Establishing regions of interest of the lower leg and ankle for perioperative volumetric assessment with a portable 3D scanner in orthopedic and trauma surgery - a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Soft tissue swelling assessment benefits from a reproducible and easy to use measurement method. Monitoring of the injured lower extremity is of clinical import during staged soft tissue management. Portable 3D scanners offer a novel and precise option to quantify and contrast the shapes and volumes of the injured and contralateral uninjured limbs. This study determined three regions of interest (ROI) within the lower extremity (lower leg, ankle and foot), that can be used to evaluate 3D volumetric assessment for staged soft tissue management in orthopedic and trauma surgery. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers (24 legs) were included in this cohort study. Scans of all three ROI were recorded with a portable 3D scanner (Artec, 3D scanner EVA) and compared between the right and left leg using the software Artec Studio (Arctec Group, Luxemburg). RESULTS: Mean volume of the right leg was 1926.64 ± 308.84 ml (mean ± SD). ROI: lower leg: 931.86 ± 236.15 ml; ankle: 201.56 ± 27.88 ml; foot: 793.21 ± 112.28 ml. Mean volume of the left leg was 1937.73 ± 329.51 ml. ROI: lower leg: 933.59 ± 251.12 ml; ankle: 201.53 ± 25.54 ml; foot: 802.62 ± 124.83 ml. There was no significant difference of the overall volume between right and left leg (p > 0.05; overall volume: △ difference: 29.5 ± 7.29 ml, p = 0.8; lower leg: △ difference: 21.5 ± 6.39 ml, p = 0.8; ankle: △ difference: 5.3 ± 2.11 ml, p = 0.4; △ difference: 16.33 ± 4.45 ml, p = 0.8. CONCLUSION: This pilot study defines three regions of interest of the lower leg and demonstrates no difference between the right and left side. Based on these ROI, further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical applicability of the scanner.

Doctor, when can I drive? - Range of functional ankle motion during driving.

BACKGROUND: Driving a motor vehicle needs a specific joint mobility and yet only limited knowledge exists regarding the necessary ankle range of motion. The goal of this study is to characterize the sequence and range of ankle motion. METHODS: The arc of plantarflexion/dorsiflexion and supination/pronation was recorded in the right and left ankle using electrogoniometers while thirty laps were driven by fifteen healthy participants around a course in a manual transmission car with a left sided steering wheel. The driver was required to perform the following maneuvers during each lap: (I) Vehicle acceleration and gear change, (II) Sudden evasion, (III) Routine turning, (IV) Rapid turning, (V) Vehicle acceleration followed by emergency braking. RESULTS: Driving required the right ankle to plantarflex 13±9 and dorsiflex 22±7 while supinating 15±7 degrees and pronating minimally. The left ankle plantarflexed 19±10and dorsiflexed 17±10 while supinating 15±7 degrees and pronating minimally. The right ankle dorsiflexed significantly more (p=0.00), and yet the left ankle had a significantly higher maximum plantarflexion and range of plantarflexion/dorsiflexion (p=0.00). Emergency braking resulted in a significantly higher maximum plantarflexion as well as plantarflexion/dorsiflexion range when compared to other maneuvers. CONCLUSION: This study describes the range of ankle motion identified to drive a car with a manual transmission and a left-sided steering wheel. The right and left ankle exhibit different arcs of motion during driving. This knowledge may assist when evaluating a patient's driving capability. Further studies are needed to investigate whether movement restrictions impair driving. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic science study.

Inter- and intraobserver agreement of three classification systems for lateral clavicle fractures - reliability comparison between two specialist groups.

BACKGROUND: Although of great value in the management of lateral clavicle fractures, substantial variation in their classification exists. We performed a retrospective study to address the inter- and intraobserver reliability of three different classification systems for lateral clavicle fractures. METHODS: Radiographs of 20 lateral clavicle fractures that represented a full spectrum of adult fracture patterns were graded by five experienced radiologists and five experienced trauma surgeons according to the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), the Neer, and the Jäger/Breitner classification systems. This evaluation was performed at two different time points separated by 3 months. To measure the observer agreement, the Fleiss kappa coefficient (κ) was applied and assessed according to the grading of Landis and Koch. RESULTS: The overall interobserver reliability showed a fair agreement in all three classification systems. For the OTA classification system, the interobserver agreement showed a mean kappa value of 0.338 ranging from 0.350 (radiologists) to 0.374 (trauma surgeons). Kappa values of the interobserver agreement for the Neer classification system ranged from 0.238 (trauma surgeons) to 0.276 (radiologists) with a mean κ of 0.278. The Jäger/Breitner classification system demonstrated a mean kappa value of 0.330 ranging from 0.306 (trauma surgeons) to 0.382 (radiologists).The overall intraobserver reliability was moderate for the OTA and the Jäger/Breitner classification systems, while the overall intraobserver reliability for the Neer classification system was fair.The kappa values of the intraobserver agreements showed, in all classification systems, a wide range with the OTA classification system ranging from 0.086 to 0.634, the Neer classification system ranging from 0.137 to 0.448, and a range from 0.154 to 0.625 of the Jäger/Breitner classification system. CONCLUSIONS: The low inter- and intraobserver agreement levels exhibited in all three classification systems by both specialist groups suggest that the tested lateral clavicle fracture classification systems are unreliable and, therefore, of limited value. We should recognize there is considerable inconsistency in how physicians classify lateral clavicle fractures and therefore any conclusions based on these classifications should be recognized as being somewhat subjective.

