Assessment of Radiation Protection in Hand-Shielding Products With Mini C-Arm Fluoroscopy.

Background: Previous studies have highlighted the particular risk of radiation exposure to the surgeon's hands with intraoperative fluoroscopy. Although evidence exists that shielding equipment for the hands reduces exposure, the extent of protection is not well understood. Therefore, we set out to determine the degree to which radiation exposure to the surgeon's hands is decreased with hand-shielding products. Methods: An anthropomorphic model was positioned to simulate a surgeon sitting at a hand table. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed on the proximal phalanx of each index finger. The right index finger dosimeter was covered with a standard polyisoprene surgical glove (control arm), whereas the left index finger dosimeter was covered with commercially available hand-shielding products (study arm): lead-free metal-oxide gloves, leaded gloves, and radiation-attenuating cream. Mini fluoroscope position, configuration, and settings were standardized. The model was scanned for 15 continuous minutes in each test run, and each comparative arm was run 3 times. Results: The mean radiation dose absorbed by the control and variable dosimeters across all tests was 44.8 mrem (range, 30-54) and 18.6 mrem (range, 14-26), respectively. Each hand-shielding product resulted in statistically lower radiation exposure than a single polyisoprene surgical glove. Conclusions: The mean radiation exposure to the hands was significantly decreased when protected by radiation-attenuating options. Each product individually resulted in a statistically significant decrease in hand exposure compared with the control. We recommend that in addition to efforts to decrease radiation exposure, surgeons consider routine use of hand-shielding products when using mini c-arm fluoroscopy.

Risk Factors for Skin Tears Following Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum to Treat Dupuytren Contractures.

PURPOSE: Skin tears are an unpleasant complication that may occur after collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) administration to treat Dupuytren contractures of the fingers. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors for the development of this complication. METHODS: Over a 6-year period, patients with a measurable metacarpophalangeal or proximal interphalangeal joint Dupuytren contracture and a palpable cord treated with CCH were prospectively observed. Patients were assessed for the development of skin tears immediately on the day of manipulation as well 30 days or more after manipulation. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (174 cords) met inclusion criteria. There was a 25.6% incidence of skin tears (30 of 117 patients; 33 skin tears). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that patients with a combined digital flexion contracture (total combined metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, and distal interphalangeal joint contracture) of 75° and greater and those treated with 2 simultaneous doses of CCH in the same hand were more likely to sustain a tear. All skin tears healed with nonsurgical management at short-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although a relatively minor complication, skin tears are not well-tolerated by all patients and may change the postinjection course of orthosis use, wound care, and manual activity. Based on these results, patients with digital contractures 75° or greater and those treated with 2 simultaneous doses of CCH in the same hand may be counseled that they have a higher likelihood of developing a skin tear during manipulation. Pretreatment education may reduce anxiety experienced by patients who otherwise unexpectedly develop a skin tear at the time of manipulation. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic II.

Hand Surgeons and Orthopedic Trauma Surgeons Call Coverage of Acute Upper Extremity Injuries: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus as to which subspecialty service should cover acute upper extremity injuries in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of the present study is to understand how upper extremity injuries are currently triaged to specialists and to assess the current opinion among hand and orthopedic trauma specialists as to how these injuries should be best triaged based on injury location and severity. METHODS: The American Association for Hand Surgery (AAHS) membership and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) membership were surveyed using a 28-item online questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 103 responses from the AAHS and 114 responses from the OTA were received. Nearly 50% of the respondents report no formal anatomic line as to how upper extremity injuries are triaged to specialists from the ED. Approximately 57% of the AAHS respondents feel that hand call should begin at the distal radius or proximal, while 71% of the OTA respondents feel that hand call should begin at the radiocarpal joint or distal. There was increasing agreement that more complex injuries be assigned to the hand surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: There is agreement that proximal to the elbow, the trauma consultant should be called, and distal to the distal radius, the hand consultant should be called. However, there is a lack of agreement as to who should be responsible for call between the elbow and the hand. To optimize patient care, better allocate consultant resources, and minimize conflict between consultants, establishing anatomic guidelines for consultation should be considered.

Complex coronoid and proximal ulna fractures are we getting better at fixing these?

Technological advances and improved understanding of functional anatomy about the elbow have lead an evolution regarding operative reconstruction of complex proximal ulnar and coronoid fractures. When treating these complex and challenging fractures, goals of anatomic articular restoration along with balanced soft tissue stability can lead to early range of motion and thus, desired functional outcome. The purpose of this review is to outline and provide tips and pearls to achieve desired results, with a comprehensive update on the most recent literature to support the latest fixation methods and techniques.

Intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal femur fractures secondary to gunshot wounds: predictors of postoperative malrotation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine significant factors that may impact the postoperative differences in femoral version (DFV) and differences in femoral length (DFL) between the fixed and uninjured sides after intramedullary nailing (IMN) secondary to gunshot wounds. DESIGN: Retrospective data registry study. SETTING: Academic level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Over a 10-year period, 417 patients underwent IMN of a diaphyseal femur fracture (OTA/AO 32A-C). Of these, 57 patients sustained fractures caused by gunshots and had a postoperative computed tomographic scanogram. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: DFV and DFL. The effect of the following variables on DFV and DFL were determined through univariate and stepwise multivariate regression analyses: age, sex, body mass index, trauma fellowship-trained versus nontrauma surgeon, daytime versus nighttime surgery, antegrade versus retrograde nail insertion, use of traction, type of operating table, and AO and Winquist classifications. RESULTS: The mean postoperative DFV for all patients was 8.62 degrees (±6.67 degrees). Postoperative DFV greater than 15 degrees was found in 12.3% of all patients. After IMN, no significant differences in DFV were found with increasing complexity of AO/OTA or Winquist fracture classification. None of the aforementioned independent variables were significantly predictive of postoperative DFV in univariate or multivariate analyses. The mean postoperative DFL for all patients was 5.25 mm (±4.36 mm). In a multivariate model, classification as Winquist type 3 or 4 was weakly (adjusted R = 0.075) but significantly predictive of less DFL than categorization as type 1 or 2 (P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Although gunshot-associated femur fractures may present surgical challenges for treatment through IMN, acceptable femoral rotation and length are obtainable regardless of the fracture complexity or a variety of demographic and surgically-related variables. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level II.