Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery in Depressed Patients: Is it Worth it?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to compare surgical results (pain, function, and satisfaction) between a group of depressed patients and a nondepressed group who had been operated on for a degenerative lumbar condition. METHODS: Prospective observational study. Preoperative pain (lumbar and radicular visual analog scale [VAS]), function (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and depression (Zung depression scale) data were collected in patients listed to be operated on for a lumbar degenerative condition. One year postoperatively, ODI and VAS data were collected again as well as a satisfaction question (are you satisfied with the surgical results? Yes/no). RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were included in the study, 78 nondepressed patients (80.4%) and 19 depressed patients (19.6%). Preoperatively, depressed patients had more lumbar pain (P = .00) and more functional limitation (P = .01) than nondepressed patients. One year postoperatively, depressed patients had more radicular pain (P = .029) and more functional limitation (P = .03) than non-depressed patients. The overall improvement of pain and function was similar between both groups (not significant). Seventy percent of depressed patients and 80% of nondepressed patients were satisfied with the surgical outcome (P = .52) 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Depressed patients experience the same overall level of improvement as nondepressed patients, despite having more pain and functional limitation preoperatively and 1 year after elective lumbar spine surgery than nondepressed patients. The level of satisfaction does not differ significantly between the two groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Decreased axial coracoid inclination angle is associated with rotator cuff tears.

PURPOSE: Coracoid morphology has been related to coracoid impingement mainly resulting in anterior shoulder pain aggravated by forward flexion and internal rotation. However, the coracoid process morphology can also affect the inclination of the coracoacromial ligament and subsequently the subacromial space in the same way that acromial slope does. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of the coracoid body-glenoid surface, coracoid tip-glenoid surface, and coracoid body-coracoid tip angles (coracoid inclination angles) on rotator cuff tears (RCTs). METHODS: Fifty patients with documented RCT and 50 patients with normal rotator cuff (control) were included. The coracoid inclination angles were determined in both groups by measuring on computed tomography scans the angle created by the coracoid body and the glenoid surface (A1), the angle created by the coracoid tip and the glenoid surface (A2), and the angle created by the coracoid body and the coracoid tip (A3). RESULTS: All angles were significantly lower in the RCT group compared to the control group: mean A1 angle of 49.7° and 54.61°, respectively ( p = 0.011); mean A2 angle of 76.45° and 93.6°, respectively ( p < 0.001); and mean A3 angle of 132.33° and 144.34°, respectively ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Decreased coracoid body-glenoid surface, coracoid tip-glenoid surface, and coracoid body-coracoid tip angles are associated with RCT. Decreased angles may reduce subacromial space by projecting the coracoacromial ligament more vertically.

The magnetic resonance aspect of a polyurethane meniscal scaffold is worse in advanced cartilage defects without deterioration of clinical outcomes after a minimum two-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Meniscal scaffolding is thought to provide functional improvement and to prevent cartilage degeneration. Advanced chondral injuries might damage the scaffold structural properties. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of different degrees of articular chondral injuries on the imaging aspect of a polyurethane meniscal scaffold (Actifit®). METHODS: Fifty-four patients operated on with an Actifit® were studied. The status of the articular cartilage in the involved compartment was classified according to ICRS. The characteristics of the implant were evaluated in MRI with the Genovese score. Functional scores included WOMET, IKDC and Kujala scores. The Genovese score was correlated with the degree of chondral injury and functional results. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 39 months (range 25-63). Additional procedures were performed in 69.5%. There were 19 patients without chondral injuries and 14 with grade 1, 10 with grade 3 and eight with grade 4 chondral lesions. The morphology and size of the implant on MRI scanning were worse with a higher degree of chondral injury (p=0.023). WOMET, IKDC and Kujala improved from 36.2SD ±7.6, 32.3SD ±13.5 and 39.2SD ±8.1 to 75.8SD ±12.9 (p=0.02), 75.5SD ±15.4 (p=0.03) and 85.6SD ±13.4 (0.042), respectively. There was no relationship between the severity of chondral injury and functional scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients without chondral injuries showed a better MRI aspect of the polyurethane scaffold in terms of size and morphology. By optimizing biomechanics, in particular the implantation of a meniscal substitute, significant pain relief and functional improvement were observed after a minimum two-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic case series; level 4.

Partial meniscus substitution with a polyurethane scaffold does not improve outcome after an open-wedge high tibial osteotomy.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine whether medial meniscal substitution with a polyurethane scaffold (Actifit(®)) improves the outcome of medial meniscal-deficient varus knees undergoing open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. METHODS: Sixty patients with symptomatic varus knees those who underwent open-wedge high tibial osteotomies were prospectively studied. In 30 patients, the medial meniscus was left with a defect larger than 25 mm (Group M). An Actifit(®) device was implanted (Group A) in the remaining 30 patients. Patients were functionally evaluated with WOMET, IKDC and VAS. Patient satisfaction was graded from 0 (not satisfied) to 4 (very satisfied). RESULTS: Both groups were comparable preoperatively. They had similar follow-up periods (31.2 months; range 24-47.5; n.s.). WOMET improved a mean of 53.4 ± 8.4 and 42.4 ± 17.2 points in Groups M and A, respectively (p = 0.002). IKDC improved a mean of 56.7 ± 12 and 50.3 ± 15.6 points in Groups M and A, respectively (n.s.). VAS dropped 5.9 ± 2.1 and 4.7 ± 2.8 points in Groups M and A, respectively (p = 0.006). Patient satisfaction averaged 3.3 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 1 in Groups M and A, respectively (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic varus knees were treated with open-wedge high tibial osteotomies, and a meniscectomy was improved more at short-term follow-up in most of the evaluated functional scores than those patients with concomitant implantation of a medial Actifit(®) implant. However, there was no difference in terms of patient satisfaction with the procedure. Based on the short-term functional results of this study, no data were provided to support medial meniscal substitution with a polyurethane scaffold when an open-wedge high tibial osteotomy is being performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative study, Level II.

Does fracture of the dominant shoulder have any effect on functional and quality of life outcome compared with the nondominant shoulder?

HYPOTHESIS: Proximal humeral fractures involving the dominant arm are not predisposed to worsen the functional outcome and the quality of life compared with proximal humeral fractures of the nondominant arm. METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 179 consecutive proximal humeral fractures divided into 2 groups: fractures involving the dominant arm (n = 97) and fractures involving the nondominant arm (n = 82). Both groups were prospectively assessed for 2 years, and at the end of the follow-up, all patients underwent functional assessment by Constant score and quality of life assessment through the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: At the 2-year follow-up, the mean Constant score of the whole series was 65.5 (64.1 in the dominant group and 66.8 in the nondominant group). No significant differences were noted between groups in the total Constant score or among any of the items of the Constant score (total Constant score, P = .43; pain, P = .63; activities of daily living, P = .70; forward elevation, P = .57; abduction, P = .52; lateral rotation; P = .90; internal rotation, P = .32; and strength, P = .24). The mean physical component summary score of the SF-36 at the 2-year follow-up was 40.8 (39.7 in the dominant group and 41.9 in the nondominant group). The mean mental component summary score of the SF-36 at the 2-year follow-up was 43.5 (44.2 in the dominant group and 42.7 in the nondominant group). No significant differences were noted between groups in any item of the SF-36 (physical component summary score, P = .29; mental component summary score, P = .51). CONCLUSION: No significant difference could be found relating to dominance in functional outcome and in the quality of life perception in proximal humeral fractures. Dominance of the affected shoulder has no influence and should not be used to make treatment decisions.