Femke M.A.P. Claessen

Factors associated with radial nerve palsy after operative treatment of diaphyseal humeral shaft fractures

BACKGROUND The radial nerve is at risk after diaphyseal humeral fracture or surgery to repair the fracture. We hypothesized that there are no factors associated with iatrogenic radial nerve palsy and, secondarily, that there are no factors associated with traumatic radial nerve palsy or radial nerve palsy of any type. METHODS We analyzed 325 adult patients who underwent operative treatment of a diaphyseal humerus fracture at 6 hospitals between January 2002 and November 2014 to determine factors associated with a radial nerve palsy. We excluded patients with pathologic fractures, fractures with massive bone loss, prior surgery in another hospital, periprosthetic fractures, and if no operative note was available. RESULTS In patients without a traumatic radial nerve palsy, an iatrogenic radial nerve palsy occurred in 18 of 259 diaphyseal humeral fractures (7%). The surgical approach was associated with iatrogenic radial nerve palsy (P = .034). No factors were associated with traumatic radial nerve palsy (66 of 325 patients [20%]) of the humeral diaphysis. Open fractures, location of fracture, and high-energy trauma were significantly associated with radial nerve palsy of any type (84 of 325 patients [26%]). CONCLUSIONS Patients and surgeons should keep in mind that iatrogenic transient dysfunction of the radial nerve will occur in approximately 1 in 5 patients treated with lateral exposure of the humerus, in 1 in 9 patients treated with posterior exposure, and in 1 in 25 patients with an anterolateral exposure.

Factors associated with removal of a radial head prosthesis placed for acute trauma.

PURPOSE This study tests the hypothesis that there are no factors associated with removal or revision of a radial head prosthesis. A secondary analysis addressed the time to removal or revision. METHODS We reviewed the database of two large hospitals from 2000 to 2014 and identified 278 patients that had radial head replacement after an acute fracture or fracture dislocation of the elbow: 19 had removal and 3 had revision of the radial head implant within the study period. Explanatory variables including demographics, the type of injury, prosthesis type, surgeon, medical centre, and associated injuries were evaluated. Survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves evaluated time to removal/revision. RESULTS After adjustment for potential confounders using Cox regression multivariable analysis, hospital was the only factor independently associated with removal or revision (Hazard ratio=2.4, Confidence interval: 1.03-5.8, P value=0.043). The highest proportion of removal/revision was during the first year after implantation and decreased by half each year over the second to fourth years. The most common reason for removal of the prosthesis was to facilitate removal of heterotopic ossification (the majority with proximal radioulnar synostosis) rather than technical error or problems with the prostheses. CONCLUSION These findings suggest that the decision to remove a radial head prosthesis may depend more on surgeon or hospital preferences than on objective problems with the prosthesis. Until clarified by additional study, removal of a prosthesis should not be considered an objective outcome in research. In addition, patients offered removal of a radial head prosthesis, might get the opinion of more than one surgeon at more than one hospital before deciding whether or not to proceed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III Prognostic.

Factors Associated With Reoperation After Fixation of Displaced Olecranon Fractures

BackgroundSurgery for fixation of olecranon fractures is associated with reoperation, mostly for implant removal. A study of a large cohort of patients treated by many different surgeons allows us to determine if specific techniques or implants are associated with a higher rate of reoperation.Questions/purposesAfter open reduction and internal fixation of isolated olecranon fractures, what factors are associated with (1) reoperation and (2) implant removal?MethodsThree hundred ninety-two adult patients who had operative treatment of a displaced olecranon fracture not associated with other fractures, dislocation, or subluxation at two area hospitals between January 2002 and May 2014 were analyzed to determine factors associated with reoperation. One hundred thirty-eight (35%) patients had plate and screw fixation and 254 (65%) tension band wiring. Nearly 100% of patients with displaced olecranon fractures are currently treated operatively at our hospitals. All patients were followed for at least four months. Two hundred three of the 392 (52%) patients were followed for one year or more. Ninety-nine patients (25%) had a second operation, 92 (93%) at least in part for implant removal (12 for wire migration [3% of all fractures, 12% of reoperations]). We considered patient-related, fracture-related, and implant-related endpoints as possible factors associated with reoperation. With a total sample size of 99 reoperations, an α of 0.05, and an effect size of 0.3, we had 87% power.ResultsReoperation was less common in men (36 [36%], women: 63 [64%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18–0.56; p < 0.001) and older patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–0.87; p < 0.001). Similarly, request for implant removal was less in men (33 [36%], women: 59 [64%], adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.18–0.56; p < 0.001) and older patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–0.87; p < 0.001).ConclusionsPatients who have operative fixation of a fracture of the olecranon can be counseled that most patients keep their implants, that only 3% experience implant migration, and that technical factors such as the type or configuration of an implant seem less important than personal factors in determining who requests a second surgery for implant removal.Level of EvidenceLevel III, prognostic study.

