Arthroscopic Repair of the Isolated Subscapularis Full-Thickness Tear: Single- Versus Double-Row Suture-Bridge Technique.

BACKGROUND: No clinical comparative study has addressed isolated subscapularis tears after arthroscopic repair with either single-row or double-row suture-bridge technique. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes and structural integrity after arthroscopic repair of an isolated subscapularis full-thickness tear with either the single-row technique or the double-row suture-bridge technique. The authors hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in clinical outcomes and structural integrity between approaches. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This study included 56 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of an isolated subscapularis full-thickness tear with grade II or less fatty infiltration in the subscapularis muscle with either a single-row technique (n = 31) or a double-row suture-bridge technique (n = 25). Functional outcomes were assessed with the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score, and active range of motion. Magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) or computed tomographic arthrography (CTA) was performed 6 months after surgery to assess the structural integrity of the repaired tendon. RESULTS: At the 2-year follow-up, all scoring parameters applied (VAS, SSV, ASES, and UCLA), subscapularis strength, and active range of motion improved significantly in both groups as compared with preoperative values ( P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between groups in any of these clinical outcome measurements (VAS, 1.2 vs 1.1; SSV, 91.3 vs 91.8; ASES, 91.0 vs 91.4; UCLA, 31.9 vs 32.1). On follow-up MRA or CTA, the overall retear rate did not differ significantly between the single-row group (13%, 4 of 31) and the double-row group (12%, 3 of 25). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic single-row repair and double-row suture-bridge repair of isolated full-thickness subscapularis tears both yielded satisfactory clinical outcomes and structural integrity with no significant differences among patients with good muscle quality.

Medial Subluxation or Dislocation of the Biceps on Magnetic Resonance Arthrography Is Reliably Correlated with Concurrent Subscapularis Full-Thickness Tears Confirmed Arthroscopically.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between biceps medial subluxation/dislocation on the magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) imaging and subscapularis full-thickness tear confirmed arthroscopically. We hypothesized that presence of a biceps medial subluxation or dislocation would strongly indicate a subscapularis full-thickness tear. METHODS: A total of 432 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic repair for rotator cuff tears with/without subscapularis tears at our institute were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criterion of this study was preoperative MRA images taken within 6 months of arthroscopic repair. The presence of medial subluxation/dislocation was evaluated on the preoperative MRA images, and subscapularis tear was confirmed on arthroscopic examination. RESULTS: Biceps subluxation/dislocation was identified in 46 of the 432 patients on MRA. Forty-five of these 46 patients also had a subscapularis full-thickness tear identified in arthroscopic examination. Among the 386 patients who did not have biceps subluxation or dislocation, 54 patients had a subscapularis full-thickness tear diagnosed arthroscopically. The presence of a biceps subluxation/dislocation could predict a subscapularis full-thickness tear with sensitivity of 45% (45/99), specificity of 99% (332/333), positive predictive value of 98% (45/46), negative predictive value of 86% (332/386), and accuracy of 87% (377(45 +332)/432). CONCLUSION: Medial subluxation/dislocation of the biceps on MRA images was highly associated with a concurrent subscapularis full-thickness tear which was confirmed arthroscopically. This association had 99% specificity and 98% positive predictive value. Therefore, if a biceps subluxation/dislocation is identified on MRA images, there is a high chance that a concurrent subscapularis full-thickness tear exists.

Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block combined with sciatic nerve block as an anesthetic technique for hindfoot and ankle surgery: A prospective, randomized noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: A femoral nerve block (FNB) in combination with a sciatic nerve block (SNB) is commonly used for anesthesia and analgesia in patients undergoing hindfoot and ankle surgery. The effects of FNB on motor function, related fall risk, and rehabilitation are controversial. An adductor canal block (ACB) potentially spares motor fibers in the femoral nerve, but the comparative effect on hindfoot and ankle surgeries between the 2 approaches is not yet well defined. We hypothesized that compared to FNB, ACB would cause less weakness in the quadriceps and produce similar pain scores during and after the operation. METHODS: Sixty patients scheduled for hindfoot and ankle surgeries (arthroscopy, Achilles tendon surgery, or medial ankle surgery) were stratified randomized for each surgery to receive an FNB (FNB group) or an ACB (ACB group) combined with an SNB. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at each stage. Secondary outcomes included quadriceps strength, time profiles (duration of the block procedure, time to full anesthesia and time to full recovery), patients' analgesic requirements, satisfaction, and complications related to peripheral nerve blocks such as falls, neurologic symptoms, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity were evaluated. The primary outcome was tested for the noninferiority of ACB to FNB, and the other outcomes were tested for the superiority of each variable between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients received an ACB and 29 received an FNB. The VAS pain scores of the ACB group were not inferior during and after the operation compared to those of the FNB group. At 30 minutes and 2 hours after anesthesia, patients who received an ACB had significantly higher average dynamometer readings than those who received a FNB (34.2 ±â€Š20.4 and 30.4 ±â€Š23.7 vs 1.7 ±â€Š3.7 and 2.3 ±â€Š7.4, respectively), and the results were similar at 24 and 48 hours after anesthesia. There were no differences between the 2 groups with regard to time profiles and patient satisfaction. No complications were noted. CONCLUSION: ACB preserved quadriceps muscle strength better than FNB, without a significant difference in postoperative pain. Therefore, ACB may be a good alternative to FNB for reducing the potential fall risk.

