Fracture-dislocations of the forearm joint: a systematic review of the literature and a comprehensive locker-based classification system.

BACKGROUND: Monteggia, Galeazzi, and Essex-Lopresti injuries are the most common types of fracture-dislocation of the forearm. Uncommon variants and rare traumatic patterns of forearm fracture-dislocations have sometimes been reported in literature. In this study we systematically review the literature to identify and classify all cases of forearm joint injury pattern according to the forearm joint and three-locker concepts. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed database was performed based on major pathological conditions involving fracture-dislocation of the forearm. Essex-Lopresti injury, Monteggia and Galeazzi fracture-dislocations, and proximal and/or distal radioulnar joint dislocations were sought. After article retrieval, the types of forearm lesion were classified using the following numerical algorithm: proximal forearm joint 1 [including proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation with or without radial head fractures], middle radioulnar joint 2, if concomitant radial fracture R, if concomitant interosseous membrane rupture I, if concomitant ulnar fracture U, and distal radioulnar joint 3 [including distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) dislocation with or without distal radial fractures]. RESULTS: Eighty hundred eighty-four articles were identified through PubMed, and after bibliographic research, duplication removal, and study screening, 462 articles were selected. According to exclusion criteria, 44 full-text articles describing atypical forearm fracture-dislocation were included. Three historical reviews were added separately to the process. We detected rare patterns of two-locker injuries, sometimes referred to using improper terms of variant or equivalent types of Monteggia and Galeazzi injuries. Furthermore, we identified a group of three-locker injuries, other than Essex-Lopresti, associated with ulnar and/or radial shaft fracture causing longitudinal instability. In addition to fracture-dislocations commonly referred to using historical eponyms (Monteggia, Galeazzi, and Essex-Lopresti), our classification system, to the best of the authors' knowledge, allowed us to include all types of dislocation and fracture-dislocation of the forearm joint reported in literature. According to this classification, and similarly to that of the elbow, we could distinguish between simple dislocations and complex dislocations (fracture-dislocations) of the forearm joint. CONCLUSIONS: All injury patterns may be previously identified using an alphanumeric code. This might avoid confusion in forearm fracture-dislocations nomenclature and help surgeons with detection of lesions, guiding surgical treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Problems of Eponymous Proportions: The History Behind Recognizing Forearm Instability Issues.

Three predictable patterns of forearm fracture-dislocation-Essex-Lopresti, Monteggia, and Galeazzi-can occur and are eponymously labeled for the investigators who appreciated their unique characteristics and offered a framework by which to understand them. Recognition of these injuries and subsequent investigation and increased understanding of these lesions have resulted in improved understanding about forearm anatomy and stability. Management of the component of instability differs based on the type of fracture-dislocation, the timing of intervention, and surgeon preference. Despite advances in understanding and treating these injuries, nuances of these lesions may remain challenging to modern-day surgeons.

Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture-Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To figure out the difference between patients with posterior Monteggia fractures which were concomitant with proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation and posterior fracture-dislocation of the proximal ulna that were not concomitant with PRUJ. METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2019, 37 consecutive adult patients who had posterior fracture-dislocation of proximal ulna (no PRUJ dislocation, n = 16) and posterior Monteggia fractures (PRUJ dislocation, n = 21) were included. All patients had intraoperative fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT) scans, and standard radiography (anteroposterior view and lateral view). The mechanism of injury, the cases with open fracture, sustained multiple injuries and classification of fracture was recorded. The clinical details of the patients such as the final range of motion (ROM) and the Broberg-Morrey scores were described. RESULTS: Patients with PRUJ dislocation (ten type A, five type B, and six type D) and those without concomitant PRUJ dislocation (fifteen type A and one type C) exhibited an obvious difference according to the classifications of Jupiter et al. (P = 0.010). Ninety-five percent of patients who had PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture, while only 50% of the patients who did not have PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture (P = 0.002). Meanwhile, 16 of 20 metaphyseal fractures had more than one fragment in the group of dislocations, but five of eight metaphyseal fractures were comminuted in the control group. The two groups exhibited an obvious difference (P = 0.009). The 21 patients who sustained a radioulnar dislocation had less mean arc of flexion, pronation, and Broberg-Morrey scores were significantly less than the patients of the control group (flexion: 117.38 ± 14.46 vs 127.50 ± 13.416, P = 0.035; pronation: 59.76 ± 11.88 vs 67.50 ± 6.58, P = 0.017; Broberg-Morrey: 80.48 ± 12.17 vs 88.19 ± 10.28, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Patients suffering posterior Monteggia fractures had more metaphyseal fractures, more comminuted fractures of the metaphysis, and worse ultimate ulnohumeral motion than patients of posterior fracture-dislocation of proximal ulna.