Panner’s disease: literature review and treatment recommendations

PurposeTo determine the most up-to-date theory on the aetiology of Panner’s disease, to form a consensus on the assessment of radiographs and to evaluate clinical outcome in order to summarise the best available evidence for diagnosis and treatment.MethodsA review of studies to date on Panner’s disease. Studies were eligible if: (1) the study provided criteria for defining Panner’s disease in order to eliminate confounding data on other radiographic entities that were mistakenly grouped and presented as Panner’s disease; (2) original data of at least one patient was presented; (3) manuscripts were written in English, German or Dutch; and (4) a full-text article was available. Animal studies, reviews and expert opinions were not included. Because the majority of the studies were case reports, we did not use an overall scoring system to evaluate methodological quality.ResultsTwenty-three articles reporting on Panner’s disease were included. Most cases of Panner’s disease were unilateral in distribution and occurred in boys during the first decade of life. In general, conservative treatment is advised for Panner’s disease. Panner’s disease is a self-limiting disease and the majority of patients heal without clinical impairment.ConclusionsBased on the results of this review, Panner’s disease should be treated conservatively. Uniform names and descriptions of signs on radiographs would help to make the correct diagnosis. Since Panner’s disease is very rare, higher quality studies are not likely to be performed and, thus, this review provides the best level of evidence on the current knowledge about Panner’s disease.

Plate and Screw Fixation of Bicolumnar Distal Humerus Fractures: Factors Associated With Loosening or Breakage of Implants or Nonunion

PURPOSE To identify factors associated with reoperation for early loosening or breakage of implants or nonunion after operative treatment of AO type C distal humerus fractures. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 129 adult patients who had operative treatment of an isolated AO type C distal humerus fracture at 1 of 5 hospitals to determine factors associated with reoperation for early loosening or breakage of implants or nonunion. RESULTS Within 6 months of original fixation, 16 of 129 fractures (12%) required reoperation for loosening or breakage of implants (n = 8) or nonunion (n = 8). In bivariate analyses, the Charlson comorbidity index, smoking, a coded diagnosis of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and radiographic osteoarthritis were significantly associated with reoperation for early loosening or breakage of implants or nonunion. CONCLUSIONS With the numbers available, patient factors rather than technical factors were associated with reoperation for loosening or breakage of implants and nonunion. Because of the relative infrequency of fixation problems and nonunion, a much larger study is needed to address technical deficiencies.

Union rate after operative treatment of humeral shaft nonunion – A systematic review

INTRODUCTION Humeral shaft nonunions can lead to morbidity from subsequent operations, complications and impaired function. Currently there is no evidenced-based consensus for treatment of humeral shaft nonunions. AIM We aimed to summarize and analyze union rates and complications after operative treatment for humeral shaft nonunion. METHODS Studies investigating operative treatment strategies for humeral shaft nonunion were identified by searching: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Ovid SP, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, PubMed and Google Scolar up to October 24, 2014. Studies were eligible if: (1) outcome of operative treatment for humeral shaft nonunion was reported; (2) at least ten adult patients with humeral shaft nonunion included; (3) full text article available; (4) written in English, German or Dutch; and (5) nonunion was defined as no bone-bridging between the fracture ends after 6 months. RESULTS Thirty-six studies were included. A union rate of 98% was found in patients (n=672) who underwent plate fixation with autologous bone grafting (ABG), 95% in plate fixation without ABG (n=19), 88% in intramedullary nailing with ABG (n=164), 66% in intramedullary nailing without ABG (n=78), 92% in bone strut fixation (n=91) and 98% in external fixation (n=152). A total complication rate of 12% was found in patients treated with plate fixation combined with ABG, 15% in intramedullary nail with ABG and 8% intramedullary nailing without ABG, 20% in bone strut fixation and 22% in external fixation. CONCLUSION Plate fixation with ABG was recommended for humeral shaft nonunion, since the union rate is highest and the complication rate is relatively low. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV.

