Abstracts From The Argentina Congress Of Shoulder Surgery.

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 30-32 | Byron Torres, Paúl Terán

Authors: Byron Torres [?], Paúl Terán [?].

[1] Hospital Metropolitano de Quito Hospital Vozandes de Quito Sociedad Latinoamericana de Hombro y Codo

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Byron Torres D.
Hospital Metropolitano de Quito Hospital Vozandes de Quito
Sociedad Latinoamericana de Hombro y Codo
Email: btorres@ceoecuador.com.

Abstract

Introduction: The rotator cuff irreparable tears cause pain and an important functional impairment in patients. The different strategies that we have to treat them, have given variable results and the great concern remains in how to hold the progression towards degenerative arthropathy. The superior capsular reconstruction seems to be a logical and biomechanically adequate concept with good clinical results. With this in mind, we set ourselves the objectives of carrying out this procedure assessing its replicability and perform a follow-up with ultrasound, functional scores and of patient satisfaction score.
Methods: It deals with a series of 10 cases with prospective follow-up (2 men and 8 women), who were performed the superior capsule reconstruction, by the same surgeon between January 2015 and February 2016 with an average follow-up of 6 months. All of them with irreparable rupture of the rotator cuff, not responding to conservative management. We performed shoulder arthroscopy and superior capsular reconstruction with autologous ipsilateral fascia lata graft.
Results: The DASH score was of 64 in average in the pre-surgical, and of 24 average in the post- surgical phases. The working module obtained 56 as average range in the pre-surgical and 18 as average in the post-surgical phases. The sports module obtained 56 in the average range during the pre-surgical and 22 of average in the post-surgical phases. All the 10 patients made known that they would repeat the proceeding towards the final follow-up, which in average was of 6 months. The average age of the patients was of 61.5 years, with a minimum age of 53 and the maximum of 67 years old. Graft’s width was assessed through ultrasound, in the most anterior part, intermediate part, and the most posterior part, being the narrower graft of 3mm in average and the thicker of 6.9 mm in average. The anteroposterior length was also assessed, with an average of 1.9 cm and values that ranged from 1.2 cm through 2.56 cm. Three out of 10 patients related occasional residual pain at the donor site.
Conclusions: The superior capsular reconstruction with fascia lata autograft Is a demanding but a replicable procedure that in our series had good clinical results in the medium term, and also had good to excellent results in functional and satisfaction scales. Up-to-date information suggests that long-term results are influenced by the width of the graft, but that goes beyond this follow-up. We are committed to keep track of the cases, so the thickness can be assessed further in time, and its impact in the results noted. This encourages us to continue with our cases so as to assess this data in the future and its impact on the results. Autologous grafting often generates some post-surgery discomfort, reason why maybe the heterologous grafting may be a better option, if available.
Keywords: superior capsular reconstruction, irreparable rotator cuff tear

References

1. ???????

How to Cite this article: Ramon S, Alentorn-Geli E, Alvarez P, Unzurrunzaga R, Lama N, Alvarez X, Cugat R. Differences in postoperative rehabilitation after inverted prosthesis by traumatic pathology compared to degenerative disease. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017;2(2):33.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Dynamic Anatomy of Elbow Stability

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 30-32 | Juan Del Castillo, Rodrigo Fratelli, Mauricio Oehler, Nicolás Casales, Viviana Teske, Domingo Beltramelli

Authors: Juan Del Castillo [1], Rodrigo Fratelli [1], Mauricio Oehler [1], Nicolás Casales [1], Viviana Teske [1], Domingo Beltramelli [1].

[1] Departamento de Anatomía
Facultad de Medicina UdelaR (Anatomy Department, School of Medicine, University of the Republic of Uruguay

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Juan Del Castillo,
Departamento de Anatomía
Facultad de Medicina UdelaR
(Anatomy Department, School of Medicine, University of the Republic of Uruguay
Email:btorres@ceoecuador.com.

Abstract

Background: Elbow dislocation leads to varying degree of instabilities depending on the ligaments damaged and amount of damage to these ligaments. Various studies have noted role of these ligaments and present study is a dynamic cadaveric study to understand these instabilities better
Material and Methods: 10 cadaveric elbows maintained in 10% formaldehyde concentration were employed. Healthy joint upper limbs were prepared, and the elbow joint was further dissected. The different joint osseous and ligament stabilizers were sectioned by stages, and their implication on the stability of the elbow joint complex was recorded.
Results: Collateral ligaments were confirmed to be the main ligament stabilizers in the elbow. The lateral complex controls both varus and posterolateral stress. The medial collateral complex controls valgus stress, mainly thanks to its anterior bundle. The radial head plays a secondary role, controlling valgus stress once the medial collateral complex has been sectioned. Once radial head has been replaced, valgus stress stability is regained
Conclusion: The role of elbow stabilizers has been determined, and our results are consistent with those of international literature
Keywords: Elbow Instability, Cadaveric Study

References

1. O’Driscoll SW, Jupiter JB, King GJ, et al. The unstable elbow. Instr Course Lect 2001;50:89–102.
2. Crhis D. Bryce; April D. Armstrong. Anatomy and Biomechanics of the elbow. Orthop Clin N Am 39 (2008 141-154)
3. Miller Mark, Thompson S. DeLee & Drez ́s Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Principles and Practice 2015
4. Morrey B, The Elbow and its disorders, 3rd ed 2004

How to Cite this article: Castillo JD, Fratelli R, Oehler M, Casales N, Teske V, Beltramelli D. Dynamic anatomy of elbow stability . Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017;2(2):30-32.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Clinical and Ecographical/ultrasound Partial Results on Superior Capsular Reconstruction for Rotator Cuff Irreparable Tears

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 24-26 | Byron Torres, Paúl Terán

Authors: Byron Torres [1], Paúl Terán [1].

[1] Hospital Metropolitano de Quito Hospital Vozandes de Quito Sociedad Latinoamericana de Hombro y Codo

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Byron Torres D.
Hospital Metropolitano de Quito Hospital Vozandes de Quito
Sociedad Latinoamericana de Hombro y Codo
Email: btorres@ceoecuador.com