Reliability and validity of the Wrightington classification of elbow fracture-dislocation.

AIMS: The Wrightington classification system of fracture-dislocations of the elbow divides these injuries into six subtypes depending on the involvement of the coronoid and the radial head. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of this classification system. METHODS: This was a blinded study using radiographs and CT scans of 48 consecutive patients managed according to the Wrightington classification system between 2010 and 2018. Four trauma and orthopaedic consultants, two post CCT fellows, and one speciality registrar based in the UK classified the injuries. The seven observers reviewed preoperative radiographs and CT scans twice, with a minimum four-week interval. Radiographs and CT scans were reviewed separately. Inter- and intraobserver reliability were calculated using Fleiss and Cohen kappa coefficients. The Landis and Koch criteria were used to interpret the strength of the kappa values. Validity was assessed by calculating the percentage agreement against intraoperative findings. RESULTS: Of the 48 patients, three (6%) had type A injury, 11 (23%) type B, 16 (33%) type B+, 16 (33%) Type C, two (4%) type D+, and none had a type D injury. All 48 patients had anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs, 44 had 2D CT scans, and 39 had 3D reconstructions. The interobserver reliability kappa value was 0.52 for radiographs, 0.71 for 2D CT scans, and 0.73 for a combination of 2D and 3D reconstruction CT scans. The median intraobserver reliability was 0.75 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.62 to 0.79) for radiographs, 0.77 (IQR 0.73 to 0.94) for 2D CT scans, and 0.89 (IQR 0.77 to 0.93) for the combination of 2D and 3D reconstruction. Validity analysis showed that accuracy significantly improved when using CT scans (p = 0.018 and p = 0.028 respectively). CONCLUSION: The Wrightington classification system is a reliable and valid method of classifying fracture-dislocations of the elbow. CT scans are significantly more accurate than radiographs when identifying the pattern of injury, with good intra- and interobserver reproducibility. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1041-1047.

Ratio of dislocation types of the proximal interphalangeal joint of the fingers: A new classification system for initial therapy.

BACKGROUND: We proposed a new system named the sagittal, coronal, axial, rotational and fracture (SCARF) classification, which can simply explain any condition of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint dislocations of the fingers. The purpose of this study was to verify that this classification would contribute to management of PIP joint dislocations at the initial therapy. We determined ratios of five factors in PIP dislocations with SCARF by interpreting radiographs and assessed the interobserver and intraobserver variability. METHODS: In total, 68 fingers in 67 consecutive patients were studied. The SCARF classification is composed of five factors: (1) sagittal plane displacement is rated by dorsal (D), volar (V), or neutral (N); (2) coronal plane displacement, by ulnar (U), radial (R), or neutral (N); (3) axial force, by compression (C), traction (T), or no (N); (4) rotational displacement, by supine (S), prone (P), or neutral (N); and (5) fracture concomitance, by minus (-) or plus (+). The row of the five characters explains each condition of PIP joint dislocations. Interobserver and intraobserver variability was determined after six orthopedic surgeons independently classified the same radiographs twice. RESULTS: All 68 dislocations were classified into 14 types, unless fracture concomitance was considered. The most common type was DUNN (35%). In coronal plane displacements, the two ulnar fingers showed a higher tendency to the ulnar position. Ring finger fracture concomitance was higher than in middle fingers or little fingers. In interobserver analysis, mean kappa coefficient for each factor was 0.63, 0.75, 0.68, 0.33, and 0.84, respectively. In intraobserver analysis, that was 0.73, 0.79, 0.71, 0.41, and 0.81, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even other than hand specialists can specify the type of every PIP dislocation by using the SCARF classification and will have better understanding of the disorder. It would contribute to management of PIP dislocations at the initial therapy. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic II.

