Coracoid tunnels in open and arthroscopic treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation: an experimental cadaveric study.

PURPOSE: Treatment of acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation is not encoded uniquely. Type I and II injuries are usually treated conservatively, while types IV, V and VI surgically. Controversy still exists over the treatment of type III injuries. In the operative approach, there is no agreement on the best surgical technique. Our purpose is to compare the mini-open and arthroscopic approach focusing on the evaluation of the anatomical precision of the coracoid drilling. METHODS: This is a controlled laboratory study. Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were randomly assigned to the two techniques in order to compare them. We performed essential surgical gestures to drill the tunnel using MINAR® System (mini-open) and Dog-Bone® (ARTHREX, arthroscopic). The anatomical specimens were then subjected to CT-scan investigation. We statistically evaluated the precision of these two techniques analyzing DICOM files using two parameters. Parameter 1 evaluates the tunnel entry area on the superior side of the coracoid. Parameter 2 describes the orientation of the tunnel. RESULTS: There are no statistically significant differences (95% confidence level) between arthroscopic and mini-open approach about the precision in the location of the coracoid hole, regarding the entry area (p = 1.00) and the orientation (p = 0.196). CONCLUSION: The evidences collected enable the orthopedic surgeon to choose equally between the two techniques in the treatment of AC joint dislocation toward precision.

Comparing mini-open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint repair: functional results and return to sport.

INTRODUCTION: Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation is a common injury that can result from sports activities. The surgical technique for the treatment of Type III and Type IV injuries, according to the Rockwood classification, remains controversial. The purpose of the study was to determine the functional outcome after minimally invasive and arthroscopic surgery. The mini-open surgery was done with MINAR® system, whereas the arthroscopic technique was done with Dog BoneTM Button. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort study. METHODS: We reviewed 31 who were surgically treated for acute acromioclavicular dislocation Type III and Type IV (2012-2015). We excluded subjects with chronic dislocation or other injury. We selected 16 patients (average age 37).  Half of the sample patients were treated with mini-open surgery with the MINAR® system, and the other half of the patients were treated with the Dog Bone arthroscopic technique. The Constant Shoulder Score, the Oxford Shoulder Score, the Simple Shoulder Test and the Subjective Patient Outcome for Return to Sports (SPORTS) score were used to assess functional outcome of the treated shoulder. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 13 months (range 6-27 months). The mean Constant Shoulder Score was 91.10 (range 82.76-96.66), Oxford Shoulder Score was 46.19 (range 42.00-48.00), the Simple Shoulder Test was 10.50 (range 9.00-12.00), and the SPORTS score was 7.88 (range 3-10). There is a statistically significant difference between the sample operated with the mini-open surgery and the group operated with arthroscopic technique. The probability of return to their sport, according to the results of the SPORTS score, was significantly higher for patients treated with the MINAR® system (p < 0.001). However, the objective parameter of Constant scale is statistically better in patients operated by arthroscopic technique (p < 0.05; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Restoration of ACJ anatomy is the key to a successful therapy. The surgical technique should be personalized. The miny-open surgery and also the arthroscopic surgery are adequate with good clinical results. However, according to the SPORTS score, the patients treated with mini-open surgery returned to their sport with less pain and better performance than those belonging to the other group.

Reconstruction of traumatic losses of substance at the elbow.

Traumatic lesions at the elbow involving great loss of substance are uncommon, but represent a significant problem when such cases are referred to a trauma department. Most of these injuries may cause severe final functional impairment, thereby jeopardising future activities, particularly in cases where treatment was delayed or inappropriate. The timing and method of treatment are critical. The trauma may involve soft tissues only, or bone and joint, or several structures at the same time, which results in combined complex tissue defects. Each type of tissue loss should be managed by choosing the most suitable technique from the armamentarium of reconstructive surgery, taking into account different priorities and the optimum timing (immediate or delayed, one- or two-stages). The authors describe a spectrum of indications and techniques that can be useful tools in managing these injuries.

End-to-side nerve suture in traumatic injuries of brachial plexus: review of the literature and personal case series.

We used end-to-side nerve coaptation combined with standard end-to-end neurotisations to treat 11 patients who presented with complete (six cases) or incomplete (five cases) traumatic brachial plexus injuries. All patients were available for functional evaluation at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. In three patients with shoulder abduction recovery, electromyographical studies (EMG) showed a contribution from the end-to-side neurotisation. In the remaining cases end-to-side neurotisations were unsuccessful. Our study did not demonstrate a reliable role for end-to-side nerve suture in brachial plexus surgery. We believe that at present end-to-side suture must not be a substitute for standard reconstructive techniques in brachial plexus surgery. Occasionally termino-lateral nerve sutures may represent a support to standard reconstructive procedures especially in case of severe injuries when few undamaged donor nerves are available.

The influence of written information during the consenting process on patients' recall of operative risks. A prospective randomised study.

In a recent article, Leigh (J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 88-B:16-18, 2006) notes that patients do not lay down memory when being counselled as to the risks involved in prospective surgery. In our article we focused on the patients' recall of risk factors involved in elective spinal surgery. We assessed the influence of written information provided to the patients during the consenting process on their recall of operative risks. The study was a prospective randomised study. All patients having elective spinal surgery were included in our study from February 2006 to November 2006 as a consecutive series. Patients were randomised into two groups, one of which received routine consent with verbal explanations (group 1), the other received the same information supplemented by a written sheet explaining the risks of the surgery (group 2). Two weeks later we assessed patients' recall of the risk involved in the surgery with a questionnaire and compared both groups with a Student t-test. Fifty-three patients (twenty in group 1 and twenty three in group 2) were involved. We noted a significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean number of risks recalled and number of patients recalling each risk (p<0.001 and p<0.005, respectively). The addition of a written sheet given to patients during the consenting process makes a significant difference in terms of their recall of the surgical risks in elective lumbar spine surgery. We advocate the routine use of written booklets during the consenting process.