Brian D. Giordano

Arthroscopic capsulotomy, capsular repair, and capsular plication of the hip: relation to atraumatic instability.

PURPOSE The purpose of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the available literature exploring the role of the hip joint capsule in the normal state (stable) and pathologic states (instability or stiffness). Furthermore, we examined the various ways that arthroscopic hip surgeons address the capsule intraoperatively: (1) capsulotomy or capsulectomy without closure, (2) capsulotomy with closure, and (3) capsular plication. METHODS Two independent reviewers (B.D.G. and B.G.D.) performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the reference lists of related articles by means of defined search terms. Relevant studies were included if these criteria were met: (1) written in English, (2) Levels of Evidence I to V, (3) focus on capsule and its role in hip stability, and (4) human studies and reviews. Articles were excluded if they evaluated (1) total hip arthroplasty constructs using bony procedures or prosthetic revision, (2) developmental dysplasia of the hip where reorientation osteotomies were used, (3) syndromic instability, and (4) traumatic instability with associated bony injury. RESULTS By use of the search method described, 5,085 publications were reviewed, of which 47 met appropriate criteria for inclusion in this review. Within this selection group, there were multiple publications that specifically addressed more than 1 of the inclusion criteria. Relevant literature was organized into the following areas: (1) capsular anatomy, biomechanics, and physiology; (2) the role of the capsule in total hip arthroplasty stability; (3) the role of the capsule in native hip stability; and (4) atraumatic instability and capsulorrhaphy. CONCLUSIONS As the capsuloligamentous stabilizers of the hip continue to be studied, and their role defined, arthroscopic hip surgeons should become facile with arthroscopic repair or plication techniques to restore proper capsular integrity and tension when indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, systematic review.

Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed Outside the Imaging Department

An increasing number of medical specialists are using fluoroscopy outside imaging departments, but there has been general neglect of radiological protection coverage of fluoroscopy machines used outside imaging departments. Lack of radiological protection training of those working with fluoroscopy outside imaging departments can increase the radiation risk to workers and patients. Procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair, renal angioplasty, iliac angioplasty, ureteric stent placement, therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography,and bile duct stenting and drainage have the potential to impart skin doses exceeding Gy. Although tissue reactions among patients and workers from fluoroscopy procedures have, to date, only been reported in interventional radiology and cardiology,the level of fluoroscopy use outside imaging departments creates potential for such injuries.A brief account of the health effects of ionising radiation and protection principles is presented in Section 2. Section 3 deals with general aspects of the protection of workers and patients that are common to all, whereas specific aspects are covered in Section 4 for vascular surgery, urology, orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology,gastroenterology and hepatobiliary system, and anaesthetics and pain management.Although sentinel lymph node biopsy involves the use of radio-isotopic methods rather than fluoroscopy, performance of this procedure in operating theatres is covered in this report as it is unlikely that this topic will be addressed in another ICRP publication in coming years. Information on radiation dose levels to patients and workers, and dose management is presented for each speciality.

Pediatric tibial eminence fractures: evaluation and management.

Abstract Tibial eminence fractures result from both contact and noncontact injuries. Skeletally immature persons are especially at risk. In adults, isolated fractures of the tibial eminence are usually associated with higher‐energy mechanisms. The incidence of concomitant intra‐articular injuries with tibial eminence fracture is high; MRI is useful in evaluating this injury. Nondisplaced fractures are amenable to nonsurgical management. Displaced fractures are managed with arthroscopic reduction and fixation with either sutures or screws. Although most fractures heal successfully, residual laxity usually persists because of prefracture anterior cruciate ligament midsubstance attenuation. This does not typically manifest in subjective instability, and reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament is rarely required. Patient factors, surgeon experience, and fracture pattern must be carefully considered before undertaking surgical repair.