Management of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Fracture Dislocations.

Fracture dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the finger are often caused by axial load applied to a flexed joint. The most common injury pattern is a dorsal fracture dislocation with a volar lip fracture of the middle phalanx. Damage to the soft-tissue stabilizers of the PIP joint contributes to the deformity seen with these fracture patterns. Unfortunately, these injuries are commonly written off and left untreated. A late-presenting PIP joint fracture dislocation has a poor chance of regaining normal range of motion. The provider must be suspicious of these injuries. Treatment options and algorithm are reviewed.

The lateral malleolar bony fleck classified by size and pathoanatomy: The IOFAS classification.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzes position of the peroneal tendons and status of the superior peroneal retinaculum (SPR) whenever a lateral malleolar bony flake fracture occurs. METHODS: Twenty-four patients had a lateral malleolar bony fleck on anteroposterior ankle radiographs, either in isolation or associated with other hindfoot injuries. We studied size of the bony flecks, presence or absence of peroneal tendon dislocation and pathoanatomy on CT scans. RESULTS: In 11 patients, a small bony fleck lies within the superior peroneal retinaculum and contiguous periosteum, which are stripped off the lateral fibula (Class II lesions). Tendons dislocate into the subperiosteal pouch thus formed, resembling Class I lesions without associated bony avulsion. Treatment for Class II is same as for Class I injuries. In 8 patients with a big bony fleck, tendons dislocate into the fracture site and SPR is intact (Class III lesions). In Class IV lesions, observed in 5 patients with 2-part calcaneal fracture/dislocation, SPR remains intact and peroneal tendons are not dislocated. The invariably large fleck results from the displacing lateral calcaneal fragment abutting against the fibula, whereas the dislocating tendons cause the bony avulsions in Classes II and III. CONCLUSIONS: Due to pathoanatomical differences, surgical approach and natural history of neglected lesions differ depending on size of the bony fleck. The SPR must not be incised in case of big Class III flecks.

[Intra-articulair tibial Plateau Fractures]. / Intraartikuläre Tibiakopffrakturen.

Tibial plateau fractures are complex articular injuries, especially if caused by high energy. For adequate treatment a decidedly clinical and radiographic diagnostic is required. The three-column-concept has proven as excellent surgical planningstool in this complex trauma. By (1) precisely considering the specific characteristics of the fracture, (2) careful treatment of soft-tissue envelope and (3) choosing the right treatment strategy, a good functional outcome can be achieved.

Pipkin type III femoral head fracture-dislocation combined with complicated acetabular fracture: A rare case report and literature review.

RATIONALE: Pipkin III fracture, which is characterized by high risk of avascular necrosis of the femoral head, is extremely rare. It is more difficult to treat and has a worse prognosis when accompanied with severe acetabular fractures. Few studies show that both Pipkin type III femoral head fracture-dislocation and complicated acetabular fracture presented in one patient. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 34-year-old male suffered a terrible traffic accident with a serious damage to the left side when he was sitting in the car's cockpit. Pelvic radiograph and 3-dimensional reconstruction of computed tomography revealed characteristics of fractures before the emergency operation. DIAGNOSIS: Pipkin III fractures combined with complicated acetabular fracture. INTERVENTIONS: Firstly, we used combined anterior and posterior approach for treatment to fix the femoral head fractures. Then, we completed anatomical reduction of fractures with countersunk head screw, hollow screw, and reconstruction plate. OUTCOMES: At the 12-months follow-up, the patient could walk freely and perform activities of daily living without necrosis of femoral head and heterotopic ossification. LESSONS: Although there are serious complications in Pipkin III fractures combined with complicated acetabular fracture, early surgical treatment with appropriate approach and fixation could get satisfactory results.