Abstract

Introduction: The rotator cuff irreparable tears cause pain and an important functional impairment in patients. The different strategies that we have to treat them, have given variable results and the great concern remains in how to hold the progression towards degenerative arthropathy. The superior capsular reconstruction seems to be a logical and biomechanically adequate concept with good clinical results. With this in mind, we set ourselves the objectives of carrying out this procedure assessing its replicability and perform a follow-up with ultrasound, functional scores and of patient satisfaction score.
Methods: It deals with a series of 10 cases with prospective follow-up (2 men and 8 women), who were performed the superior capsule reconstruction, by the same surgeon between January 2015 and February 2016 with an average follow-up of 6 months. All of them with irreparable rupture of the rotator cuff, not responding to conservative management. We performed shoulder arthroscopy and superior capsular reconstruction with autologous ipsilateral fascia lata graft.
Results: The DASH score was of 64 in average in the pre-surgical, and of 24 average in the post- surgical phases. The working module obtained 56 as average range in the pre-surgical and 18 as average in the post-surgical phases. The sports module obtained 56 in the average range during the pre-surgical and 22 of average in the post-surgical phases. All the 10 patients made known that they would repeat the proceeding towards the final follow-up, which in average was of 6 months. The average age of the patients was of 61.5 years, with a minimum age of 53 and the maximum of 67 years old. Graft’s width was assessed through ultrasound, in the most anterior part, intermediate part, and the most posterior part, being the narrower graft of 3mm in average and the thicker of 6.9 mm in average. The anteroposterior length was also assessed, with an average of 1.9 cm and values that ranged from 1.2 cm through 2.56 cm. Three out of 10 patients related occasional residual pain at the donor site.
Conclusions: The superior capsular reconstruction with fascia lata autograft Is a demanding but a replicable procedure that in our series had good clinical results in the medium term, and also had good to excellent results in functional and satisfaction scales. Up-to-date information suggests that long-term results are influenced by the width of the graft, but that goes beyond this follow-up. We are committed to keep track of the cases, so the thickness can be assessed further in time, and its impact in the results noted. This encourages us to continue with our cases so as to assess this data in the future and its impact on the results. Autologous grafting often generates some post-surgery discomfort, reason why maybe the heterologous grafting may be a better option, if available.
Keywords: superior capsular reconstruction, irreparable rotator cuff tear

References

1. Liem D, Lengers N, Dedy N, Poetzl W, Steinbeck J, Marquardt B. Arthroscopic debridement of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 2008;24: 743-748.
2. Lee B, Cho N, Rhee Y. Results of arthroscopic decompression and tuberoplasty for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 2011;27:1341-1350.
3. Kim S, Lee I, Kim S. Arthroscopic partial repair of irreparable large to massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 2012;28:761-768.
4. YooJ,KohK,WooK,ShonM,KooK.Clinicalandradiographicresults of partial repairs in irreparable rotator cuff tears: Preliminary report. Arthroscopy 2010;26:E3
5. Wellmann M, Lichtenberg S, da Silva G, Magosch P, Habermeyer P. Results of arthroscopic partial repair of large retracted rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 2013;29: 1275-1282.
6. Holtby R, Razmjou H. A prospective outcome study of patients with large and massive rotator cuff tears: Role of complete vs. partial repair. Arthroscopy 2011;27:E88-E89
7. Mori D, Funakoshi N, Yamashita F. Arthroscopic surgery of irreparable large or massive rotator cuff tears with lowgrade fatty degeneration of the infraspinatus: Patch autograft procedure versus partial repair procedure. Arthroscopy 2013;29:1911-1921.
8. Chang V, Grimberg J, Kany J, Valenti P, Duranthon L, Garret J. Early clinical results of arthroscopic latissimus dorsi transfer for irreparable cuff tears. Arthroscopy 2012;28:E14 (abstr).
9. Yamakado K. Arthroscopic assisted latissimus dorsi transfer for irreparable cuff tears. Arthroscopy 2015;31: E11-E12
10. Ishihara Y, Mihata T, Tamboli M, et al. Role of the superior shoulder capsule in passive stability of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:642-648.
11. Mihata T, Lee TQ, Watanabe C, et al. Clinical results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:459-470.
12. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Pirolo JM, Kinoshita M, Lee TQ. Superior capsule reconstruction to restore superior stability in irreparable rotator cuff tears: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:2248-2255.
13. Mihata T, Watanabe C, Fukunishi K, Tsujimura T, Ohue M, Kinoshita M. Clinical outcomes after arthroscopic superior capsular reconstructionfor irreparable rotator cuff tear. Shoulder Joint.2010;34:451-453
14. Maximilian Petri, M.D., Joshua A. Greenspoon, B.Sc., and Peter J. Millett, M.D., M.Sc., Arthroscopic Superior Capsule Reconstruction for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears , Arthroscopy Techniques, Vol 4, No 6 (December), 2015: pp e751-e755
15. Gupta A.K., Hug K., Berkoff D.J. Dermal tissue allograft for the repair of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:141–147
16. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Kahn T, Goldberg I, Neo M, Lee TQ Biomechanical Effect of Thickness and Tension of Fascia Lata Graft on Glenohumeral Stability for Superior Capsule Reconstruction in Irreparable Supraspinatus Tears. Arthroscopy. 2016 Mar;32(3):418-26.
17. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Kahn T, Goldberg I, Neo M, Lee TQ. Biomechanical Effects of Acromioplasty on Superior Capsule Reconstruction for Irreparable Supraspinatus Tendon Tears Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):191-7

How to Cite this article: Torres B, Terán P. Clinical and Ecographical/ultrasound Partial Results on Superior Capsular Reconstruction for Rotator Cuff Irreparable Tears. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017;2(2):24-26.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Prevalence of Musculoskeletal disorders of the Shoulder in a Hospital of the City of Buenos Aires – Retrospective study

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 20-23 | Muhafara, Gastón Jorge, Cura, Adriano Javier, Tozzi Walter Ariel, Villarruel Matias, Virgilio Sacha Ali, Mariano Alfredo, Esperón Luis Francisco

Authors: Muhafara, Gastón Jorge [1], Cura, Adriano Javier [1], Tozzi Walter Ariel [1], Villarruel Matias [1], Virgilio Sacha Ali [1], Mariano Alfredo [1], Esperón Luis Francisco [1].

[1] Hospital P . Piñero, Clínica Santa Catalina, University of Buenos Aires, Fundación Favaloro.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Muhafara,
Hospital P . Piñero, Clínica Santa Catalina, University of Buenos Aires, Fundación Favaloro.
Email: muhafara@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder are recognized as the third cause of medical consultation with the health service, interfering in the activities of daily life of patients, both personally and at work. With regard to the diagnostic criteria, upon classifying the different pathologies, no universal consensus exists. In Argentina, no published data on individuals with this alteration who have received physical therapy (PT) treatment have been found. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and epidemiological characteristics of adult patients diagnosed with a shoulder pathology, who visited the outpatient Physical Therapy Department(PTD) of the Parmenio T. Piñero Hospital in a one-year period.
Materials and Method: Descriptive, cross-sectional, and retrospective study. A search of the database of the PTD of the Parmenio T. Piñero Hospital was carried out, selecting the PT files of patients with a shoulder pathology who had a medical consultation between June 1, 2015 and May 31, 2016.
Results: During the period covered by the study, a total of 1423 patients had medical consultations with the PTD, with a prevalence of shoulder pathologies of 10.05 % (143/1423). The average age (SD) was 52.9 ± 16.74 years of age, with 56.64 % of females (n = 81). The patients analyzed were mainly housewives, retirees, and housekeepers. The main reason of consultations was the subacromial syndrome, with 53.85 % (n = 77), followed by trauma conditions, with 21.68 % (n = 31). The discontinuance rate was 51.74 %.
Conclusion: This study enabled us to know the epidemiological characteristics of adult patients with a shoulder pathology, who visited the Outpatient PTD of the Parmenio T. Piñero Hospital in a one- year period.
Key words: Prevalence, musculoskeletal disorders, shoulder, Hospital, physical therapy

