[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The most widely used surgical approach to treat radial head fractures is through the Kocher interval. However, the extensor digitorum communis (EDC) splitting approach is thought to allow easier access to the anterior half of the radial head, which is more commonly fractured. The aim of this cadaveric study was to compare the osseous and articular surface areas visible through the EDC split and the Kocher interval.
Four approaches were used in fresh frozen cadaveric upper extremities: EDC splitting (n = 6), modified Kocher (n = 6), extended EDC splitting (n = 6), and extended modified Kocher (n = 4). For each approach, the osseous and articular surface areas visualized were outlined with use of a burr. Each elbow was then stripped of soft tissue and a digitized three-dimensional model was created with use of a surface scanning system. The visible surface area obtained with each approach was mapped and quantified with use of the markings created with the burr.
The EDC splitting approach provided greater exposure of the anterior half of the radial head (median, 100%) compared with the modified Kocher approach (68%, p < 0.05). The extended modified Kocher and extended EDC splitting approaches provided comparable visualization of the distal aspect of the humerus, capitellum, radial head, and coronoid process.
The results suggest that the EDC splitting approach provides more reliable visualization of the anterior half of the radial head while minimizing soft-tissue dissection and reducing the risk of iatrogenic injury to the lateral ulnar collateral ligament.
In the absence of an injury to the lateral ulnar collateral ligament, which is best repaired through the Kocher interval, the EDC splitting approach may facilitate fixation of a radial head fracture through improved visualization of the commonly fractured anterior half of the radial head.
No preview · Article · Mar 2014 · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A theoretical clinical advantage of hip resurfacing (HR) is the preservation of femoral bone. HR femoral component revision reportedly yields postoperative function comparable to that of primary THA. However, few studies have looked at the outcome of both HR femoral and acetabular side revisions.
We determined whether (1) patients undergoing HR revision to THA have perioperative measures and outcome scores comparable to those of patients undergoing primary THA or revision of primary THA and (2) patients undergoing HR revision of both components have perioperative measures and outcome scores comparable to those of patients undergoing HR revision of the femoral component only.
We retrospectively reviewed and compared 22 patients undergoing revision HR to a THA to a matched (age, sex, BMI) group of 23 patients undergoing primary THA and 12 patients undergoing primary THA revision. Patients completed the WOMAC and SF-12 questionnaires before surgery and at latest followup (range, 24-84 months for HR revision, 28-48 months for primary THA, and 24-48 months for revision THA). Blood loss, days in hospital, complications, and outcome scores were compared among groups.
We observed no differences in SF-12 scores but observed lower WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores in the HR revision group than in the primary THA group. Patients undergoing HR revision of both components had comparable SF-12 and WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores but overall lower WOMAC pain scores compared to patients undergoing HR revision of the femoral side only. The HR revision group had greater intraoperative blood loss compared to the primary THA group but not the revision THA group.
The perioperative measures and outcome scores of HR revision are comparable to those of revision THA but not primary THA. Longer followup is required to determine whether these differences persist. Patients undergoing HR revision of one or both components can expect comparable stiffness and function.
Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
No preview · Article · Aug 2012 · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research