Surgical Approaches to the Proximal Humerus: A Quantitative Comparison of the Deltopectoral Approach and the Anterolateral Acromial Approach.

BACKGROUND: Debate exists over the optimal approach for addressing fractures of the proximal humerus. The purpose of this study was to objectively quantify the surface area of the humerus exposed using the deltopectoral (DP) and anterolateral acromial (ALA) approaches and to compare visualized and palpable anatomic landmarks. METHODS: Ten arms on five fresh-frozen torsos underwent the DP and ALA approaches. The arms were positioned to simulate a supine patient and held in a fixed position. Visual and/or palpable access to relevant surgical landmarks and the myotendinous junctions were recorded. The myotendinous junctions were used as a rough approximation of consistent proximal exposure of a clinically retracted tuberosity. Landmarks were grouped into quadrants based on the location. Calibrated digital photographs of each approach were analyzed to calculate the surface area and the length of the exposed bone. RESULTS: The DP and ALA approaches exposed 22.9 ± 6.3 cm2 and 16.3 ± 6.4 cm2, respectively (P = 0.03). The DP and ALA approaches provided equivalent visual and palpable access to all landmarks in the superior and inferior quadrants. The ALA allowed improved visual (80% versus 70%) and palpable (100% versus 70%) access to the myotendinous junction of the infraspinatus in the posterior quadrant. The DP approach allowed better access to anterior quadrant structures, including improved ability to visualize the myotendinous junction of the subscapularis (100% versus zero), the subscapularis insertion (100% versus 80%), and the medial anatomic neck (100% versus 20%). Palpable access to the myotendinous junction of the subscapularis (100% versus 70%) and medial anatomic neck (100% versus 60%) was also improved with the DP. CONCLUSIONS: In a cadaver model with fixed arm position, the DP provides increased exposure to the proximal humerus and more reliable access to anterior surgical landmarks, whereas the ALA allows improved access to the most posterior aspect of the shoulder.

A Preoperative Planning Tool: Aggregate Anterior Approach to the Humerus With Quantitative Comparisons.

Extensile approaches to the humerus are often needed when treating complex proximal or distal fractures that have extension into the humeral shaft or in those fractures that occur around implants. The 2 most commonly used approaches for more complex fractures include the modified lateral paratricipital approach and the deltopectoral approach with distal anterior extension. Although the former is well described and quantified, the latter is often associated with variable nomenclature with technical descriptions that can be confusing. Furthermore, a method to expose the entire humerus through an anterior extensile approach has not been described. Here, we illustrate and quantify a technique for connecting anterior humeral approaches in a stepwise fashion to form an aggregate anterior approach (AAA). We also describe a method for further distal extension to expose 100% of the length of the humerus and compare this approach with both the AAA and the lateral paratricipital in terms of access to critical bony landmarks, as well as the length and area of bone exposed.

A Comparison of Exposure Between the Classic and Modified Judet Approaches to the Scapula.

OBJECTIVES: A debate exists over the optimal approach for addressing fractures of the scapula and glenoid. The purpose of this study is to (1) quantify and compare osseous exposure using modified Judet (MJ) and classic Judet (CJ) approaches and (2) assess the change in scapular exposure after triceps release from the inferior glenoid. METHODS: Ten arms on 5 fresh-frozen torsos underwent MJ and CJ approaches. A triceps release was performed following the CJ approach in all specimens. Visual and/or palpable access to relevant surgical landmarks was recorded. Calibrated digital photographs were taken of each approach and analyzed using Image J (NIH, Bethesda, MD) to calculate the surface area of exposed bone. RESULTS: The MJ and CJ approaches exposed 16.8 (±7.58) cm(2) and 98.6 (±25.39) cm(2) of bone, respectively (P < 0.001). The full medial and lateral borders of the scapula were visualized in all approaches with mobilization of the teres minor. Palpable access to the full scapular spine was possible in all cadavers. Although the MJ and CJ approaches only allowed the inferior gleniod neck to be visualized in 1 and 2 specimens, respectively, performing a triceps release provided access to this structure. It also increased the CJ exposure by 12.6 cm(2) (P < 0.001) and allowed palpation of the anterior glenoid margin in 100% of specimens. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the MJ approach allows similar access to landmarks important for reduction and fixation while exposing only 20% of the surface area typically visualized with the CJ approach.

Limited Added Value of the Posterolateral Approach.

BACKGROUND: Posterolateral tibial plateau fractures (AO/OTA 41-B or 41-C) represent a minority of proximal tibia fractures. Numerous surgical approaches have been described, each with unique variations and limitations. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively and qualitatively compare the surface area and structures exposed by four surgical approaches to the posterolateral proximal tibia. METHODS: Four published surgical approaches-direct posterolateral (DPL), transfibular (TF), posteromedial (PM), and anterolateral (AL)-were performed on 10 fresh-frozen cadavers. Once each exposure was obtained, a ruler was placed in the surgical field and calibrated digital images obtained. Overall, 10 bony and soft tissue landmarks were identified and the surgeon's ability to see or touch each landmark was recorded sequentially for each exposure. RESULTS: An average of 3.9 ± 2.7 cm(2) of posterolateral proximal tibial cortex was exposed by the DPL approach with significantly more surface area exposed by the TF, PM, and AL approaches (p < 0.01). The AL and PM approaches revealed a significantly larger area of tibial metaphysis and, when used together, consistently exposed posterior metaphyseal and intra-articular structures. CONCLUSION: A combination of the AL and PM approaches allows comparable surgical exposure to the proximal tibial when compared with two posterolateral approaches. These approaches can be employed together for reduction and fixation of injuries to the posterolateral tibial plateau and allow direct evaluation of the articular surface. Dedicated posterolateral approaches should be reserved for certain clinical situations, including proximal tibiofibular joint fracture or dislocation.