Patient-reported significant disability after major traumatic upper extremity amputation.

The aims of this study were to record patient-reported outcomes of treatment of proximal upper extremity amputation injuries and subsequent return to work. A consecutive cohort of 38 patients with a traumatic amputation at or proximal to the carpus had been treated with a replantation or revision (completion) amputation in Tampere University Hospital between 2009 and 2019, and 31 of them participated in this study. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH). Patients reported significant disability indicated by DASH score after replantation (median 30; interquartile range [IQR] 21-47) and revision (completion) amputation (median 33; IQR 16-52). Most patients had cold intolerance and reported low hand function and aesthetics scores. Out of 17 working patients, 10 did not return to their previous work. Our study demonstrates the influence of major upper extremity amputation on daily life activities, even after a successful replantation.Level of evidence: IV.

Lower nationwide rates of arthroscopic procedures in 2016 compared with 1997 (634925 total arthroscopic procedures): has the tide turned?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the rates and secular trends of different joint arthroscopies-shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee and ankle-in Finland between 1997 and 2016. DESIGN: Retrospective nationwide registry study. PARTICIPANTS: All adults in Finland with any arthroscopic intervention procedure code for knee, shoulder, ankle, wrist, elbow or hip arthroscopy between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence rate of arthroscopic surgery per 100 000 person-years. RESULTS: The rate of knee and shoulder arthroscopies declined after reaching a peak in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The rates of wrist, elbow and hip joint arthroscopies declined after their 2014 peak. At the same time, the median age of patients who had knee, ankle and hip arthroscopy decreased, whereas the age of patients who had shoulder arthroscopy increased. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous randomised controlled trials point to lack of efficacy of the most common knee and shoulder arthroscopic procedures. It should not be assumed that this has contributed to decreased rates of arthroscopic surgery. The concurrent decrease in most of the other joint arthroscopic procedures was unexpected.

Pain, function, and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic treatment of elbow in a retrospective series with minimum of 5-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The clinical indications for elbow arthroscopic procedures have expanded through last decades. The aim of the study was to assess the functional results and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic treatment of various elbow conditions after a minimum 5-year follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of a consecutive patient cohort who had undergone unilateral elbow arthroscopy between 2008 and 2010. The main outcomes were Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and a specific patient-reported outcome measure questionnaire after a minimum 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: In total, there were 93 patients in the cohort with different diagnoses. Majority of patients were suffering from elbow osteoarthrosis. After the average follow-up of 72 months (range 60-96 months), the response rate was 67%. Eighty two percent of patients were satisfied with the pain relief and locking of the elbow was relieved in 70% of patients. Elbow range of motion (ROM) improved in 80% of the 55 patients who had a limited ROM before the operation. The overall patient satisfaction after elbow arthroscopic treatment was good. There were no differences in median DASH score between patients with or without post-traumatic condition, but the median DASH score for patients who had severe (grade 3) osteoarthrosis before the operation was significantly worse. There were no major complications reported in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic treatment of various elbow conditions was associated with good patient satisfaction and reduced symptoms without major complications. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.