References

1. Greving K, Dorrestijn O, Winters JC, Groenhof F, Van der Meer K, Stevens M et al. Incidence, prevalence, and consultation rates of shoulder complaints in general practice. Scand J Rheumatol. 2012, 41 150 -155
2. Linaker CH, Walker-Bone K. Shoulder disorders and occupation. Best Practice&Research Clinical Rheumatology. 2015, 41 1 -19
3. Hopman K, Krahe L, Lukersmith S, McColl AR, Vine K. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rotator Cuff Syndrome in the Work place. 2013.
4. Ferreiro Marzoa I, Veiga Suárez M, Guerra Peña JL, Rey Veiga S, Paz Esquete J, Tobío Iglesias A. Tratamiento rehabilitador del hombro doloroso. Rehabilitación (madr). 2005, 3 113 -20
5. Mitchell C, Adebajo A, Hay E, Carr A. Shoulder pain: diagnosis and management in primary care. BMJ. 2005, 331 1124 -8
6. Frau-Escales P, Langa-Revert Y, Querol-Fuentes F, Mora-
7. Amérigo E y Such-Sanz A. Trastornos músculoesqueléticos del hombro en atención primaria. Estudio de prevalencia en un centro de la Agencia Valenciana de Salud. Fisioterapia. 2013;35(1):10-17.
7.Gillian AH, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of Adult Pain. Arthritis Care&Research. Vol. 63, No. S11, November 2011, pp S240 –S252.
8. Reilingh ML, Kuijpers T, Tanja-Harfterkamp AM, van der Windt DA. Course and prognosis of shoulder symptoms in general practice. Rheumatology. 2008, 47 724 -300
9. Niels GJ, Natvig B. Shoulder diagnoses in secondary care, a one year cohort. Juel and Natvig BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2014, 15:89.
10. Strazdins L, Bammer G. Women, work and musculoskeletal health. Social Science& Medicine. 2004, 41 997 -1005
11. Terri SM, Lee Osterman A, Fedorczyk JM, Amadio PC. Rehabilitation of the hand and upperextremity.2011; Volume 1. Sixth edition. Mosby.
12. Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T, Yanagawa T, Nakajima D, Shitara H et al. Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19, 116-120.
13. Egol KA,Koval KJ,Zuckerman JD. Manual de fracturas. 4th. Ed. Wolters Kluwer Health Lippincott Williams&Wilkins; 2011.
14. Gonz lez FA. Analysis of adherence to kinesiology treatments. Professional Organization of Kinesiologists of the Province of Buenos Aires, Year 7, Number 26 – April/June 2008.
15. Diercks J, Bron C, Dorrestijn O, Meskers C, Naber R, de Ruiter Tjerk et al. Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of subacromial pain. A multidisciplinary review by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association. Acta Orthophaedica. 2014; 85(3):314- 322.
16. Vicente-Herrero MT, Capdevila García L, López Gonzálezc ÁA, Ramírez Iñiguez de la Torred MV. El hombro y sus patologías en medicina del trabajo. SEMERGEN. 2009; 35(4):197-202.
17. Gomoll AH, KatzJN, Warner JJP, Millett PJ. Rotator Cuff Disorders Recognition and Management Among Patients With Shoulder Pain. Arthritis&Rheumatism. Vol. 50, No. 12, December 2004, pp 3751–3761

How to Cite this article: Jorge MG, Javier CA, Ariel WT, Matias V, Virgilio, Sacha V, Alfredo AM, Francisco EL. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder in a Hospital of the City of Buenos Aires. Retrospective study. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder in a Hospital of the City of Buenos Aires. Retrospective study. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017;2(2):20-23

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Treatment of symptomatic acromioclavicular dislocation- Our experience

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 27-29 | Ernesto Daniel Yedro, Claudia Alejandra Cáceres Saglio

Authors: Ernesto Daniel Yedro, Claudia Alejandra Cáceres Saglio.

[1] Ex fellow Servicio de Miembro superior Instituto Dupuytren (Cap. Federal.
BsAs).  Ex Fellow de Artroscopia del CT8O San Isidro (BsAs) Argentina.
Traumatologo– Sanatorio Integral IOT. Ciudad de Posadas. Misiones. Argentina
[2] Servicio Miembro Superior Hospital Escuela de Agudos HEA. Traumatologa.
Sanatorio Integral IOT. Ciudad de Posadas. Misiones. Argentina

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ernesto Daniel Yedro
Bolivar 2376 Posadas Misiones
Email: edyedro@yahoo.com.ar

Abstract

Purpose: the purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiological results of the reduction of acromioclavicular dislocation during the healing period without the anatomical reconstruction of the CC and AC ligaments.
Materials and Methods: twelve patients were treated between 2012 and 2015 with a mean follow-up of 1.5 years. Patients were included if they had Rockwood types III, IV and V acromioclavicular dislocation and were treated during the acute period (i.e. during the first three weeks of the injury). The technique employed was arthroscopic with mini-invasive. The reduction of ACD was achieved during the healing period by using two titanium buttons connected by four highly-resistant, non-reabsorbable suture cord: one button was placed in the clavicle and the other in the coracoid.
Results: results were reported after two years of post-surgical follow-up. The measurements included the static and dynamic evaluation and the DASH outcome scoring. Static radiographic measurements of the CC distance with mean discharge was 0.93 cm compared to 2.7 cm at the initial examination (p<0.0001); and DASH outcome measure of 14 compared to a pre-surgical scoring of 52 (p>0001). The patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the cosmesis and were able to return to their previous sorts and work routine normally.
Conclusion: this study confirms that he reduction of ACD by means of double button fixation during the acute healing period, and adequate immobilization helps to the biological repair without he need of anatomical reconstruction of AC and CC ligaments. In this way the patients could restore the function of the arm and achieve the static and dynamic stability. They were also able to reinstate their work and sport previous to the injury.
Keywords: acromioclavicular dislocation, button, arthroscopy, DASH score, coracoclavicular distance.

