A comparison of two surgical methods in the treatment of shoulder adhesive capsulitis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic capsular release surgery and manipulation of patients with resistant primary adhesive capsulitis (AC) under anesthesia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised forty-four patients who had surgery after being given a diagnosis of primary AC. Patients who had both passive and active glenohumeral and scapulothoracic movements equal to or less than 100° elevation and less than 50% of external rotation compared to the contralateral side were considered to have resistant adhesive capsulitis and were included in the study. Conservative treatments such as intra-articular steroid injections and physical therapy had failed to relieve the pain in these patients for at least six months. The patients who took part in the trial underwent manipulation under anesthesia (group 1) and arthroscopic capsular release (group 2) operations. The chosen surgical procedure was chosen at random and based on the surgeon's preferences. examining the patients' demographic information. After treatment, the patients were examined at three-month, six-month, and one-year intervals. Joint range of motion, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Constant-Murley shoulder scores were all recorded. Statistics were used to compare the outcomes of the two surgical techniques in this study both before and after the procedure. RESULTS: The study's participants' gender, side, extra procedure, and age factors did not show a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2 (p<0.05). According to the age, gender, side, additional process, and homogeneous distribution throughout the groups. No statistically significant difference was discovered between groups 1 and 2 in any of the measurements taken from study participants during the follow-up period: Pre-op visual pain scores (VPS), Post-op 3rd month VPS, Post-op 1st year VPS, Pre-op Constant score, Post-op 6th month Constant score, and Post-op 1st year Constant score (p<0.05). The change in VPS and Constant Score values over time did not show a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.05). A statistically significant difference between the groups was discovered in each of the Pre-op period and Post-op 6th month VPS assessments (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two studied therapies, the surgical method was shown to be more beneficial in both groups the shorter the pre-op period was between the onset of the complaints and the operation.

Tibial graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: multiple tibial tunnel technique (collateral tunnel technique).

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture who underwent tibial fixation using the multiple tibial tunnel fixation (MTTF) and standard tibial fixation methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted between January 1, 2020, and August 1, 2021. MTTT was applied to 43 patients diagnosed with ACL rupture. Of the 43 patients who met the study criteria, 38 were classified as Group 1. In the clinic where the study was conducted, 40 of 57 patients who underwent standard ACL reconstruction by opening a single tibial tunnel were assigned to Group 2. The Endobutton technique was used for fixation of the graft to the femur in both groups. Bioabsorbable and postfix screws were used for the tibial fixation of the patients in Group 2. For patients in Group 1, a bioabsorbable screw, a postfix screw, and an additional MTTT fixation were performed for tibial fixation. Lachman, anterior drawer, Pivot-Shift test results, Lysholm and IKDC knee evaluation scores of the patients in both groups were compared. RESULTS: In this study, there was no significant difference between the groups for the anterior drawer, Lachman, and Pivot-Shift test results at the final control (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference between the two groups for the Lysholm and IKDC scores at the final controls (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in the Lysholm and IKDC scores between the groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, ACL reconstruction was performed using the MTTF technique in this study. Due to the additional fixation, it was observed that the patients had a more successful knee function after the surgery.

Correlations between transverse carpal ligament thickness measured on ultrasound and severity of carpal tunnel syndrome on electromyography and disease duration.

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between transverse carpal ligament thickness on ultrasonography and disease severity according to electromyography findings. Fifty-eight patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, aged 30-75 years, with severe (Group 1) or moderate (Group 2) electromyography findings, who underwent surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome complaints in the previous 2 years were enrolled. Patient characteristics and clinical information were recorded. The patients completed the Boston carpal tunnel syndrome questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score. Ultrasonography and electromyography records were examined. Electromyography showed that the median nerve area was similar in the two groups. Mean age, transverse carpal ligament thickness and symptom duration were greater in group 1, but not significantly. Mean VAS and Boston scores were significantly higher in group 1. Symptom duration did not affect median nerve area. Nerve area did not correlate significantly with VAS or Boston scores, transverse carpal ligament thickness or mean age, although averages were higher in patients with long symptom duration. Disease severity and symptom duration did not affect the ultrasonography findings. Disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome could not be determined by measuring transverse carpal ligament thickness and median nerve area on ultrasonography without electromyography.