Microbial Colonization of Explants after Osteosynthesis in Small Animals: Incidence and Influencing Factors.

Despite recent advancements in antibiotics, hygienic measures, and peri-operative systemic antibiotics, post-operative infections in osteosynthesis remain prevalent and continue to be among the most common surgical complications, leading to delayed fracture healing, osteomyelitis, implant loosening, and loss of function. Osteosynthesis implants are routinely utilized in veterinary medicine and the current study investigates the microbial colonization of implants following osteosynthesis in small animals, along with its incidence and influencing factors. The results are analyzed in regard to correlations between infection, patient, disease progression, and radiographic images, as well as other factors that may promote infection. Seventy-one explants from sixty-five patients were examined and evaluated for microbial colonization. Factors like body weight and age, location and type of plate and additional injuries like lung lesions, the surgeon's experience, or the number of people present during the surgical procedure seem to influence the development of an infection. Of the animals, 60% showed osteolytic changes and 73.3% of those with dysfunctional mobility had an implant infection. Microorganisms were detected in almost 50% of the explants, but a clinically relevant infection was only present in five patients (7.3%), suggesting that the presence of microorganisms on an implant does not necessarily lead to treatment complications.

Indications for the removal of implants after fracture healing: A comparison between human and veterinary medicine.

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing are still under debate in both human and veterinary medicine. Although hardware removal is a common procedure, it should not be undertaken lightly. Intra and post-operative complications are common and a thorough evaluation of the risks and benefits should be performed. This review aimed to collect and summarise published data on the indications for implant removal in small animals, compare the collected data with human and equine medicine, and investigate the existence of guidelines for this purpose. There is no international consensual agreement for implant removal after fracture healing, neither in small animals nor in human orthopaedics. Decision-making processes are still controversial in some scenarios, thus clear evidence-based protocols for implant removal are needed.

Anatomic acromioclavicular and Coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction with allograft is effective for the management of non-acute acromioclavicular dislocations.

OBJECTIVE: to analyze the short-term outcomes of an anatomical technique that reconstructs both the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments with the help of a tendon allograft for the management of non-acute acromioclavicular dislocations. METHODS: this is a prospective longitudinal study of a case series of subjects with symptomatic non-acute (>3 weeks) acromioclavicular dislocations surgically managed with an anatomical reconstruction of both the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments using tibial tendon allografts. Outcomes were assessed with simple standardized radiographs and with the Constant-Murley, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES)-shoulder and Quick-DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) scales; also, the acromioclavicular joint stability and the scapulothoracic kinematics were assessed. RESULTS: a total of 19 subjects were assessed. There were no intraoperative or early postoperative complications. After a minimum two year follow-up (mean 3.12 years, [standard deviation 1.10 years]), there were significant improvements in all three of the scales: The Constant-Murley score increased from 65.4 (13.0) preoperatively to 92.6 (11.2) at the end of follow-up (p<0.001); the Quick-DASH score improved from 21.3 (6.73) to 13.0(4.58) (p<0.001); and the ASES-shoulder score increased from 56.6 (14.6) to 91.0 (9.86) (p<0.001). The AC joint was stable in both the vertical and the horizontal plane, without residual scapulothoracic dysfunction in 18/19 subjects at the end of follow-up. Only one patient presented a poor functional outcome, with loss of reduction, instability and persistent symptoms. Another subject suffered loss of reduction, though without functional repercussions. Two subjects had asymptomatic distal clavicle osteolysis and two developed radiographic osteoarthritis and were also asymptomatic. Moderate widening of the tunnels was observed in most patients: tunnel size after surgery was 5.1 (0.3) mm versus 5.8 (1.1) mm at the end of follow-up (p = 0.001) but widening was not correlated to final function. CONCLUSIONS: the anatomical reconstruction of the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligament complexes with a tendon allograft yields excellent clinical outcomes when used in subjects with symptomatic non-acute acromioclavicular dislocations. Secondary tunnel widening, distal clavicle osteolysis and osteoarthritis might be of concern but do not affect clinical outcomes.

Assessment of isolated glenohumeral range of motion in patients with adhesive capsulitis can help predict failure of conservative treatment: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate a cohort of patients with adhesive capsulitis and identify predictors of failure of conservative treatment in the first 2 months of therapy. METHODS: This was a single-cohort, prospective observational study that included 20 participants (13 females/7 males; median age of 51.8 years [interquartile range: 8.65]) with primary adhesive capsulitis managed conservatively and evaluated clinically every month for at least 2 years of follow-up (29 [5] months). The evaluation included stage of the disease, treatment applied, radiological findings, pain levels and range of motion (active and passive ROM in the four planes and isolated glenohumeral passive ROM in abduction [GH-ABD], external rotation [GH-ER] and internal rotation). The main outcome assessed was failure of conservative treatment defined as the need for surgery and persistent pain or CMS below 70 points at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Seven patients (7/20, 35%) were considered to have failed conservative treatment because they required arthroscopic capsular release 5.2 (2.1) months after the initial diagnosis. Of all the clinical and epidemiological variables, absence of improvement during the first 2 months in isolated glenohumeral ROM abduction and external rotation predicted failure of conservative treatment: improvement in GH-ABD (10° or more) occurred in 10/13 patients in the conservative treatment group and in 1/7 patients in the surgery group (p = 0.017). Improvement in GH-ER (10° or more) occurred in 9/13 patients in the conservative treatment group and in 0/7 patients in the surgery group (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Precise assessment of isolated glenohumeral ROM in patients with adhesive capsulitis can help identify patients in which conservative treatment might fail. In this study, patients who did not experience early improvements in isolated glenohumeral ROM often required surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (Prospective cohort study).

Footprint preparation with nanofractures in a supraspinatus repair cuts in half the retear rate at 1-year follow-up. A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate if adding nanofractures to the footprint of a supraspinatus tear repair would have any effect in the outcomes at one-year follow-up. METHODS: Multicentric, triple-blinded, randomized trial with 12-months follow-up. Subjects with isolated symptomatic reparable supraspinatus tears smaller than 3 cm and without grade 4 fatty infiltration were included. These were randomized to two groups: In the Control group an arthroscopic supraspinatus repair was performed; in the Nanofracture group the footprint was additionally prepared with nanofractures (1 mm wide, 9 mm deep microfractures). Clinical evaluation was done with Constant score, EQ-5D-3L, and Brief Pain Inventory. The primary outcome was the retear rate in MRI at 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were: characteristics of the retear (at the footprint or at the musculotendinous junction) and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-one subjects were randomized. Two were lost to follow-up, leaving 69 participants available for assessment at 12-months follow-up (33 in the Control group and 36 in the Nanofracture Group). The Nanofracture group had lower retear rates than the Control group (7/36 [19.4%] vs 14/33 [42.4%], differences significant, p = 0.038). Retear rates at the musculotendinous junction were similar but the Nanofracture group had better tendon healing rates to the bone (34/36 [94.4%] vs. 24/33 [66.71%], p = 0.014). Clinically both groups had significant improvements, but no differences were found between groups. CONCLUSION: Adding nanofractures at the footprint during an isolated supraspinatus repair lowers in half the retear rate at 12-months follow-up. This is due to improved healing at the footprint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.