References

1. Collins DN. Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rockwood CA Jr, editor. The shoulder. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2009. pp. 453–526.
2. Mazzocca AD, Arciero RA, Bicos J. Evaluation and treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(2):316–29.
3. Fukuda K, Craig EV, An KN, et al. Biomechanical Study of the ligametous systm of the acromioclavicular joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986; 68:434 – 440.
4. Verdano M, Pellegrini A, Zanelli M, Paterlini M, Ceccarelli F. Modified Phemister procedure for the surgical treatment of Rockwood types III, IV, V acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Musculoskeletal Surg. 2012;96(3):213–22
5. Bearden J, Hughson J, Whatley G. Acromioclavicular dislocation: method of treatment. Am J Sport Med. 1973; 1:5 – 17.
6. Jari R, Costic RS, Rodosky MW, Debski RE. Biomechanical function of surgical procedures for acromioclavicular joint dislocations Arthroscopy 2004; 20: 237 – 245.
7. Nissen CW, Chatterjee A. Type III acromioclavicular separation: Results of a recent survey on its management. Am JOrthop 2007;36:89-93.
8. Warren-Smith CD, Ward MW. Operation for acromioclavicular dislocation. A review of 29 cases treated by one method. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1987;69:715-718
9. Dimakopoulos P, Panagopoulos A, Syggelos SA, Panagiotopoulos E, Lambiris E. Double-loop suture repair for acute acromioclavicular joint disruption. Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34(7):1112-9.
10. Koukakis A, Manouras A, Apostolou CD, Lagoudianakis E, Papadima A, Triantafillou C, et al. Results using the AO hook plate for dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008; 5(5):567-72
11. Hellmich A, Sievers U. Operative repair ofacromioclavicular separation via transcutaneous Kirschner wire fixation: results of follow-up examinations in 45 patients. Aktuelle Traumatol.1988; 18(3):9-13.
12. Weaver JK, Dunn HK. Treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, speciallycomplete acromioclavicular separation. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 1972; 54:1187 – 1194.
13. Tossy J, Med N, Sigmond H. Acromioclavicular separations. Useful and practical classification for treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1963; 38: 111 – 119.
14. Rockwood CJ, William G, Young D. Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rockwood CJ, Matsen FA III, eds. The Shoulder. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1998: 483 – 553.
15. Zanca P. Shouler pain: involvement of the acromioclavicular joint (analysis of 1000 cases) Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med; 1971; 112: 493 – 506.
16. Weinstein DM, McCann PD, Mcllveen SJ, et al. Surgical treatment of complete acromioclavicular dislocations. Am J Sport Med. 1995; 232: 324 – 331.
17. Nissen CW, Chatterjee A. Type III acromioclavicular separation: results of recen ton its management. Am J Orthop. 2007; 36: 89 – 93.
18. Spencer E. Treatment of grade III acromiocavicular joint injuries. Clin Orthop Realt Res. 2007; 455: 38 – 44.
19. Mc Farlan EG, Bilvin SJ, Doehring CB, et al. Treatment of grade III acromioclavicular separations in profesional throwing athletes: results of a survey. Am J Orthop. 1997; 16: 771 – 774.
20. Galpin RD; Hawkins RJ; Grainger RW. A comparative analysis of operative versus nonoperative treatment of grade III acromioclavicular separations. Clin J Sport –med. 2003; 18: 162 – 166.
21. MacDonald PB, Lapointe P. Acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joint injuries. Orthop Clin North Am. 2008; 39(4):535-45.
22. Pan Z, Zhang H, Sun C, Qu L, Cui Y. Arthroscopyassisted reconstruction of coracoclavicular ligament by Endobutton fixation for treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015; 135(1):9-16. 8. Iannotti JP, Williams GR. Disorders.
23. Habernek H, Weinstabl R, Schmid L, Fialka C. A crook plate for treatment of acromioclavicular joint separation: indication, technique, and results after one year. J Trauma. 1993; 35(6):893-901.
24. Phillips AM, Smart C, Groom AF. Acromioclavicular dislocation: Conservative or surgical therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 353(2):10-7.
25. Gstettner C, Tauber M, Hitzl W, Resch H. Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: surgical versus conservative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(2):220-5.
26. Dimakopoulos P, Panagopoulos A, Syggelos SA, Panagiotopoulos E, Lambiris E. Double-loop suture repair for acute acromioclavicular joint disruption. Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34(7):1112-9.
27. Paavolainen P, Björkenheim JM, Paukku P, Slätis P. Surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation: a review of 39 patients. Injury. 1983; 14(5):415-20.
28. Hellmich A, Sievers U. Operative repair of acromioclavicular separation via transcutaneous Kirschner wire fixation: results of follow-up examinations in 45 patients. Aktuelle Traumatol. 1988; 18(3):9-13.
29. Bosworth BM. Acromioclavicular separation. New method of repair. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1941; 73(1):866-71.
30. Wellmann M, Zantop T, Weimann A, Raschke MJ, Petersen W. Biomechanical evaluation of minimally invasive repairs for complete acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(6):955-61.

How to Cite this article: Yedro ED, Saglio CAC .Treatment of symptomatic acromioclavicular dislocation. Our experience. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017; 2(2): 27-29.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Editorial: Joint Congress between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and the Argentinean Shoulder and Elbow Association

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 1 | Daniel Moya

Authors: Daniel Moya [1].

[1] ESWT Unit, Orthopaedic Department Buenos, Aires British Hospital, Argentina

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Daniel Moya,
Castex 3293, (C1425CDC) Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos
Aires, Argentina
E-mail: drdanielmoya@yahoo.com.ar

Abstract

I am grateful for the opportunity given by Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery to publish the abstracts selected for the First Joint Congress between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and the Argentinean Shoulder and Elbow Association. This meeting brought together assistants from all over South America and Spain and allowed to interact with one of the most important shoulder and elbow societies in the world.
Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery covers a need and fills a very important space. The possibility of having a forum for publishing papers and scientific discussion online that is not managed by a commercial company is excellent news.
We are experiencing a changing time in relation to editorial policies. The great difficulty of accessing to publish in certain journals, gave way to the offer to accept the works by means of payment with the excuse of offering an open publication. This may be an alternative for certain researchers backed by a university or a company but in most cases in our environment that does not happen. On the other hand, academic electronic spam including invitations to attend conferences or submit manuscripts sent by predatory publishers or organizations cause great confusion.
Despite all difficulties, the interest for scientific search, to exchange information and publish is not interrupted. The production of scientific works in our countries is the result of the personal effort of the researchers in most cases.
The development of a multilateral information flow model is our responsibility. To achieve this, it is necessary to join forces and have a clear common goal. Working in this way allows the achievement of the proposed objectives. A good example of this is the organization in just over 10 years of two shoulder and elbow world congresses in Latin America, by Brazil (2007) and Argentina (2019).
In conclusion, we have a very important human potential that, in so far as it has communication tools and an accessible participation framework, will be able to make a significant contribution to our subspecialty. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery can become a fundamental link in this process.

How to Cite this article: Moya D. Editorial: Joint Congress between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and the Argentinean Shoulder and Elbow Association Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017;2(2):1.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Treatment of Acute Acromioclavicular joint injuries using hook plate: a retrospective study

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 16-19 | Sebastian Trindade, Paola Del Re

Authors: Sebastian Trindade [1], Paola Del Re [2].