Larger medial femoral to tibial condylar dimension may trigger posterior root tear of medial meniscus.

PURPOSE: The major meniscal functions are load bearing, load distribution, and shock absorption by increasing the tibiofemoral joint (TFJ) contact area and dissipating axial loads by conversion into hoop stresses. The increased hoop strain stretches the meniscus in outward direction towards radius, causing extrusion, which is associated with the root tear and resultant degenerative osteoarthritis. Since the larger contact area of medial TFJ may increase the hoop stresses, we hypothesized that the larger medial femoral to tibial condylar dimension would contribute to the development of medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT). Thus, the purpose of the study was to assess the relationship between MMPRT and medial femoral to tibial condylar dimension. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted to compare medial femoral to tibial condylar dimensions of patients with complete MMPRT (n = 59) with those of demography-matched controls (n = 59) during the period from 2010 to 2013. In each patient, MRIs were reviewed and several parameters were measured including articulation width of medial femoral condyle (MFC) at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°, medial tibial condyle (MTC) width, degree of meniscal extrusion, and medial femoral to tibial condylar width ratio (MFC/MTC) at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°, respectively. Demographic and radiographic data were assessed. RESULTS: A larger medial femoral to tibial condylar dimension was associated with MMPRT at 0° and 30° knee angles. Patients with MFC/MTC greater than 0.9 at 0° also showed about 2.5-fold increase in the chance of MMPRT. Those with meniscal extrusion greater than 3 mm also had about 17.1 times greater chance for the presence of MMPRT accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: A larger medial femoral to tibial condylar dimension may be considered as one of the regional contributors to the outbreak of MMPRT, and medial femoral to tibial condylar width ratio greater than 0.9 at 0° knee angle may be considered as a significant risk factor for MMPRT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Femoral and sciatic nerve block for hindfoot and ankle surgery.

BACKGROUND: The use of regional anesthesia, such as ankle block or sciatic nerve block, has gained in popularity due to considerations of patient comfort and safety in foot and ankle surgery. However, if the operation extends above the midfoot or if a thigh tourniquet is required, general or spinal anesthesia is needed. The authors aimed to determine by prospective study whether a 'double block', involving femoral and sciatic nerve blocks, is advantageous under such conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effectiveness of a preoperative double block was prospectively evaluated in 26 consecutive patients undergoing a variety of foot and ankle procedures, compared with 32 patients with sciatic nerve block alone. Time of analgesia onset, length of block coverage, and complications were noted. Degree of pain was measured using VAS (Visual Analog Scale) scores at the operation, just after surgery, and at 2 h, 1 day, and 2 days after surgery. RESULTS: The surgical procedures performed under double block were ankle arthroscopy and medial ankle ligament reconstruction, and Achilles tendon repair, and the following conditions were treated; surgery for medial ankle fracture, ankle fusion, subtalar fusion, and surgery for hindfoot diseases, such as, talocalcaneal coalition. The average time required to analgesia onset was 63 min for a double block and 61 min for sciatic nerve block alone. Analgesia time lasted 12.0 h for a double block and 12.4 h for sciatic nerve block alone. Average VAS scores at the operation and immediately after the operation were 0.03 (range 0-1) and 0.16 (range 0-2) for sciatic nerve block, and 0.35 (range, 0-4), 0.31 (range 0-2) for double block. Average VAS scores at 2 h, 1 day, and 2 days postoperatively were 0.28 (range, 0-2), 2.16 (range 0-6), and 1.63 (range 0-5) for sciatic nerve block, and 0.42 (range 0-5), 2.27 (range 0-7), and 1.72 (range 0-8), respectively, for double block. CONCLUSION: The results of this prospective study suggest that double block provides good surgical anesthesia and good postoperative pain control for hindfoot and ankle surgery.