Doctor, when can I drive?-the range of elbow motion while driving a car.

BACKGROUND: Immobilization of the upper extremity after an acute injury or postoperatively affects an individual's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. The elbow is particularly sensitive to immobilization, with subsequent stiffness leading to functional limitations. Most activities of daily living are successfully achieved within a "functional arc" of elbow motion between 30° and 130° of flexion. No objective guidelines exist regarding the range of motion needed to safely operate a vehicle. In this study, we measured the range of motion of right and left elbows while driving a manual-transmission car. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using electro-goniometers, we measured the flexion and extension, as well as pronation and supination, of the right and left elbows in 20 healthy, right hand-dominant subjects while driving a car. These measurements were recorded on (1) city streets, (2) country roads, and (3) highways. RESULTS: For city streets, the range of motion in terms of flexion and pronation/supination was 15°-105° and 0°-45°/0°-35°, respectively, for the right elbow and 20°-95° and 0°-45°/0°-40°, respectively, for the left. For country roads, it was 10°-100° and 0°-40°/0°-35°, respectively, for the right elbow and 20°-95° and 0°-30°/0°-30°, respectively, for the left. For highways, it was 5°-100° and 0°-40°/0°-35°, respectively, for the right elbow and 20°-90° and 0°-30°/0°-25°, respectively, for the left. Mean pronation was significantly higher for the right elbow (P < .01). CONCLUSION: This study describes the range of elbow motion identified to drive a car with a manual transmission and a left-sided steering wheel. Mean pronation of the right elbow is significantly higher than that of the left. Further studies are needed to investigate the relevance of movement restrictions as they relate to handedness, steering-wheel side, and driving impairment.

Doctor, when can I drive? - Range of motion of the knee while driving a car.

BACKGROUND: One of the most important activities of daily living is operating a motor vehicle. With increasing age the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders such as knee osteoarthritis may interfere with an individual's ability to do so safely. Physicians are tasked with determining a patient's ability to drive and yet the necessary joint range of motion required for driving a car has not been characterized. METHODS: The range of motion of the right and left knees was recorded using electrogoniometers in 20 healthy subjects while driving a car on three route types (a) city streets, b) country roads and c) highways). Special emphasis was placed on the left knee associated with changing a gear. RESULTS: The range of motion while driving is 40-80° for the right and 20-85° flexion for the left knee. A significant difference was noted for each side (p < 0.01) with a higher flexion occurring in the left knee (p < 0.01). The average position of the knee while changing a gear (beginning, maximum, ending) was: right: 55°±10°, 62°±10°, 53°±10°; left: 67°±7°, 39°±8°, 66°±8° (mean flexion±standard deviation). CONCLUSION: This study characterized the knee range of motion that occurs while driving a car. Our data suggests that common driving activities such as accelerating a vehicle or braking can be achieved with the right knee through a limited range of motion. The greater range of motion and the higher flexion of the left knee are mainly attributed to the gear changing. The present data may benefit physicians in their evaluation of driving capability.

Proximal interphalangeal joint arthritis.

Proximal interphalangeal joint function is critical for proper finger and hand function and arthritis of this joint can lead to considerable hand impairment. Proximal interphalangeal joint arthritides are broadly categorized into nonerosive and erosive osteoarthritis (OA), posttraumatic arthritis, and inflammatory arthritis. The nonerosive type is considered idiopathic or primary OA, whereas the erosive form exhibits an inflammatory component. Idiopathic or primary OA occurs as a consequence of abnormal mechanical stress that leads to damage of cartilage and subchondral bone, with subsequent cytokine and growth factor activation. Individual genetics then mediate the cellular responses. Although erosive OA is described as a separate entity, this remains controversial, with many suggesting that it is merely a more aggressive form of nonerosive, primary OA. Inflammatory OA occurs when connective tissues are diseased, allowing for normal use to incite arthritic damage. Treatment modalities for proximal interphalangeal joint arthritis are currently limited.