[1] Service of a upper limb of the Trinidad Mitre Clinical (CABA) and Medical Corporation Clinical (prov. Buenos Aires)
[2] Trinidad Mitre Clinical (CABA) and Medical Corporation Clinical (prov. Buenos Aires)

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Sebastian Trindade,
Manager of the service of a upper limb of the Trinidad Mitre Clinical (CABA) and Medical Corporation Clinical (prov. Buenos Aires)
Member Titular of The Argentina Association of Orthopedics and Traumatology (AAOT)
Email: trindadesebastian@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Traumatic injuries of the AC joint are frequent in orthopedic practice accounting for about 9% of all shoulder injuries, the most commonly used classification is Rockwood. The purpose of this retrospective IVevidence level study is to present our experience using for the joint stabilization the hook plate described by Blazer 1976.
Material and Methods: from the period of August 2005 to March 2012 312 patients with acromio-clavicular dislocations were treated in our department, 51 were classified as III and IV type following Rockwood classification, 38 patients (11%) were treated with hook plate. The mean follow-up was 19 months, ranging from 11 to 26 months. The mean age was 36 years old (20-49). The surgery was performed at the average of 14 days from de injury.
Results: Patients were evaluated 6 and 18 months with the modified Quick-DASH, VAS and Constant Murley scales with 95% satisfaction. Discussion: In the surgical treatment, the method of fixation for the stability of the acute AC injury is a matter of debate. In clinical experience, none of them have proven to be any better than others. Based on an old principle of surgery in which different procedures of equal result should be chosen the simplest, animated by simplicity and reproducibility in the technique with low number of complications and an early rehabilitation we continue using this surgical procedure
Key words: Luxation A-C, Plate Hook. Level of Evidence: IV

References

1. Luxacion A-C sección 1 t rauma: clásico Dr.LC Morales Sáenz, Dr.M.A. Murcia Rodríguez Revista Colombiana de OyT volumen 18 No 2, junio 2004.
2. Li X, Ma R, Bedi A, Dines DM, Altchek DW, Dines JS. Management of acromioclavicular joint injuries.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(1):73-84.
3. Bejrnel, H., Lennart, H., Acromio-Clavicular separations treated conservatively. ActaOrthop, Scand., 54:743-754, 1983.
4. Pallis M, Cameron KL, Svoboda SJ, Owens BD. Epidemiology of acromioclavicular joint injury in Young athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(9):2072-2077.
5. Scheibel M, Droschel S, Gerhardt C, Kraus N. Arthroscopically assisted stablization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(7):1507-1516.
6. Schliemann B, Roblenbroich SB, Schneider KN, et al. Why does minimally invasive coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using a flip button repair technique fail? An analysis of risk factors and complications. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc. 2015;23(5):1419-1425.
7. Reid D, Polson K, Johnson L. Acromioclavicular joint separations grades I-III: a review of the literatura and development of best practice guidelines. Sports Med. 2012;42(8):681-696.
8. Rawes ML, Dias JJ.Long-term results of conservative treatment for acromioclavicular dislocations.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78:410-2.
9. Wojtys EM, Nelson G Conservative Treatment of grade III acromioclavicular dislocations.ClinOrthopRelat Res.1991; 268:112-9.
10. Rockwood CA Jr. Subluxacions and dislocations about the shoulder injuries of the acromioclavicular joint in: Rockwood CA Jr, Green DP. Eds. Fractures in Adults. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott: 1984:860-910.
11. Richard K. N. Ryu, Richard L. Angelo, Jeffrey S. Abrams. The Shoulder AANA Advanced Arthroscopic Surgical Techniques 2016:Charpter 7-8:71-94.
12. Sim E. Schwarz N. Hocker K.et al. Repair of complete acromioclavicular separations using the acromioclavicular–hook plate. ClinOrthopRelat res.1995: 314:134-142.
13. Faraj AA.Ketzer B. The use of a hook-plate in management of acromioclavicular injuries.Report of ten cases.ActaOrthop Belg. 2001:67:448-451
14. Rockwood CA Jr: Lesiones de la articulacionacromioclavicular.Hombro 1998; 1:479-550
15. Ursit MR: Complete dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint: tha nature of the traumatic lesion snd effective methods of treatment with an analysis of 41 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1946, 28:813-837.
16. Rockwood CA Jr, Szalay E, Curtis R y col. X-ray evaluation of shoulder problems.The Shoulder Rockwood-Matsen, 1990; Vol. 1, Saundersd, cap.5 pag.178-207.
17. Bradley JP, Elkouskousy H. Decision making.Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries.Clin Sports Med, 2003 22:277-290.
18. Galpin M, Hawkins M, Grainger M.A Comparative analysis of operative versus nonoperative treatment of grade III acromioclavicular separations.ClinOrthop, 1985 193:150-155.
19. Bradley JP, Elkouskousy H. Decision making.Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries.Clin Sports Med, 2003 22:277-290.
20. Galpin M, Hawkins M, Grainger M.A Comparative analysis of operative versus nonoperative treatment of grade III acromioclavicular separations.ClinOrthop, 1985 193:150-155.
21. Wojtys E, Nelson G. Conservative treatment of grade III acromioclavicular dislocations.ClinOrthop, 1991 268:112-119.
22. Bosworth BM. Acromioclavicular separation: new method of repair. SurgGynecolObstet 1941; 73: 866-71.
23. Ammon JT, Voor MJ, Tillett ED.A biomechanical comparison of Bosworth and poly-L lactic acid bioabsorbable screws for treatment of acromioclavicular separations. Arthroscopy 2005; 21: 1443-6.
24. Balser D. Eineneue.MethodezurOperativenBehandlung der Akromioklavikularen Luxation Chin Prax. 1976;24: 275-281.
25. Di Francesco A, Zoccali C, Colafarina O, Pizzoferrato R, Flamini S. The use of hook plate in type III and V acromio-clavicular Rockwood dislocations: clinical and radiological midterm results and MRI evaluation in 42 patients. Injury. 2012;43(2):147-152.
26. Aperhold K. TemorӓrerMetallischerSchulterquelenkerSatzBeiKompletterEukegelenKsprengung.HefteUnfallheilkd.1983; 86: 416-422.
27. Graupe F Dauer V, Eyssel M SpӓtergebnisseNachOperativerBehandlung der Schultereckquelenksprengung.Tossy III Durch Die Blaser-platte. Unfallchirung. 1995; 98:422-426.
28. Ewa KlaraFolwaczny y Klaus Michael Stürmer.Estabilizacion de la LuxacionAcromioclavicular Mediante Sutura Ligamentosa y Placa de Balser. Tec.Quir.Ortop.Traumatol.Alem. (Ed.Esp) 2001 vol.10 Num.4:222-230.
29. Evaluation and Treatment of Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries. Augustus D. Mazzocca, Robert A. Arciero and James Bicos DOI: 10.1177/0363546506298022 Am. J. Sports Med. 2007; 35; 316.
30. Bannister GC, Wallace WA, Stableforth PG, Hutson MA. The management of acute acromioclavicular dislocation.A randomized prospective controlled trial. J Bone joint Surg Br.1989;71:848-50.
31. Ejam S, Lind T, Falkenberg B. Surgical treatment of acute and chronic acromioclavicular dislocation Tossy type III and V using the Hook plate. Acta OrthopBelg. 2008; 74:441-5.
32. KoukakisA,Manouras, Apostolou CD, Lagoudianakis E, Papadima A, Triantafillou C, et al. Results using the AO hook plate for dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. ExpertRevMeddevices. 2008;5:567-72.
33. Complicaciones en la cirugia de la luxacion A-C en dos tecnicas. F.lopez-Oliva, Muñoz JJ AsenjoSiguero,BGarcia de Las Heras.
34. Dan Gutmann,MD; Nader E Paksima,DO; JosepD.; Zuckerman NDComplications of Treatment of Complete Acromio-Clavicular Joint Dislocations,.AAOS Instructions Course Lectures, Volume 49 2000.
35. XiangdongDuan, PhDa, Huiliang Zhang, PhDb, Hongbin Zhang, PhDb, Zhiqiang Wang, PhDaTreatment of coracoid process fractures associated with acromioclavicular dislocation using clavicular hook plate and coracoid screwsJ Shoulder Elbow Surg (2010) 19, e22-e25 .