[Fractures of carpal bones]. / Frakturen der Handwurzelknochen.

Fractures of the carpal bones are uncommon. On standard radiographs fractures are often not recognized and a computed tomography (CT) scan is the diagnostic method of choice. The aim of treatment is to restore pain-free and full functioning of the hand. A distinction is made between stable and unstable carpal fractures. Stable non-displaced fractures can be treated conservatively. Unstable and displaced fractures have an increased risk of arthritis and non-union and should be stabilized by screws or k­wires. If treated adequately, fractures of the carpal bones have a good prognosis. Unstable and dislocated fractures have an increased risk for non-union. The subsequent development of carpal collapse with arthrosis is a severe consequence of non-union, which has a heterogeneous prognosis.

Involvement of the lesser sigmoid notch in elbow fracture dislocations.

BACKGROUND: This study addressed the primary null hypothesis that there is no difference in the articular surface area of the lesser sigmoid notch involved among Mayo classes. Secondarily, we analyzed the fracture line location and the pattern of lesser sigmoid notch articular surface involvement among Mayo classes. METHODS: Using quantitative 3-dimensional computed tomography, we reconstructed and analyzed fractures involving the lesser sigmoid notch articular surface in 52 patients. Further, we assessed the surface area involved in the fracture, the number of fracture fragments, and the location and direction of the fracture lines. Coronoid fractures were classified according to Mayo types. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Mayo types 1 and 2 in any characteristic of the involvement of the lesser sigmoid notch articular surface, whereas Mayo type 3 was significantly different from both Mayo types 1 and 2 in the area involved in the fracture (42% in Mayo type 3 vs. 9% in Mayo types 1 and 2), the number of articular fragments (>3 fragments in type 3 vs. 2 fragments in types 1 and 2), and the direction of fracture line (both horizontal and vertical lines in type 3 vs. only horizontal line in types 1 and 2). CONCLUSION: Mayo type III results in a more complex fracture, which might need to be addressed directly or indirectly during open reduction with internal fixation of olecranon fracture dislocations because changes in the geometry of lesser sigmoid notch may affect the radioulnar joint if it remains incongruent.

Classification and Outcome of Fracture-Dislocation of the Cuneiform Bones.

Fractures and dislocations of the cuneiform bones are rare injuries to the midtarsal foot. The injury severity is often unclear, and the prognostic factors are unknown. The purpose of the present study was to characterize our insights of the diagnostics, therapy, and fracture patterns. We questioned whether the number of involved cuneiform bones and the type of injury would affect the clinical outcome. With this information, we aimed to develop a classification system for injuries of the cuneonavicular joint. Five patients who had sustained complex fracture-dislocation of the cuneiform bones were prospectively registered, underwent surgery, and were followed. We reviewed the published data and found 47 reports that included 55 patients to improve the informative value of our study. The injury mechanisms and therapy were evaluated, and the postoperative limitations and pain were assessed. The clinical outcome was correlated with the number of involved cuneiforms and the fracture/dislocation pattern. Direct trauma was associated with isolated fracture, and indirect injury was associated with isolated dislocations. Occasionally, these injuries were overlooked on conventional radiographs, and closed reduction frequently failed. The number of cuneiform bones involved and the type of injury were shown to affect the clinical outcome. We devised an easily applicable classification system for injuries to the cuneiform bones using this information. All cases were classified as isolated fractures (1), isolated dislocations (2), or fracture-dislocations (3) involving 1 (A), 2 (B), or 3 (C) cuneiform bones. The classification system we propose will facilitate a better understanding of the fracture patterns at the cuneonavicular joint line and is a good prognostic tool that requires validation in clinical settings.