Patient and surgeon radiation exposure: Comparison of standard and mini-C-arm fluoroscopy

BACKGROUND Use of c-arm fluoroscopy is common in the operating room, outpatient clinic, and emergency department. Consequently, there is a concern regarding radiation exposure. Mini-c-arm fluoroscopes have gained popularity; however, few studies have quantified exposure during mini-c-arm imaging of a body part larger than a hand or wrist. The purpose of this study was to measure radiation exposure sustained by the patient and surgeon during the use of large and mini-c-arm fluoroscopy of an ankle specimen. METHODS Standard and mini-c-arm fluoroscopes were used to image a cadaver ankle specimen, which was suspended on an adjustable platform. Dosimeters were mounted at specific positions and angulations to detect direct and scatter radiation. Testing was conducted under various scenarios that altered the proximity of the specimen and the radiation source. We attempted to capture a range of exposure data under conditions ranging from a best to a worst-case scenario, as one may encounter in a procedural setting. RESULTS With all configurations tested, measurable exposure during use of the large-c-arm fluoroscope was considerably higher than that during use of the mini-c-arm fluoroscope. Patient and surgeon exposure was notably amplified when the specimen was positioned closer to the x-ray source. The exposure values that we measured during ankle fluoroscopy were consistently higher than the exposure values that have been recorded previously during hand or wrist imaging. CONCLUSIONS Exposure of the patient and surgeon to radiation depends on the tissue density and the shape of the imaged extremity. Elevated exposure levels can be expected when larger body parts are imaged or when the extremity is positioned closer to the x-ray source. When it is possible to satisfactorily image an extremity with use of the mini c-arm, it should be chosen over its larger counterpart.

Exposure to Direct and Scatter Radiation with Use of Mini-C-Arm Fluoroscopy

BACKGROUND Mini-c-arm fluoroscopy has become an important resource to the orthopaedic surgeon. Exposure of the orthopaedic surgical team to radiation during standard large-c-arm fluoroscopy has been well studied; however, little is known about the amount of exposure to which a surgical team is subjected with the use of mini-c-arm fluoroscopy. Moreover, there is controversy regarding the use of protective measures with mini-c-arm fluoroscopy. METHODS We evaluated the use of mini-c-arm fluoroscopy during a simulated surgical procedure to quantify the relative radiation doses at various locations in the operative field. A standard calibrated mini-c-arm fluoroscope was used to image a phantom upper extremity with thirteen radiation dosimeters placed at various distances and angulations to detect radiation exposure. RESULTS After 155 sequential fluoroscopy exposures, totaling 300.2 seconds of imaging time, only the sensor placed in a direct line with the imaging beam recorded a substantial amount of measurable radiation exposure. CONCLUSIONS The surgical team is exposed to minimal radiation during routine use of mini-c-arm fluoroscopy, except when they are in the direct path of the radiation beam.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Gluteus Medius Repair With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background: Gluteus medius tears may be present in as many as 25% of late middle-aged women and 10% of middle-aged men, and they are often misdiagnosed. Outcomes of endoscopic repair of gluteus medius tears have seldom been reported. Purpose: To report the early outcomes of endoscopic repair of partial- and full-thickness gluteus medius tears. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Between April 2009 and January 2010, data were prospectively collected for all patients undergoing endoscopic gluteus medius repair by one of the authors. Inclusion criteria for the study were patients undergoing repair for either high-grade, partial-, or full-thickness tears. Only patients with endoscopic evidence of a gluteus medius tear were treated surgically. In the case of an articular-side tear, a transtendinous repair technique was used, whereas in the presence of a full-thickness tear, the tendon was refixated to the bone directly. Results: A total of 15 patients met the inclusion criteria. The cohort included 14 women and 1 man, with an average age of 58 years (range, 44-74 years). Endoscopically, 6 cases were found to be partial-thickness tears. Nine were either full-thickness tears or near-full-thickness tears, which were completed for the repair. Follow-up was obtained on all patients at an average of 27.9 months postoperatively (range, 24-37 months). Fourteen of the 15 patients showed postoperative improvement in all 4 hip-specific scores used to assess outcome, with an average improvement of more than 30 points for all scores. Satisfaction with the surgery results was reported to be from good to excellent (scores of 7-10 out of 10) in 14 of 15 patients. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that endoscopic surgical repair, whether performed through a transtendinous or full-thickness technique, can be an effective treatment of gluteus medius tears at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Longer term follow-up studies are necessary to determine whether these therapeutic and functional gains are maintained.

