No abstract

Level III, retrospective comparative series.

Using an e-mail-based teleorthopedic service to manage acutely injured patients in remote communities allowed 79% of patients to be treated locally, with travel-related cost savings of $5,538,120 CAD.

Distal biceps tendon ruptures are treated operatively in active healthy individuals. Treatment consists of either single- or double-incision techniques, each with its own set of advantages and complications. The double incision was traditionally preferred for a more anatomic reattachment of the distal biceps tendon, but there has been renewed interest in the single-incision anterior approach given its lower risk for heterotopic ossification. However, current single-incision techniques cannot achieve anatomic reconstruction of the distal biceps because of a restricted operational angle with standard rigid instruments. The purpose of this study was to introduce a single-incision technique using flexible instrumentation, flexible guide pins, and flexible reamers that allows for an insertion point that better approximates the anatomic footprint of the distal biceps on the tuberosity. This offers the theoretical advantage of restoring forearm supination mechanics, while still maintaining the benefits of a single limited anterior exposure.

BackgroundOpen reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using plate osteosynthesis for midshaft clavicle fractures is often complicated by the prominence of the implant due to the subcutaneous position of the clavicle. Reoperation rates for symptomatic clavicle plate removal have been reported to be as high as 53%. We sought to determine to which degree do clinical outcomes (all cause reoperation rate and rate of fracture union) differ between types of clavicle plates.Materials and methodsA retrospective chart review was performed using our hospital database for patients treated with ORIF for mid-shaft clavicle fractures (OTA/AO type 15-B). Implants included in this review were 2.7 mm reconstruction plates, 3.5 mm reconstruction plates, 3.5 mm precontoured clavicle plates and 3.5 mm locking compression plates. The primary outcome measure was the all cause reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes compared the rate fracture union, documented infection, hardware failures and clinical symptoms at the surgical site among the various plate types. Data was collected and descriptive statistics were analyzed. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.ResultsA total of 102 midshaft clavicle fractures treated with ORIF were included in this study. The majority of patients were ≤ 50 years old (83.3%) and male (72.5%). The overall union rate for all plating constructs was 97.1%. We found that age, sex and smoking were not associated with the rate of re-operation. In addition, the fracture classification, type of implant used and number of screws used didn’t increase the risk of revision surgery. In addition, more than 50% of patients complaining of pain at 6 weeks post-operatively required a second surgery for removal of hardware. Moreover, there was no association between age, sex, smoking, fracture classification or plate type and the rate of union. Interestingly, clavicle fractures fixed with 3.5 mm reconstruction plates were more likely to have hardware failure due to plastic deformation, whereas 2.7 mm plates were more likely to fail by plate breakage.ConclusionAlthough different types of implants have different biomechanical properties, no difference in reoperation, union and plate removal rates were found between the various plate types. Future studies with a larger sample size are required to further examine these outcomes.Level of evidenceLevel III.