Hinged external fixation for Regan-Morrey type I and II fractures and fracture-dislocations.

Elbow fracture-dislocation is always demanding to manage due to the considerable soft-tissue swelling or damage involved, which can make an early open approach and ligamentous reconstruction impossible. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of elbow hinged external fixation (HEF) as a definitive treatment in patients with elbow dislocations associated with Regan-Morrey (R-M) type I and II coronoid fractures and soft-tissue damage. We treated 11 patients between 2010 and 2012 with HEF. Instability tests and standard X-ray examinations were performed before surgery and 1-3 to 3-6 months after surgery, respectively. All patients underwent a preoperative CT scan. Outcomes were assessed with a functional assessment scale (Mayo Elbow Performance Score, MEPS) that included 4 parameters: pain, ROM, stability, and function. The results were good or excellent in all 11 patients, and no patient complained of residual instability. Radiographic examination showed bone metaplasia involving the anterior and medial sides of the joint in 5 patients. HEF presented several advantages: it improves elbow stability and it avoids long and demanding surgery in particular in cases with large soft tissue damage. We therefore consider elbow HEF to be a viable option for treating R-M type I and II fracture-dislocations.

Reliability of classification of ring and little finger carpometacarpal joint fracture subluxations: a comparison between two-dimensional computed tomography and three-dimensional computed tomography classifications.

The aims of this study were to develop a classification for ring and little finger carpometacarpal joint fracture subluxations based on three-dimensional computed tomography images and evaluate the inter- and intraobserver reliability of the three-dimensional computed tomography classification. A retrospective review was performed of 30 cases of ring and little finger carpometacarpal joint fracture subluxations from 2005 to 2013. We classified ring and little finger carpometacarpal joint fracture subluxations into three types based on three-dimensional computed tomography images. An orthopaedic surgeon with 2 years of experience, a consultant hand surgeon with 8 years of experience, and a consultant radiologist with 9 years of experience, who were completely blind to the treatment algorithm, evaluated 30 cases twice at a 2-week interval using our new classification based on three-dimensional computed tomography images and the other classification based on two-dimensional computed tomography images. Our three-dimensional computed tomography classification showed almost perfect interobserver and intraobserver reliability and resulted in a better level of agreement than two-dimensional computed tomography classification.

Operative Treatment of Acute Fractures of the Tarsal Navicular Body: Midterm Results With a New Classification.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of displaced tarsal navicular body fractures usually consists of open reduction and internal fixation. However, there is little literature reporting results of this treatment and correlation to fracture severity. METHODS: We report the results of 24 patients treated in our institution over a 12-year period. Primary outcome measurements were Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle score (VAS-FA), AOFAS midfoot score, and talonavicular osteoarthritis at final follow-up. According to a new classification system reflecting talonavicular joint damage, 2-part fractures were classified as type I, multifragmentary fractures as type II, and fractures with talonavicular joint dislocation and/or concomitant talar head fractures as type III. Spearman's coefficients tested this classification's correlation with the primary outcome measurements. Mean patient age was 33 (range 16-61) years and mean follow-up duration 73 (range 24-159) months. RESULTS: Average VAS-FA score was 74.7 (standard deviation [SD] 16.9), and average AOFAS midfoot score was 83.8 (SD = 12.8). Final radiographs showed no talonavicular arthritis in 5 patients, grade 1 in 7, grade 2 in 3, grade 3 in 6, and grade 4 in 1 patient. Two patients had secondary or spontaneous talonavicular fusion. Spearman coefficients showed strong correlation of the classification system with VAS-FA score (r = -0.663, P < .005) and talonavicular arthritis (r = 0.600, P = .003), and moderate correlation with AOFAS score (r = -.509, P = .011). CONCLUSION: At midterm follow-up, open reduction and internal fixation of navicular body fractures led to good clinical outcome but was closely related to fracture severity. A new classification based on the degree of talonavicular joint damage showed close correlation to clinical and radiologic outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.