No abstract

No abstract

The volar rim of the distal radius is the only bony restraint to volar carpal subluxation. Higher loads across the volar rim require stable and rigid fixation to maintain reduction and allow healing while rehabilitation begins. Volar marginal fragments are not amenable to buttressing by fixed angle volar locking plates. Appropriate management of volar marginal fragments comprises two steps—recognition of their presence and rigid anatomical repair. The best opportunity for success in the presence of a volar marginal fragment is its adequate initial treatment. The purpose of this review is to reinforce the importance of a complete preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of distal radius fractures. Volar marginal fragments can easily be overlooked even following initial reduction and fixation. Understanding the relevant anatomy and loading parameters can facilitate intraoperative decisions on approach and fixation, which are integral to achieving optimal clinical outcomes.

A variety of fixation options exist for treatment of unstable proximal phalanx fractures. Variables which require consideration include the strength of fixation, the invasiveness of the technique and the postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Here we present a minimally invasive technique for dual headless compression screw fixation of proximal phalanx fractures which reduces extensor tendon violation and allows early motion in the immediate postoperative period.

Introduction: The literature largely addresses questions of diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic accuracy. However, the magnitude of the clinical impact of syndesmosis injury is commonly described in intuitive yet qualitative terms. This systematic review aimed to quantify the impact of syndesmosis injury. Methods: Published clinical outcomes data were used to compute an effect size reflecting the impact of syndesmosis injury. This was done within the clinical contexts of isolated syndesmosis injury and syndesmosis injury with concomitant ankle fracture. Clinical outcomes data included Olerud-Molander (OM) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, visual analog scale for pain, and days missed from sport competition. Parametric data were compared with Student t tests. Effect size was computed using Cohen’s d. Results: In ankle fracture patients, syndesmosis injury demonstrated a large effect size for OM (d = 0.96) and AOFAS (d = 0.83) scores. In athletic populations without concomitant ankle fracture, syndesmosis injury demonstrated a large effect size on days missed from competition (d = 2.32). Discussion: These findings confirm the magnitude of the negative impact of syndesmosis injury in athletic populations with isolated injury and in ankle fracture patients. In ankle fracture patients, this large negative effect remains despite surgery. Thus, syndesmosis repair may not fully mitigate the impact of the injury. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Systematic review

No abstract

Background: Revision of radial head arthroplasty (RHA) may be indicated in cases of prosthesis loosening and malposition. Inherent difficulties in revision surgery include poor bone stock and disrupted soft tissue envelope. Although cases of RHA used for revision of failed RHA are rare, there is reasonable expectation for increasing frequency of these cases due to the increasing incidence of primary RHA. Furthermore, there is an increasing demand for postoperative recovery of function; thus, surgeons may consider revising a failed RHA to a new RHA. We report on series of failed RHA which were revised to a new radial head prosthesis. Methods: A retrospective review was performed at multiple institutions for a single radial head prosthesis used for revision of a failed radial head prosthesis. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were collected with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Results: Across 11 patients at a mean follow-up of 45.1 months, the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 81.7; mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were 24.4; and mean Visual Analog Scale for pain was 0.6. Radiographic analysis yielded no evidence of capitellar wear or stem loosening. Conclusion: A radial head prosthesis can produce satisfactory results when used for revision of a failed prosthesis. Inherent difficulties in revision surgery include the potential for reduced bone stock and a disrupted soft tissue envelope. Elements of prosthesis design which may contribute to effectively managing revision surgery include a long stem with in-growth surface and prosthetic head alignment to the axis of forearm rotation.

No abstract