Preventing Iatrogenic Fibula Fractures Using the Push-Pull Technique: A Biomechanical Comparison of Unicortical Versus Bicortical Post Screws.

BACKGROUND: Displaced diaphyseal fractures can be reduced using the push-pull technique, wherein a plate is affixed to the distal fragment of the fracture, a post screw is placed proximal to the plate, and a lamina spreader creates distraction. This study evaluated the load to failure and mechanism of failure of bicortical and unicortical post screws during reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four matched pairs of cadaver legs were subjected to a 2-cm oblique osteotomy simulating a displaced, oblique diaphyseal fracture. A 6-hole compression plate was affixed to the distal fragment with 2 unicortical locking screws, and a 12-mm uni-cortical or 20-mm bicortical screw was inserted as a post screw proximal to the plate. A lamina bone spreader was used to exert a distraction force between the plate and the post screw. A mechanical actuator simulated the distraction procedure until failure. Maximum applied load, displacement, and absorbed energy were recorded and compared across unicortical and bicortical groups by paired t tests. RESULTS: At maximum load, we found statistically significant differences in displacement (P=.003) and energy absorbed (P=.022) between the two groups. All unicortical screws failed through screw toggle and bone cut-out. Bicortical screws failed through bending, with no visible damage to the bone at the screw site. CONCLUSION: When diaphyseal fractures are significantly shortened and require a greater distraction force to achieve reduction, bicortical screws demonstrate a higher mechanical load to failure and increased bone loss from the screw-removal site. A unicortical post screw may be used if minimal distraction is needed. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].

Simultaneous Bilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Reconstruction.

There are limited studies in the literature regarding the reconstruction of bilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in a single-stage setting. However, there have been no published studies describing simultaneous revision reconstructions of previously reconstructed bilateral ACLs. We present the case of a 37-year-old male who underwent previous reconstruction of both ACLs at an outside hospital and presented to our outpatient clinic with instability and pain. Simultaneous bilateral ACL revision reconstruction was performed with the use of tibialis anterior allografts. This case report suggests that single-stage bilateral ACL revision reconstruction is a safe procedure that can provide good results for the patient.

Complications and Outcomes After Surgical Intervention in Clavicular Nonunion: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical repair of clavicle fractures is being employed more frequently, although most fractures are still treated conservatively. Both can result in nonunion. Current treatments for clavicle nonunion include open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) plating without bone graft, ORIF plating with bone graft, and intramedullary pin fixation. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting outcome, complication, and reoperation rates following surgical treatment for clavicle nonunion. Subgroup analysis was undertaken for outcome and complication rates between single plating and intramedullary pin fixation, bone graft use, and nonunion time length definition. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies met inclusion criteria (1,258 clavicle nonunions). Mean clinical follow-up was 2.6 years. Seventy-two percent of nonunions were of the middle third, 1% were proximal third, 12% were distal third, and 15% were not reported. Forty-eight percent of nonunions were atrophic or oligotrophic and 17% were hypertrophic (35% not reported). Mean time to union was 13.6 weeks. Ninety-five percent of patients achieved union after the primary nonunion surgery. Overall complication rate was 17%. Single-plating fixation had significantly faster union time (15.2 vs. 19.8 weeks), lower reoperation rate (23% vs. 37%), and hardware removal rate (20% vs. 34%) than intramedullary pin fixation. Bone graft had significantly lower rates of delayed union (0.6% vs. 3.6%) but higher complication (15% vs. 8%) and reoperation rates (29% vs. 14%) than the other groups. Studies that defined nonunion after 3 months had significantly faster union times than the 6-month studies (13 vs. 16 weeks). The 3-month group had a significantly lower overall complication rate (12% vs. 25%) and hardware/fixation failure rate (3% vs. 5.5%) than the 6-month group. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review is the largest report of complications, reoperations, and patient outcomes of clavicle nonunions after surgical intervention in the current literature. Plating showed faster time to union and lower reoperation rates than intramedullary pin fixation. Bone graft use showed lower rates of delayed union but substantially higher rates of complications and reoperations. Reports with a definition of nonunion at 3 months showed faster union times and lower complication rates compared to reports with a definition of nonunion that was 6 months or greater. Surgery could be considered at 3 months post-injury in cases of symptomatic non-united clavicle fracture, and plating results in reliable outcomes. Adjuvant bone grafting requires further study to determine its value and risk/benefit ratio. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Systematic Review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Complications After Anatomic Shoulder Arthroplasty: Revisiting Leading Causes of Failure.