How to Cite this article: Trindade S, Del Re P. Treatment of Acute Acromioclavicular joint injuries using hook plate: a retrospective study. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017;2(2):16-19.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Conservative treatment for humeral surgical neck non-unions

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 12-15 | Federico Alfano

Authors: Federico Alfano [1].

[1] Spanish Hospital of Buenos Aires

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Federico Alfano
Spanish Hospital of Buenos Aires
Email: drfedericoalfano@gmail.comm.br

Abstract

Introduction: 2-part non-union of the surgical neck fracturesof the humerus after conservative treatment may result from initial displacement, secondary disimpaction,interposition of soft tissue, synovia fluid at the site of fracture, aggressive rehabilitation, bad patient compliance, and many other intrinsic causes. A wide variety of treatments for this condition have been proposed. They include conservative treatment, ORIF (with or without bone grafting), hemiarthroplasty and reverse arthroplasty. Most reports emphasize possible treatment options and their results. Nonetheless, it is hard to address conservative treatment since it is a very disabling disease. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the results achieved with conservative treatment for surgical neck non-unions in elderly patients. Although we advocate for surgical treatment for 2-part non-union of the surgical neck fractures, the group of patients included in the study didn’t accept our surgical indication or surgery was contraindicated because of increased operative or anesthetic risks.
Materials and Method: Retrospectively, 13 shoulders with a 2-year follow-up period were included in the study. 9 of the 13 patients were female. The mean age of the patients was 83.3 years (range 75–91 years). The dominant arm was affected in 4 patients. In the current study it was found that bone cavitation may occur early in the course of the disease, even in cases of hypertrophic non-union. It seems clear that 2-part surgical neck fractures can develop non-union in distinct manners. We found an association between hypertrophic non-union andgleno-humeral arthritis. In these cases, it looks like the limited range-of-motion in the gleno-humeral joint causes fracture instability and continuous movement between fragments, leading to hypertrophic non-unions. As stabilization of a fracture provides the essential mechanical component to allow calcification of the fibrous cartilage,on the contrary, early active mobilization exercises of a stiff joint leads to early mobilization of the fracture sitebefore bone healing had occurred.
Results: All patients complained of pain and functional impairment within the first year (with a mean Constant Score of 13.1, 15.1, 17.2 at 3, 6 and 12 months respectively). After that period most patients complained mainly about poor active range of motion (with a mean Constant Score of 24.7 and25.6 at 18 and 24 months respectively). The mean pain score improved from 8.4 at 6 months to 4.1 at the time of follow-up (p < 0.05).Mean active elevation didn´t improve although home-based exercises or supervised strengthening was carried out. All patients had internal and external rotation lag signs. At the time of last follow-up, the average active shoulder range of motion was 73° of total elevation, 20° of external rotation; on internal rotation, the ipsilateral thumb could reach the ipsilateral buttock. The two patients with combined preexisting gleno-humeral arthritis and hypertropic non-unions had worse outcome in terms of pain and range of motion.
Conclusions: Pain relief after 12 months was associated to three anatomical changes during the natural course of the disease. These are the development of a capsule-like formation of connective tissue in the non-union site, a varus cephalic displacement and bone cavitation process interruption (which was represented by the proximal humerus metaphyseal region and subcapital head sclerosis). In cases of preexisting gleno-humeral arthritis we advocate for reverse arthroplasty. If the hypertropic non-unions had occurred we would advocate for surgical stability and earlier mobilization. In all other cases, we still prefer the surgical indication if the patient has an unacceptable pain. If surgery is not possible, we can still expect reduction of pain but any improvement in terms of range of motion after 12 months of conservative treatment.
Key words: Conservative treatment, humeral surgical neck non-unions, elderly patients.

References

1. Handoll HHG, Madhok R. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Syst. Rev. 2003; Cd000434.
2. Zyto K. Non-operative treatment of comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients. Injury 1998; 29: 349–52.
3. Martin C, Guillen M, Lopez G. Treatment of 2- and 3-part fractures of the proximal humerus using external fixation: a retrospective evaluation of 62 patients. ActaOrthop. 2006; 77: 275–8.
4. Neer CS II. Displaced proximal humeral fractures: part I. Classification and evaluation. J. Bone Joint Surg 1970; 52-A: 13.
5. Neer CS II. Displaced proximal humeral fractures: part II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J. Bone Joint Surg. 1970; 52-A: 1090–103.
6. Sorensen KH. Pseudarthrosis of the surgical neck of the humerus. ActaOrthop. Scand 1964; 34: 132–8.
7. Duralde XA, Flatow EL, Pollock RG, Nicholson GP, Self EB, Bigliani LU. Operative treatment of nonunions of the surgical neck of the humerus. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996; 5: 169–80.
8. Cheung EV, Sperling JW. Management of proximal humeral nonunions and malunions. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 2008; 39: 475–82.
9. Healy WL, Jupiter JB, Kristiansen TK, White RR. Nonunion of the proximal humerus: a review of 25 cases. J. Orthop. Trauma 1990; 4: 424–31.
10. Galatz LM, Iannotti JP. Management of surgical neck nonunions. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 2000; 31: 51–61.
11. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral nonunions. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11: 114–21.
12. Hanson B, Neidenbach P, de Boer P, Stengel D. Functional outcomes after nonoperative management of fractures of the proximal humerus. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18: 612–21.
13. Neer CS II. Nonunion of the surgical neck of the humerus. Orthop Trans. 1983; 7:389.
14. Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. Nonunions of the proximal humerus: their prevalence and functional outcome. J Trauma. 2008 Jun;64(6):1517-21.
15. Coventry MB, Laurnen EL. Ununited fractures of the middle and upper humerus. Special problems in treatment. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 1970 Mar-Apr; 69:192-8.
16. Krackow KA, Thomas SC, Jones LC. A new stitch for ligament-tendon fixation. Brief note.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Jun;68(5):764-6.
17. Leach RE, Premer RF. Nonunio of the surgical neck of thehumerus. Method of internal fixation.Minn Med. 1965 Mar;48:318-22.
18. Boileau P, Trojani C, Walch G, Krishnan SG, Romeo A, Sinnerton R. Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jul-Aug;10(4):299-308.
19. Walch G, Badet R, Nov´e-Josserand L, Levigne C. Nonunions of the surgical neck of the humerus: surgical treatment with an intramedullary bone peg, internal fixation, and cancellous bone grafting. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996 May-Jun;5(3):161-8.
20. Dines DM, Warren RF, Altchek DW, Moeckel B. Posttraumatic changes of the proximal humerus: malunion, nonunion, and osteonecrosis. Treatment with modular hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2: 11-21.
21. Cheung EV, Sperling JW. Management of proximal humeral nonunions and malunions. OrthopClin North Am. 2008 Oct;39(4):475-82, vii.
22. Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. The Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct;15(5):527-40.
23. Duquin TR, Jacobson JA, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral nonunions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Sep 5;94(17):1610-7.
24. Raiss P, Edwards TB, da Silva MR, Bruckner T, Loew M, Walch G. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of nonunions of the surgical neck of the proximal part of the humerus (type-3 fracture sequelae). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 17;96(24):2070-6.
25. Jacobson JA, Duquin TR, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Sperling JW, Cofield RH.Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus malunions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Aug;23(8):1232-9.