Factors associated with adverse events after distal biceps tendon repair or reconstruction

BACKGROUND Factors associated with adverse events after distal biceps tendon repair or reconstruction are incompletely understood. This study examined factors associated with adverse events, prevalence of adverse events, and rate of second surgeries after distal biceps repair or reconstruction. METHODS Between January 2002 and March 2015, 373 adult patients who underwent repair or reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon at 1 of 3 area hospitals were analyzed to determine factors associated with adverse events after surgical repair or reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon. RESULTS Of 373 distal biceps tendon repairs or reconstructions, 82 (22%) had an adverse event; 5.3% were major adverse events. In multivariable analysis, a single-incision anterior approach and obesity were associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Fifteen patients (18% of patients with an adverse event and 4% of all patients) had a second surgery after distal biceps tendon surgery. CONCLUSION Patients should be counseled that 1 in 5 patients will have a minor complication and 1 in 20 patients will have a major complication after surgery on the distal biceps tendon. The most common adverse event is lateral antebrachial cutaneous neurapraxia.

A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Corticosteroid Injection for Enthesopathy of the Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Origin.

PURPOSE The null hypothesis that there is no effect of corticosteroid injection on visual analog scale for pain in patients with enthesopathy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (eECRB) origin 6 months after treatment was tested. Our secondary hypotheses were that there is no effect of corticosteroid injection on pain intensity at 1 and 3 months after treatment; that there is no effect of corticosteroid injection on grip strength at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment; and that there is no effect of corticosteroid injection on Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment. METHODS EMBASE, PubMed Publisher, MEDLINE, OvidSP, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central were searched for relevant studies. Studies were eligible if there was (1) a description of corticosteroid injection treatment for eECRB; (2) randomized placebo injection-controlled trials with at least 10 adults included with eECRB; (3) a full-text article available with data describing the mean differences between the corticosteroid and the control groups and the outcome measures used; and (4) follow-up of at least 1 month. In total, 7 randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of corticosteroid injection with a placebo injection on symptoms of eECRB were included in our meta-analysis. RESULTS We found no difference in pain intensity 6 months after injection of corticosteroids or placebo. Pain intensity was slightly, but significantly, lower 1 month, but not 3 months, after steroid injection. There were no significant differences in grip strength or Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score at any time point. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis showed that there is no difference in pain intensity between corticosteroid injection and placebo 6 months after injection. We interpret the weight of evidence to date as suggesting that corticosteroid injections are neither meaningfully palliative nor disease modifying when used to treat eECRB. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic I.

Influence of Priming on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are influenced by psychosocial factors, but it is unknown whether we can influence PROM scores by modifying the mindset of the patient. PURPOSE We assessed whether priming affects scores on PROMs. METHODS In all, 168 patients with musculoskeletal illness participated in this double-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel study between July 2014 and October 2014 in a level I trauma center. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 years or older with English fluency and literacy and the ability to provide informed consent. Priming was performed by means of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). The patients were randomized (1:1:1) into 3 groups: intervention group I was negatively primed with the original PCS; intervention group II was positively primed with a positively phrased PCS group; and control group III was not primed. Assessments were performed using PROMs on the domain of physical function, depression, and pain. Bivariate and multivariable regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS The intervention and control groups were well balanced in demographic and condition-specific characteristics. The positive PCS was independently associated with higher PROM scores in the physical function domain (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Function: coefficient = 4.7, partial R(2) = 0.042; CI: 1.2-8.2; p < 0.010). CONCLUSIONS Patients primed with a positively phrased version of the PCS reported less functional disability as compared with patients who were either negatively primed or not primed at all. This suggests that by influencing the mindset, PROMs can be influenced, resulting in better outcome if positively primed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level 1 therapeutic study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT02209259.

Outcomes of Concomitant Fractures of the Radial Head and Capitellum: The "Kissing Lesion".

BACKGROUND Radial head compression against the capitellum may cause concomitant fracture of the capitellum. The purpose of this study was to investigate if radial head fracture type is associated with a concomitant fracture of the capitellum. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were identified from five area hospitals. We retrieved records of patients older than 18 years of age who underwent treatment for concomitant capitellum fracture and radial head fracture between January 2002 and January 2013. Patients with olecranon fractures or trochlea fractures were excluded. RESULTS A total of 10 patients with a radial head fracture and a concomitant capitellum fracture were included. Based on the operative reports, nine radial head fractures were classified as Hotchkiss modification of the Mason classification type II, and one was classified as type I. Based on the available radiographs and computed tomography, three capitellum fractures were type I, and seven were type II according to the Grantham classification. CONCLUSION Surgeons have to be alert to capitellar damage in case of a Hotchkiss type II radial head fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE This is a level IV, therapeutic, retrospective study.