Radiation Exposure Issues in Orthopaedics

The topic of radiation exposure for patients, physicians, and staff has become prominent in the lay press. It seems that every week another story about radiation safety makes the evening news. For physicians and surgeons, the largest radiation exposures involve fluoroscopy use with either fixed or mobile units. For patients, fluoroscopy (c-arm), computed tomography (CT), and nuclear medicine studies constitute the vast majority of exposures. The use of each of these modalities has grown dramatically with changes in the practice of medicine. C-arm use in orthopaedic surgery is increasing rapidly as surgery transitions to minimal-access surgery. With less direct visualization, surgery is being conducted with fluoroscopic guidance. When fluoroscopy is combined with a computer for navigation systems, radiation exposure sustained by surgeons can be reduced dramatically. This transition does not decrease the patients radiation dose, and in some instances it can increase it substantially1. CT scans have become accepted as commonplace. The rate of CT use is thirty times greater than it was twenty years ago, and the radiation exposure sustained by a patient can be dramatic2,3. Less than one-sixth of physicians receive any training in radiation safety4. One questionnaire study of physicians showed that 4% did not know that ultrasound did not involve ionizing radiation and 27% did not know that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) did not involve radiation at all5. Approximately 90% of physicians underestimated the radiation exposure and risks from pediatric radiographs and CT scans4. A single pediatric abdominal CT scan exposes the patient to more radiation than the seventy-year exposure from living in the vicinity of the Chernobyl accident2. For a five-year-old patient who weighs 19 kg, a chest CT is the equivalent of 600 chest radiographs and a CT of the …

Injury Rate and Patterns Among CrossFit Athletes.

Background: CrossFit is a type of competitive exercise program that has gained widespread recognition. To date, there have been no studies that have formally examined injury rates among CrossFit participants or factors that may contribute to injury rates. Purpose: To establish an injury rate among CrossFit participants and to identify trends and associations between injury rates and demographic categories, gym characteristics, and athletic abilities among CrossFit participants. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A survey was conducted, based on validated epidemiologic injury surveillance methods, to identify patterns of injury among CrossFit participants. It was sent to CrossFit gyms in Rochester, New York; New York City, New York; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and made available via a posting on the main CrossFit website. Participants were encouraged to distribute it further, and as such, there were responses from a wide geographical location. Inclusion criteria included participating in CrossFit training at a CrossFit gym in the United States. Data were collected from October 2012 to February 2013. Data analysis was performed using Fisher exact tests and chi-square tests. Results: A total of 486 CrossFit participants completed the survey, and 386 met the inclusion criteria. The overall injury rate was determined to be 19.4% (75/386). Males (53/231) were injured more frequently than females (21/150; P = .03). Across all exercises, injury rates were significantly different (P < .001), with shoulder (21/84), low back (12/84), and knee (11/84) being the most commonly injured overall. The shoulder was most commonly injured in gymnastic movements, and the low back was most commonly injured in power lifting movements. Most participants did not report prior injury (72/89; P < .001) or discomfort in the area (58/88; P < .001). Last, the injury rate was significantly decreased with trainer involvement (P = .028). Conclusion: The injury rate in CrossFit was approximately 20%. Males were more likely to sustain an injury than females. The involvement of trainers in coaching participants on their form and guiding them through the workout correlates with a decreased injury rate. The shoulder and lower back were the most commonly injured in gymnastic and power lifting movements, respectively. Participants reported primarily acute and fairly mild injuries.

Cervical spine imaging using standard C-arm fluoroscopy: patient and surgeon exposure to ionizing radiation.