For practicing shoulder arthroplasty surgeons, it is advisable to consider a breadth of data sources concerning complications and outcomes. Although published series from high-volume centers are the primary source of data, these results may not be generalizable to a wide range of practice settings. National or health system-specific registry and medical device databases are useful adjuncts to assess the changing complication profile of shoulder arthroplasty, as well as to understand the complications specific to certain implants or implant types. To reduce the risk of postoperative complications, surgeons must have a clear understanding of the most common modes of failure.

Complications of articular distal humeral fracture fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Distal humeral fractures are relatively rare injuries in adults. Fractures that involve the articular surface can be particularly challenging to treat. Open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) remains the preferred treatment for most intra-articular distal humeral fractures, depending on the degree of comminution and functional demands of the patient. Many surgical approaches, fixation techniques, and potential complications have been described in the literature; however, the relative incidence and associated characteristics of these complications have not been studied. The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of complications and reoperations after ORIF for intra-articular distal humeral fractures. We sought to provide practical guidance to surgeons and offer insights on the avoidance and prognosis of complications through a systematic review of the published literature over the past 20 years. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting complications and reoperation rates after ORIF for intra-articular distal humeral fractures. Subgroup analysis was conducted for complication rates between type 13B and 13C fractures, olecranon osteotomy and non-osteotomy approaches, and parallel and perpendicular plating. RESULTS: Eighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (2362 elbows; 5 level II, 2 level III, and 76 level IV studies). The mean clinical follow-up period was 2.6 years. The majority of fractures were type C (83%), the remainder were type B (17%). Of the fractures, 71% were closed whereas 9% were open; this was not reported for 20%. The mean postoperative flexion arc was 110°. The overall complication rate was 53%, and the overall reoperation rate was 21%. Although a parallel plating approach resulted in a lower rate of fixation failure requiring revision (1% vs. 6%, P < .001), a perpendicular plating approach showed a significantly lower rate of overall complications (45% vs. 54%, P = .006). This was primarily driven by lower rates of wound dehiscence (0.1% vs. 5%, P < .001), neuropathy (9% vs. 13%, P = .03), and implant prominence (3% vs. 7%, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review is the largest report of complications and reoperations of intra-articular distal humeral fractures after ORIF in the current literature. These results suggest that complications may be more frequent than previously understood. In contrast to prior small comparative studies, our study observed a significantly higher overall complication rate with parallel plating than with perpendicular plating. Perpendicular plating for intra-articular distal humeral fractures may be considered if adequate fixation and biomechanical stability can be achieved.

Effect of Elbow Position on Load to Failure in Olecranon Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates if relative flexion or extension of the ulnohumeral joint affects the strength of repair in olecranon fractures treated with a precontoured locking plate. METHODS: A cadaveric study was performed in matched pair cadaveric elbows. All soft tissue was dissected from the radius, ulna, and elbow of each specimen, leaving interosseous ligaments and joint capsules intact. Soft tissue from the humerus was dissected away, leaving only the triceps tendon and ulnar insertions intact. An oblique proximal to distal olecranon osteotomy was created in each specimen 1 cm from the tip of the olecranon. Internal fixation with standard precontoured locking plates and a Krackow augmentation suture with #2 FiberWire followed. Specimens were randomized to elbow position of 90 or 20 degrees° and loaded to failure via axial pull through the triceps. Load at failure, displacement at the time of failure, peak load, stiffness, and mechanism of failure was recorded and compared. The study was repeated a second time with the osteotomy more proximal, 0.6 cm creating a smaller fragment with less opportunities for locking screw fixation. This small fragment group was then tested as the large fragment group had. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in load at failure, peak load, or stiffness between the elbow position in the large fragment group. Displacement at time of failure was significantly different, although not clinically relevant. Failure of fixation in this group was a mix of triceps avulsion and failure through fracture site. The smaller fragment group with less points of fixation demonstrated no statistically significant differences in any parameters. A majority of the failures were at the fracture site. CONCLUSIONS: Ulnohumeral position does not significantly affect overall construct strength even in olecranon fractures with small proximal fragments with limited points of fixation.