Survival and Secondary Surgery Following Lower Extremity Replantation

Aim. To evaluate whether aseptic hypertrophic nonunion in the long bones of the lower extremity can be treated successfully with LISS applied with closed methods without grafting. Materials and Methods. The study included 7 tibias and 9 femurs of 16 patients. All cases had hypertrophic nonunion. Initial surgical treatment was with intramedullary nailing in 14 cases, 6 of which had required an exchange of intramedullary nail. All the patients were treated with LISS plate with closed methods. Results. Union was obtained at mean 7 months in all patients. No implant loosening or breakage of the implant was observed and there was no requirement for secondary surgery. Conclusion. Cases of hypertrophic nonunion have excellent blood supply and biological potential. Therefore, there is no need for bone grafting and the addition of fracture stability is enough to achieve full union. Using a limited approach and percutaneous screw insertion, LISS provides fracture stabilization with soft tissue protection.

Download Full-text

Causes of lower extremity weaknesses after posterior lumbar spine fusion surgery and therapeutic effects of active surgical exploration

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research ◽

10.1186/s13018-020-01948-4 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Rui Wang ◽

Chunde Li ◽

Xiaodong Yi ◽

Hailin Lu ◽

Yu Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lumbar Spine ◽

Muscle Strength ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Internal Fixation ◽

Spine Fusion ◽

Therapeutic Effects ◽

Secondary Surgery ◽

Fusion Surgery ◽

Surgical Exploration ◽

Lumbar Spine Fusion

Abstract Background This study was aimed at investigating the causes of lower extremity weaknesses after posterior lumbar spine fusion surgery and looking at subsequent treatment strategies. Methods Patients who underwent posterior lumbar spine fusion surgery in the Peking University First Hospital between January 2009 and December 2018 were counted. Those who needed secondary surgery because of subsequent lower extremity weaknesses were selected. CT scans and MRIs were used to evaluate the reasons for weaknesses before secondary surgery. Muscle strength was evaluated after surgery. Results Thirty patients (30/4078, 0.74%) required a secondary surgery because of lower extremity weaknesses after posterior lumbar spine fusion surgery. The main causes of weakness were (1) internal fixation malposition and loosening (11 patients, 36%), (2) epidural hematomas (9 patients, 30%), (3) insufficient decompression (5 patients, 17%), and (4) nerve root edemas (5 patients, 17%). Weakness occurred on average 2.9 days after surgery (1–9 days). Twenty-seven patients (90%) got improved muscle strength after their secondary surgery. Conclusions Iatrogenic neurologic deficits and lower extremity weaknesses were rare complications after posterior lumbar spine fusion surgeries, but important to recognize and manage. The main causes of weakness were internal fixation malposition and loosening, epidural hematomas, insufficient decompression, or root edemas. There may be positive, therapeutic effects to subsequent, active surgical exploration.

Download Full-text

Causes of Lower Extremity Weaknesses After Posterior Lumber Spine Fusion Surgery and Therapeutic Effects of Active Surgical Exploration

10.21203/rs.3.rs-18524/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Rui Wang ◽

Chunde Li ◽

Xiaodong Yi ◽

Hailin Lu ◽

Yu Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Muscle Strength ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Internal Fixation ◽

Treatment Strategies ◽

Subsequent Treatment ◽

Spine Fusion ◽

Therapeutic Effects ◽

Secondary Surgery ◽

Fusion Surgery ◽

Surgical Exploration

Abstract Background : This study was aimed at investigating the causes of lower extremity weaknesses after posterior lumber spine fusion surgery, and looking at subsequent treatment strategies. Methods : Patients who underwent posterior lumber spine fusion surgery in the Peking University First Hospital between Jan 2009 and Dec 2018 were counted. Those who needed secondary surgery because of subsequent lower extremity weaknesses were selected. CT scans and MRIs were used to evaluate the reasons for weaknesses before secondary surgery. Muscle strength was evaluated after surgery. Results: Thirty patients (30/4078, 0.74%) required a secondary surgery because of lower extremity weaknesses after posterior lumber spine fusion surgery. The main causes of weakness were: (1) internal fixation malposition and loosening (11 patients, 36%); (2) epidural hematomas (9 patients, 30%); (3) insufficient decompression (5 patients，17%) ; (4) and nerve root edemas (5 patients，17%). Weakness occurred on average 2.9 days after surgery (1-9 days). Twenty-seven patients (90%) got improved muscle strength after their secondary surgery. Conclusions : Iatrogenic neurologic deficits and lower extremity weaknesses were rare complications after posterior lumber spine fusion surgeries, but important to recognize and manage. The main causes of weakness were internal fixation malposition and loosening, epidural hematomas, insufficient decompression or root edemas. There may be positive, therapeutic effects to subsequent, active surgical exploration.

Download Full-text

Combining Values

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2002.marapr01 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 1-4, 12 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham

Keyword(s):

Lower Extremity ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Evaluation Method ◽

Proximal Phalanx ◽

Common Error ◽

The Third ◽

Whole Person ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Upper Extremity Impairment ◽

The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Download Full-text

Quick Reference: Chapter 3: The Musculoskeletal System and Chapter 4: The Nervous System

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2000.mayjun03 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 4-4

Keyword(s):

Nervous System ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Musculoskeletal System ◽

Multistep Method ◽

Manual Muscle Testing ◽

Motor Deficits ◽

Lower Extremity Weakness ◽

Residual Symptoms ◽

Muscle Testing ◽

Almost All

Abstract Lesions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), whether due to injury or illness, commonly result in residual symptoms and signs and, hence, permanent impairment. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, divides PNS deficits into sensory and motor and includes pain in the former. This article, which regards rating sensory and motor deficits of the lower extremities, is continued from the March/April 2000 issue of The Guides Newsletter. Procedures for rating extremity neural deficits are described in Chapter 3, The Musculoskeletal System, section 3.1k for the upper extremity and sections 3.2k and 3.2l for the lower limb. Sensory deficits and dysesthesia are both disorders of sensation, but the former can be interpreted to mean diminished or absent sensation (hypesthesia or anesthesia) Dysesthesia implies abnormal sensation in the absence of a stimulus or unpleasant sensation elicited by normal touch. Sections 3.2k and 3.2d indicate that almost all partial motor loss in the lower extremity can be rated using Table 39. In addition, Section 4.4b and Table 21 indicate the multistep method used for spinal and some additional nerves and be used alternatively to rate lower extremity weakness in general. Partial motor loss in the lower extremity is rated by manual muscle testing, which is described in the AMA Guides in Section 3.2d.

Download Full-text

Q&A: Multiple Lower Extremity Impairments and AMA Guides, Third Edition, Revised

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.marapr05 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. 15-16

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham ◽

Kathryn Mueller ◽

Steven Demeter ◽

Randolph Soo Hoo

Keyword(s):

Lower Extremity

Download Full-text

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2001.janfeb01 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 1-3

Author(s):

Robert H. Haralson

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Range Of Motion ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Clinical Findings ◽

Fourth Edition ◽

Treatment Results ◽

Standard Terminology ◽

Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Download Full-text