Study Design. A cadaveric cervical spine specimen is imaged with a standard C-arm fluoroscope during a simulated procedure. Patient and surgeon exposure to radiation is estimated by placing dosimeters at various locations in 3-dimensional space. Objective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiation exposure to patient and surgeon when using C-arm fluoroscopy during a simulated cadaveric surgical procedure involving the cervical spine. Summary of the Background Data. The use of mobile fluoroscopy has become commonplace in orthopaedics. With the current trend towards minimal access techniques, fluoroscopy has become requisite to achieving satisfactory outcomes. Studies have shown that spine surgeons may be at elevated risk for radiation exposure compared to other orthopaedists. Exposure while using C-arm fluoroscopy for procedures involving the pelvis, as well as thoracic and lumbar spine has been documented. However, there are no equivalent studies that evaluate exposure during cervical spine imaging. Methods. A standard OEC 9800 C-arm was used to image a prepared cadaveric cervical spine specimen, which was suspended on an adjustable platform. Film badge dosimeters were mounted at various positions and angles to detect direct and scatter radiation. Testing was conducted in various radiation dose mapping “scenarios.” The configurations tested altered the proximity of the specimen and jig relative to the radiation source. We attempted to capture radiation exposure in various locations, from a best-case to a worst-case scenario, as may be realistically encountered in a procedural setting. Results. Potential exposure to the patient and surgeon were consistently measurable, and of concern. As the imaged specimen was positioned closer to the radiation source, exposure to the patient was markedly amplified. Exposure to the surgeon did not increase as dramatically. There was a great degree of variability in the exposure doses recorded by the peripheral dosimeters. Even dosimeters that were placed in the same plane diverged widely in their measured exposure. This highlights the influence of the shape of the imaged specimen on reflected scatter. Scatter radiation doses on both sides of the specimen were similar. Conclusion. Care should be taken when working on both sides of the imaged subject. Considerable radiation exposure can be encountered when working with a C-arm fluoroscope if appropriate precautions are not observed. All appropriate radiation dose–reducing measures should be strictly enforced by the supervising physician to minimize risk to the patient and the medical team.

Relevant Anatomic Landmarks and Measurements for Biceps Tenodesis

Background: Biceps tenodesis around the pectoralis major insertion may alter resting tension on the biceps, leading to unfavorable clinical outcomes. Hypothesis: The anatomic relationship between the musculotendinous junction (MTJ) of the biceps and the pectoralis major tendon will provide guidelines for anatomic location to perform biceps tenodesis with the goal of re-establishing biceps tension. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Cadaveric dissections were performed that reflected the pectoralis major tendon and exposed the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). Calipers were used to measure the longitudinal width of the pectoralis major tendon at the humerus, 2 cm away from the humerus, and at its proximal expansion on the humerus. The distance from the proximal extent of the pectoralis major tendon footprint to the beginning of the MTJ of the biceps and the length of the MTJ of the biceps were recorded. The location of the distal end of the MTJ of the biceps relevant to the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon was calculated. Results: The average longitudinal width of the pectoralis major tendon at its humeral insertion was 76.8 mm, the width 2 cm away from the humerus averaged 37.3 mm, and the proximal expansion averaged 13.3 mm. The MTJ of the biceps began an average of 32.4 mm distal from the proximal aspect of the pectoralis major footprint and extended for an average of 78.1 mm. The MTJ of the LHBT was calculated to extend 3.3 cm distal to the inferior border of the pectoralis major footprint. Conclusion: The MTJ of the biceps begins further proximal than may be appreciated intraoperatively. Knowledge of the anatomic relationships between the LHBT, its MTJ, and the pectoralis major tendon provides helpful guidelines for the biceps tenodesis site. The final resting spot of the most distal aspect of the MTJ of the LHBT after tenodesis should be approximately 3 cm distal to the inferior edge of the pectoralis major tendon footprint on the humerus.