Magnetic resonance angiography for the evaluation of vascular injury in knee dislocations.

Knee dislocations can cause extensive soft tissue disruption including vascular insufficiency to the leg secondary to popliteal artery injury. Physical exam may miss vascular injury and possible late occlusion, but there is controversy regarding use of angiography to evaluate patients after dislocation. Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) has been shown to be equally effective as angiography in evaluating vascular injury and to have fewer complications than angiography. Patients with knee dislocations routinely receive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess ligament integrity. The purpose of our study was to determine whether it may be prudent and convenient to obtain an MR angiogram at the same time as an MRI scan, with less morbidity and discomfort than with conventional angiography. Sixteen patients with frank and occult knee dislocations were prospectively evaluated over 2 years. After reduction, a physical exam was performed including ankle brachial index (ABI). With ABI < 0.90, emergent vascular surgery consult and angiogram was performed. Patients with ABI > 0.90 were observed for 3 days with serial physical exams, and MRI/MRA was performed as soon as possible. Sixteen dislocations were identified. Two of 16 (12.5%) had abnormal ABIs and received an angiogram and subsequent revascularization. Two had normal exams, but refused MRA. Twelve had normal exams and received MRI/MRA showing a normal popliteal artery with no adverse events. ABI had 100% sensitivity for vascular injury; however, there remains concern among treating surgeons about missing an occult injury such as an intimal tear. Because MRA has been shown to be as accurate and useful as angiography, we may be able to evaluate ligamentous and vascular injury simultaneously with less morbidity than that with conventional angiography.

Biomechanical comparison of single-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair technique versus transosseous repair technique.

This study determined the effect of tear size on gap formation of single-row simple-suture arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) vs transosseous Mason-Allen suture open RCR (ORCR) in 13 pairs of human cadaveric shoulders. A massive tear was created in 6 pairs and a large tear in 7. Repairs were cyclically tested in low-load and high-load conditions, with no significant difference in gap formation. Under low-load, gapping was greater in massive tears. Under high-load, there was a trend toward increased gap with ARCR for large tears. All repairs of massive tears failed in high-load. Gapping was greater posteriorly in massive tears for both techniques. Gap formation of a modeled RCR depends upon the tear size. ARCR of larger tears may have higher failure rates than ORCR, and the posterior aspect appears to be the site of maximum gapping. Specific attention should be directed toward maximizing initial fixation of larger rotator cuff tears, especially at the posterior aspect.

The diagnostic value of MRI in foot and ankle surgery.

BACKGROUND: MRI is being used with increasing frequency and seems to have become more popular as a screening tool rather than as an adjunct to narrow specific diagnoses or plan operative interventions. Our hypothesis was that the rising accessibility of this test may be resulting in its overuse. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 221 consecutive patients referred over a 3-month period for treatment of a lower extremity problem to determine: (1) the number of patients who presented with an MRI already obtained from an outside source, (2) the number of patients who obtained an MRI from the foot and ankle specialist after referral, and (3) the number of times the foot and ankle specialist used these studies or found them helpful in the care of the patient. Fractures (20) were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 201 patients without fractures included in the study, 19.9% (40 of 201) had MRI scans during the course of their treatment; 15.4% (31 of 201) presented to their initial visit with an MRI scan from an outside source, and 4.5% (9 of 201) received MRI scans as ordered by the foot and ankle specialist. Eighty-seven percent (27 of 31) of the pre-referral MRI scans were thought to be unnecessary, and 48.4% (15 of 31) had radiographic interpretations that were considered either immaterial to the patient's pertinent clinical diagnosis or inconsistent with the specialist's interpretations. All nine MRI scans ordered by the specialist were useful in the care of the patient. Therefore, of the 221 consecutive patients, the foot and ankle specialist would have ordered MRI scans in only 5.9% (13 of 221). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that many of the pre-referral foot or ankle MRI scans obtained before evaluation by a foot and ankle specialist are not necessary. Further studies need to be performed to determine the role of MRI in the screening of foot and ankle disorders.