How is forearm compliance affected by various circumferential dressings?

BACKGROUND: The forearm is the second most common location for extremity compartment syndrome. Compliance is a physical property that describes a material's ability to expand with an increasing internal volume. The effect of circumferential dressings on extremity pressures has been investigated in various animal models and in some nonphysiologic mechanical models, but the importance of this effect has not been fully investigated in the human upper extremity. In addition, the physical property of compliance has not been reported in the analysis of compartment volume-pressure relationships. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We created a physiologic cadaver model for acute compartment syndrome in the human forearm to determine (1) how much volume is required to reach the pressure threshold of 50 mm Hg in forearms, undressed and dressed with various circumferential dressings, (2) differences in forearm compliances that result from dressings, and (3) whether univalving or bivalving of those dressings adequately reduces compartment pressures. METHODS: A sealed inflatable bladder was placed deep in the volar compartment of seven fresh-frozen cadaveric forearms and overlying fascia and skin were closed. Compartment pressures were measured as saline was infused in the bladder, and compliance was calculated from pressure versus volume curves. This was repeated for each specimen using five external wraps, splints, and casts. At a baseline of 50 mm Hg, each dressing then was univalved (and bivalved, when appropriate for the material) and the decrease in compartment pressure was measured. For each of the seven cadaver forearms, one test was performed without dressings and then for each of five dressing conditions. RESULTS: Forearms in fiberglass casts accommodated only a mean of 19 mL (SD, 11 mL; 95% CI, 9-28 mL) before reaching the 50 mm Hg pressure threshold, which was much less than in undressed forearms (mean, 77 mL; SD, 25 mL; 95% CI, 55-98 mL; p < 0.001). Mean compliances were as follows: ACE™ wrap (1.75 mL/mm Hg; SD, 0.41 mL/mm Hg), Webril™ (1.54 mL/mm Hg; SD, 0.56 mL/mm Hg), Kling(®) (1.23 mL/mm Hg; SD, 0.52 mL/mm Hg), sugar tong splint (1.05 mL/mm Hg; SD, 0.52 mL/mm Hg), and fiberglass cast (0.38 mL/mm Hg; SD, 0.27 mL/mm Hg). Univalving of all circumferential wraps dropped the mean compartment pressure from the 50 mm Hg starting point: ACE™ (46%; SD, 14%), Webril™ (52%; SD, 20%), Kling(®) (70%; SD, 18%), sugar tong splint (52%; SD, 19%), and fiberglass cast (58%; SD, 7%), with p less than 0.001 for all dressings. CONCLUSIONS: We observed the compressive effect of various commonly used upper-extremity splints and wraps, finding the least amount of accommodation afforded by fiberglass casts. Univalve release resulted in reduction in forearm compartment pressures, even in fiberglass casts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A rigid circumferential dressing can have a dramatic effect on extremity compartment compliance. Contrary to common clinical teaching, univalving of forearm circumferential dressings effectively reduced compartment pressures, as shown in this physiologic model.

Return to play criteria for the athlete with cervical spine injuries resulting in stinger and transient quadriplegia/paresis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Fortunately, catastrophic cervical spinal cord injuries are relatively uncommon during athletic participation. Stinger and transient quadriplegia/paresis are more frequent injuries that have a wide spectrum of clinical severity and disabilities. Although the diagnosis of these injuries may not be clinically difficult, the treatment and decision about when or if the athlete may return to play after such an injury is often unclear. PURPOSE: This article reviews the current literature to help determine reasonable guidelines for return-to-play criteria after cervical spine injuries in the athlete. METHODS: The contemporary English literature and experience-based guidelines for return to play after cervical spine injuries in the athlete were reviewed. RESULTS: Despite the frequency of cervical-related injuries among athletes participating in contact and collision sports, no consensus exists within the medical field as to a standard guideline approach for return to preinjury activity level. CONCLUSION: The issue of return to play for an athlete after a cervical spine injury is controversial. Tremendous extrinsic pressures may be exerted on the physician from noninvolved and involved parties. The decision to return an athlete to a particular sport should be based on the mechanism of injury, objective anatomical injury (as demonstrated by clinical examination and radiographic evaluation) and an athlete's recovery response.