Spontaneous Hip Labrum Regrowth After Initial Surgical D,bridement
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
2013; 471 (8): 2504-2508
Biomechanical evaluation of a coracoclavicular and acromioclacicular ligament reconstruction technique utilizing a single continuous intramedullary free tendon graft.
Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery
2013; 22 (7): 979-985
BACKGROUND: Anecdotal evidence from second-look hip arthroscopies and animal studies has suggested spontaneous labral regrowth may occur after débridement. However, these observations have not been systematically confirmed. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We (1) determined whether labral regrowth occurs after débridement in human hips; (2) if so, described the characteristics of the reconstituted labrum; and (3) determined the association, if any, of age with the presence and quality of labral regrowth. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all 24 patients who previously had open hip surgical dislocation with labral débridement for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and concomitant hip arthroscopy 2 years after index procedure in association with planned removal of trochanteric hardware between January and December 1999. Data recorded included amount of labral resection at the index procedure using the clockface method, presence and quality of any labral regrowth, presence of any labral scarring or inflammation, and WOMAC(®) scores. Minimum clinical followup was 11 years (average, 12 years; range, 11-12 years). RESULTS: All patients demonstrated labral regrowth at arthroscopy at 2 years. Homogeneous regrowth of labral height was seen in 21 of 24 patients, with labral scarring noted in four of 24. Average WOMAC(®) score was 98 points (range, 90-100 points) at the time of hardware removal. Increasing patient age was independently associated with decreased WOMAC(®) score and inhomogeneous regrowth of the labrum. CONCLUSIONS: Labral regrowth after resection was seen in all patients at 2 years from index operation. Increasing age, however, was associated with poorer quality of the reconstituted labrum. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
View details for DOI 10.1007/s11999-013-2914-x
View details for Web of Science ID 000321549600017
View details for PubMedID 23483380
Risk factors for development of heterotopic ossification of the elbow after fracture fixation
JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY
2012; 21 (11): 1550-1554
Reconstruction of only the coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments may restore superior-inferior (S-I) but not anterior-posterior (A-P) stability of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint. Concomitant reconstruction of both the AC and CC ligaments may more reliably restore intact biomechanical characteristics of the AC joint.Ten matched pairs of shoulders were utilized. Five specimens underwent CC ligament reconstruction while an equal number underwent combined AC and CC ligament reconstruction utilizing an intramedullary tendon graft. Each of the reconstructions was compared with the intact contralateral control. Translational and load to failure characteristics were compared between groups.No difference was found in S-I translation between intact specimens and CC-only reconstructions (P = .20) nor between intact specimens and AC/CC reconstructions (P = .33) at 10 Newton (N) loads. Significant differences were noted in A-P translation between intact specimens and CC-only reconstructions (P < .001) but no difference in A-P translation between intact specimens and AC/CC reconstructions (P = .34).The A-P and S-I translational biomechanical characteristics of the AC joint were restored using the new technique described. Reconstruction of the CC ligaments only (versus AC/CC combined) led to significantly increased translational motion in the A-P plane as compared to intact control specimens.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.013
View details for PubMedID 23313367
Use of an Inflatable Pressure Bag Bump for Medial and Lateral Operative Approaches to the Lower Leg
FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL
2012; 33 (9): 795-797
Epidemiology of musculoskeletal injury in the tennis player
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
2012; 46 (7): 492-498
Postoperative heterotopic ossification (HO) about the elbow may occur after surgical fixation of fractures and can contribute to dysfunction. Factors associated with HO formation after surgical fixation of elbow trauma are not well understood.All patients who underwent surgery for elbow trauma at our institution from October 2001 through August 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with prior injury or deformity to the involved elbow were excluded. Demographic data; fracture type; surgical treatment; and presence, location, and size of HO were recorded. The Fisher exact test, ?(2) test, and multivariate logistic regression were used with an ? value of .05 used for significance.A total of 159 patients were identified, with 89 (37 men and 52 women) meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean age was 54.4 years (range, 18-90 years), and the mean follow-up time was 180 days. Age, male gender, lateral collateral ligament repair, and dual-incision approach were not associated with increased ectopic bone formation. Distal humeral fractures were a significant predictor of heterotopic bone. In patients in whom HO ultimately developed, it was visible on radiographs obtained 2 weeks postoperatively in 86% of cases.This investigation found predictors for the development of HO after surgical fixation of intra-articular elbow fractures. Furthermore, HO went on to develop at the time of final follow-up in only 14% of patients without HO on radiographs obtained 2 weeks postoperatively. This may suggest that absence of HO on radiographs obtained 2 weeks postoperatively may predict a more favorable outcome.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jse.2012.05.040