How to Cite this article: Alfano F .Conservative treatment for humeral surgical neck non-unions. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017;2(2):12-15.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Anterior instability of the shoulder with more than 10 years evolution, treated with Latarjet Procedure, long-term results

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 9-11 | Domingo Beltramelli, Mauricio Oehler, Bruno Pintos, Emerson Kucharski, Viviana Teske

Authors: Domingo Beltramelli [1], Mauricio Oehler [2], Bruno Pintos [2], Emerson Kucharski [2], Viviana Teske [2]

[1] Jef of Shoulder Group Montevideo Uruguay and CASMU Hospital
[2] Shoulder Group and CASMU Hospital Montevideo Uruguay

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Alexandre de Almeida:
Rua Vitório Buzelatto, 222/601. Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil.
Zip: 95020290.
E-mail: bone@visao.com.br

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to make a retrospective evaluation of the long-term evolution of patients who were operated using the Latarjet in order to evaluate the results regarding the rate of recurrence and arthrosis in the series taken.
Materials and Methods: We considered 58 patients who were operated more than 10 years ago using Latarjet procedure, average follow-up of 13,8 years. The average age at the time of the surgery was 27 years old, 46 of them were males and 12 females and 39 of the total had their dominant side affected. 33 practiced sports, 18 professionally and 15 as a spare time activity. In 22 cases the technique was performed using one screw, and in 36 cases were used two screws.
Results: Using the Carter Rowe scale for the functional evaluation, from a preoperative average of 38,5 we reached 88,2 at the end of follow-up. The recurrence was 5,7%. All the cases show glenoid bone injury that were reviewed using preoperative x-ray which were considered to compare with current evolving x-ray analyzing arthrosis with the Samilson-Prieto criteria. Only 2 patients showed arthrosis in stage 1 in the preoperative. At the time of the evaluation 18% show arthrosis, 2 cases in stage 3, 4 in stage 2 and 4 cases in stage 1. From the ones that practiced sports professionally, 15 resume their activity, and from the ones practicing sports recreationally, 10 resume it.
Conclusions: The Latarjet procedure shows excellent results to treat anterior instability of the shoulder in the long-term. The levels of recurrence and arthrosis are low.
Level of evidence: Level 4. Case Series. Treatment Study.
Keywords: Latarjet procedure, anterior instability of the shoulder, arthrosis.

References

1. Allain J; Goutallier D; Glorion C. Long-term results of the Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior instability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:841-52.
2. Bernageau J, Patte D, Debeyre J, Ferrane J. Interet du profile glenoidien dans le luxations recidivantes de l’ epaule. Rev Chir Orthop 1976;62:142-7.
3. Burkhart SS; De Beer JF; Barth JR; Cresswell T; Roberts C; Richards DP. Results of modified Latarjet reconstruction in patients with anteroinferior instability and significant bone loss. Arthroscopy. 2007 Oct; 23(10);1033-41.
4. Hovelius L, Sandstrom B, Sundgren K, Saebo M. One hundred eighteen Bristow-Latarjet repairs, for recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder prospectively followed for fifteen years: study I- clinical results. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004;13:509-16. http.//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2004.02.013.
5. Lafosse L; Lejeune E; Bouchard A; Kakuda C; Gobezie R; Kochhar T. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure for the treatmentof anterior shoulder instability and significant bone loss.arthroscopy. 2007. Nov;23(11);e1-5.Epub 2007 Oct 03.
6. Latarjet M. Treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Lyon, Chir 1954;49; 994-7.
7. Latarjet M. Technique de la butée coracoidienne pré-glénoïdienne dans le traitement des luxations recidivantes de l’ épaule. Lyon Chir 1958;54:604-7.
8. Mizuno N; Denard PJ; Raiss P; Melis B; Walch G. Long-term results of the Latarjet procedure for anterior instability of the shoulder. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014: 7, 1691-99.
9. Patte D; Bancel P; Bernageau J. The vulnerable point of the glenoid rim. In: Bateman JE; Welsh RP; editors. Surgery of the shoulder: New York: Marcel Dekker; 1985.p.94-9.
10. Rowe CR, Zarins B, Ciullo JV. Recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder after surgical repair. Apparent causes of failure and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1984 Feb: 66(2):159-68.
11. Samilson RL, Prieto V. Dislocation arthropaty of 322 the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983;65:456-60.
12. Walch G. Chronic anterior glenohumeral instability. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Jul;78(4);670-7.
13. Walch G, Boileau P. Latarjet-Bristow procedure for recurrent anterior instability, Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000; 1(4): 256-61.
14. Yamamoto N; Muraki T; An KN; Sperling JW; Cofield RH; Itoi E; Walch G; Steinmann SP. The stabilizing mechanism of the Latarjet procedure. A cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1390-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00777.
15. Yamamoto N; Itoi E; Abe H; Minagawa H; Seki N; Shimada Y; Okada K; Contact between the glenoid and the humeral head in abduction, external rotation, and horizontal extension: a new concept of glenoid track. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2007 Sep Oct;16(5):649-56.Epub 2007 Jul 23.
16. Young AA; Maia R; Berhouet J; Walch G. Open Latarjet procedure for management of bone loss in anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:S61-9. http://dx.doi.org/10,1016/j.jse.2010.07.022.

