) were evaluated using univariable analysis. Results: One hundred four patients with a mean (±SD) age of 38.1 ± 11.5 years were included in this study. The mean postoperative follow-up was 2.2 ± 0.9 years. Compared with patients with an overreduced AC joint after surgery, the CC difference was 4.3 mm (95% CI, 1.3-7.3; P = .006) higher in patients with incomplete reduction. Patients with anatomic reduction were 3.1 times (95% CI, 1.2-7.9; P = .017) more likely to develop DPT than those with an overreduced AC joint. An incompletely reduced AC joint was 5.3 times (95% CI, 2.1-13.4; P < .001) more likely to develop DPT versus an overreduced AC joint. Patients who underwent isolated CC stabilization were 4.8 times (95% CI, 1.1-21.0; P = .039) more likely to develop complete DPT than patients with additional AC stabilization. Significantly higher CC difference values were noted for patients who reported pain on the subjective TS ( P = .025). Pain was encountered more commonly in patients with DPT ( PTS = .049; PACJI = .038). Conclusion: Clinicians should consider overreduction of the AC joint because it may lead to favorable radiological results. Because of its association with superior radiographic outcomes, consideration should also be given to the use of additional AC cerclage.


Author(s):  
Yukio Abe ◽  
Youhei Takahashi ◽  
Kenzo Fujii

Abstract Background The arthroscopically assisted Sauvé–Kapandji (S-K) procedure has been described as a safe and promising technique for distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) arthrodesis. Our purpose was to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the arthroscopically assisted S-K procedure. Methods Eight patients underwent an arthroscopically assisted S-K procedure. All patients were diagnosed as DRUJ osteoarthritis (OA), including six primary DRUJ OA, one OA following a distal radius fracture, and one rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Arthroscopy was performed in neutral forearm rotation with vertical traction. The surface of the DRUJ was debrided through arthroscopy to expose the subchondral surface, and the DRUJ was fixed with a cannulated screw and Kirschner wire (K-wire) with zero or minus ulnar variance in the same posture. Bone graft was not performed. Results Bone union was achieved at 2 to 3.5 months postoperatively. At an average of 17-month follow-up, the pain intensity on 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS) decreased from 10 preoperatively to 0.4 postoperatively, average range of pronation significantly improved from 77 degrees to 89 degrees, and average grip strength as a percentage of contralateral side improved from 76 to 104%. Conclusion Satisfactory outcomes were achieved with the arthroscopically assisted S-K procedure. Advantages of this procedure included the ability to achieve union without bone grafting, preservation of the extensor mechanism integrity, and easy reduction of the ulnar head due to its wrist positioning. No major complications were encountered. Disadvantages included its required use of arthroscopic technique and potential contraindication for cases with severe deformity at the sigmoid notch. Level of Evidence This is a Level IV, therapeutic study.


2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 523-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Gumann ◽  
Graham A. Hamilton

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore J. Shinners ◽  
Peter G. Noordsij ◽  
John F. Orwin

Author(s):  
Guillaume Herzberg ◽  
Marion Burnier ◽  
Lyliane Ly

Abstract Background Arthroscopically-assisted reduction and internal fixation (AARIF) for distal radius fractures (DRF) has been extensively described. Little information is available about AARIF in AO “B3” and “C” DRF with displaced lunate facet volar rim fragment (VRF) and volar carpal subluxation. However, lunate volar rim fragment (LVRF) may be very difficult to reduce and fix under arthroscopic control using the flexor carpi radialis (FCR) or FCR extended approaches while traction is applied. Purposes The aims were to describe our surgical technique of AARIF of partial or complete DRF with VRF and provide information about how often this technique may be necessary, based on a large DRF database. Methods The dual-window volar approach for complete articular AO C DRF with volar medial fragment was described in 2012 for performing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Since 2015, we have used the dual-window approach for AARIF of “B3” or “C” DRF with volar carpal subluxation. We analyzed our PAF database, searching for patients treated with AARIF in “B3” and “C” fractures. Results The dual-window volar approach is very useful when using AARIF for AO “B3” and “C” DRF with displaced VRF and volar carpal subluxation. The anteromedial part of the exposure allows a direct access to reduction and fixation of the LVRF under traction and arthroscopic control. Overall, 1% of all articular DRF in this series showed a displaced LVRF amenable to the dual-window volar approach. Conclusion It is almost impossible to access and properly fix a VRF using traction and arthroscopic control through the FCR or FCR extended FCR approach because of the stretched flexor tendon mass. The use of the dual-window approach during AARIF of AO “B3” or “C” DRF has not previously been reported. Displaced VRF are rare whether they were part of “B3” or “C” fractures. If AARIF is chosen, we strongly recommend the use of the dual-window volar approach for AO “B3” and “C” fractures with VRF. A single anteromedial approach can also be used for isolated “B3” anteromedial DRF.


Orthopedics ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 961-966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehrdad M Malek ◽  
Gregory C Fanelli

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document