How to Cite this article: Beltramelli B, Oehler M, Pintos B, Kucharski E, Teske V. Anterior instability of the shoulder with more than 10 years evolution, treated with Latarjet Procedure, long-term results. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surger July – Dec 2017;2(2):9-11.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Experience of surgical management of acute and chronic post-traumatic elbow instability. A retrospective study

/0 Comments/in /by

Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | July-Dec 2017 | Page 5-8 | Felipe Patricio Cichero, Warner Larrondo, Juan Antonio Castellaro, Gonzalo Díaz, Julio Terán

Authors: Felipe Patricio Cichero [1], Warner Larrondo [2], Juan Antonio Castellaro [3], Gonzalo Díaz [3], Julio Terán [3]

[1] Fellow of shoulder and elbow surgery Clínica Dávila, Santiago, Chile.
[2] Chief of shoulder and elbow surgery unit Clínica Dávila, Santiago, Chile.
[3] Staff surgeon of shoulder and elbow unit Clínica Dávila, Santiago, Chile.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Felipe Patricio Cichero,
Clínica Dávila, Recoleta 464, Recoleta, Santiago, Chile.
Email: felipe.cichero@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: The elbow is the second most commonly dislocated major joint in adults.Elbow dislocation can lead to acute or chronic instability. There are different surgical options and functional outcomes in both cases. The purpose of this study is to assess the functional outcomes and the postoperative complications of these two groups.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the functional outcomes of cases of acute and chronic post-traumatic elbow instability that were surgically managed between 2013 and 2016 in adult population. All patients were assessed radiographically and clinically using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score and The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score at six months follow-up.
Results: Four male patients were included, two in each group of acute and chronic instability. In Three cases the medial and lateral collateral ulnar ligaments were reconstructed using semitendinosus allograft. In one case the repair of both collateral ligaments was performed usingsuture anchors. Two acute coronoid fractures were managed by using the lasso-type technique and one nonunion treated with two cannulated screws. The mean post operative Mayo Elbow Performance Score were 95 for the acute instability group and 85 for the chronic instability group. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand post operative scores were 5,8 and 18,3 for the acute and chronic instability groups respectively. There was one case of ulnar neuropaxia that resolved spontaneously at two months follow-up. All patients had a reduced and concentric elbow in control radiographs at six months follow-up.
Conclusions: Both groups presented satisfactory results after being managed by different surgical techniques.
Keywords: Elbow instability, elbow dislocation, collateral ligaments.

References

1. O’Driscoll S. Elbow dislocations. In: Morrey B, editor. The elbow and its disorders. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2009. p. 436-49.
2. Vollans S, van Riet R, Elbow instability, Orthopaedics and Trauma (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.mporth.2016.05.011 (Article in press)
3. Karbach L, Elbar J. Elbow Instability: Anatomy, Biomechanics, Diagnostic Maneuvers, and Testing . J Hand Surg Am 2017;42(2):118-126.
4. Ahmed I, Mystri J. The Management of Acute and Chronic Elbow Instability. Orthop Clin N Am 2015;46(2):271–280.
5. Hotchkiss R. Fractures and dislocations of the elbow. In: Rockwood C, Green D, Bucholz R, Heckman J, editors. Rockwood and Green’s fractures in adults. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 929-1024.
6. Morrey B. Funtional evaluation of the elbow. In: Morrey B, editor. The elbow and its disorders. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993. p. 86-89.
7. Hudak P, Amadio P, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996;30(3):372-79.
8. O’Driscoll S, Bell D, Morrey B. Posterolateral rotatory instability of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73(3):440-6.
9. O’Driscoll, Jupiter J, Cohen M, Ring D, McKee M. Instr Course Lect 2003;52:113-34.
10. Garrigues G, Wray W, Lindenhovius A, Ring D, Ruch D. Fixation of the coronoid process in elbow fracture-dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:1873-81.
11. Cohen M. Chronic elbow instability ligament reconstruction. In: Wolfe S, Hotchkiss R, Pederson W, Kozin S, Cohen M editors.Green’s operative hand surgery. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017. p. 803-42.
12. Rooker J, Smith J, Amirfeyz R. Anatomy, surgical approaches and biomechanics of the elbow. Orthopaedics and trauma 2016;30(4):283-90.
13. O’Driscoll S, Lawton R, Smith A. The “moving valgus stress test” for medial collateral ligament tears of the elbow.Am J Sports Med 2005;33(2):231-9
14. O’Driscoll S, Classification and evaluation of recurrent instability of the elbow.Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;(370):34-43.
15. Singleton S, Conway J. PLRI: posterolateral rotatory instability of the elbow.Clin Sports Med 2004;23(4):629-42.
16. Jennings J, Hahn A, Rehman S, Haydel C. Management of adult elbow fracture dislocations. Orthop Clin N Am 2016;47:97-113.
17. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Morrey B, O’Driscoll S. Ligamentous repair and reconstruction for posterolateral rotatory instability of the elbow.J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87(1):54-61.
18. Anakwenze O, Kwon D, O’Donnell E, Levine W, Ahmad C. Surgical treatment of posterolateral rotatory instability of the elbow. Arthroscopy 2014;30(7):866–71.
19. Lin K, Shen P, Lee C, Pan R, Lin L, Shen H. Functional outcomes of surgical reconstruction for posterolateral rotatory instability of the elbow. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured 2012;43(10):1657–61.
20. Vernet E, Bacle G, Marteau E, Favard L, Laulan J. Lateral elbow ligamentoplasty by autologous tendon graft in posterolateral rotatory instability: Results in 18 cases at a mean 5 years’ follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015;101:S199-S202
21. Jones K, Dodson C, Osbarh D, Parisien R, Weiland A, Altchek D, Allen A.The docking technique for lateral ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction: surgical technique and clinical outcomes.J Shoulder Elbow Surg2012;21(3):389-95.
22. O’Driscoll S, Morrey B, Korinek S, An K. Elbow subluxation and dislocation. A spectrum of instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;(280):186-97.
23. Dyer G, Jupiter J. Complex traumatic elbow dislocations. In: Wolfe S, Hotchkiss R, Pederson W, Kozin S, Cohen M editors. Green’s operative hand surgery. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017. p. 813-29.
24. Jobe F, Stark H, Lombardo S. Reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament in athletes.J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68(8):1158-63.
25. Bennett J, Mehlhoff T. Reconstruction of the medial collateral ligament of the elbow. J Hand Surg 2009;34A:1729–33.
26. Vitale M, Ahmad C. The outcome of elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in overhead athletes: a systematic review.Am J Sports Med 2008;36(6):1193-205.
27. Cain E, Andrews J, Dugas J, Wilk K, McMichael C, Walter J, Riley, R, Arthur S. Outcome of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction of the Elbow in 1281 Athletes: Results in 743 Athletes With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2010;38(12):2426-34.
28. Watson, J McQueen P, Hutchinson M. A systematic review of ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction techniques.Am J Sports Med2014;42(10):2510-6.
29. Wells J, Ablove R. Coronoid Fractures of the Elbow. Clin Med Res 2008;6(1):40-44.
30. Hull J, Owen J, Fern S, Wayne J, Boardman N. Role of the coronoid process in varus osteoarticular stability of the elbow.J Shoulder Elbow Surg2005;14(4):441-6.
31. Terada N, Yamada H, Seki T, Urabe T, Takayama S. The importance of reducing small fractures of the coronoid process in the treatment of unstable elbow dislocation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2000;9:344-6.

How to Cite this article: Cichero FP, Larrondo W, Castellaro JA, Díaz G, Terán J. Experience of surgical management of acute and chronic post-traumatic elbow instability. A retrospective study. Acta of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery July – Dec 2017;2(2):5-8.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)