View details for Web of Science ID 000312000600021
View details for PubMedID 22947234
Surgical Technique: Methods for Removing a Compress (R) Compliant Prestress Implant
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
2012; 470 (4): 1204-1212
Tennis is a popular sport with tens of millions of players participating worldwide. This popularity was one factor leading to the reappearance of tennis as a medal sport at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea. The volume of play, combined with the physical demands of the sports, can lead to injuries of the musculoskeletal system. Overall, injury incidence and prevalence in tennis has been reported in a number of investigations. The sport creates specific demands on the musculoskeletal system, with acute injuries, such as ankle sprains, being more frequent in the lower extremity while chronic overuse injuries, such as lateral epicondylitis, are more common in the upper extremity in the recreational player and shoulder pain more common in the high-level player. This review discusses the epidemiology of injuries frequently experienced in tennis players and examines some of these injuries' correlation with the development of osteoarthritis. In addition, player-specific factors, such as age, sex, volume of play, skill level, racquet properties and grip positions as well as the effect of playing surface on the incidence and prevalence of injury is reported. Finally, recommendations on standardisation of future epidemiological studies on tennis injuries are made in order to be able to more easily compare results of future investigations.
View details for DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091164
View details for Web of Science ID 000305280500010
View details for PubMedID 22554841
MRI and arthroscopy correlations of the elbow: a case-based approach.
Instructional course lectures
2012; 61: 235-249
The Compress® device uses a unique design using compressive forces to achieve bone ingrowth on the prosthesis. Because of its design, removal of this device may require special techniques to preserve host bone. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUES: Techniques needed include removal of a small amount of bone to relieve compressive forces, use of a pin extractor and/or Kirschner wires for removal of transfixation pins, and creation of a cortical window in the diaphysis to gain access to bone preventing removal of the anchor plug.We retrospectively reviewed the records of 63 patients receiving a Compress® device from 1996 to 2011 and identified 11 patients who underwent subsequent prosthesis removal. The minimum followup was 1 month (average, 20 months; range, 1-80 months). The most common reason for removal was infection (eight patients) and the most common underlying diagnosis was osteosarcoma (five patients). Three patients underwent above-knee amputation, whereas the others (eight patients) had further limb salvage procedures at the time of prosthesis removal.Five patients had additional unplanned surgeries after explantation. Irrigation and débridement of the surgical wound was the most common unplanned procedure followed by latissimus free flap and hip prosthesis dislocation. At the time of followup, all patients were ambulating on either salvaged extremities or prostheses.Although removal of the Compress® device presents unique challenges, we describe techniques to address those challenges.
View details for DOI 10.1007/s11999-011-2128-z
View details for Web of Science ID 000301442800032
View details for PubMedID 22002827
Kinematics Differences Between the Flat, Kick, and Slice Serves Measured Using a Markerless Motion Capture Method
ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
2011; 39 (12): 3011-3020
The number of elbow arthroscopies and indications for the procedure have increased significantly since the advent of modern elbow arthroscopy in the 1980s. In addition to the patient history, physical examination, and plain radiography, MRI is an important tool for the clinician in diagnosing several pathologies within and around the elbow. Understanding the pathophysiology and clinical presentation and being familiar with the MRI characteristics of a variety of elbow conditions will assist the physician in making an accurate diagnosis and help guide appropriate treatment.
View details for PubMedID 22301236
Musculoskeletal injuries in the tennis player
MINERVA ORTOPEDICA E TRAUMATOLOGICA
2011; 62 (4): 311-329
Review of tennis serve motion analysis and the biomechanics of three serve types with implications for injury
2011; 10 (4): 378-390
Tennis injuries have been associated with serving mechanics, but quantitative kinematic measurements in realistic environments are limited by current motion capture technologies. This study tested for kinematic differences at the lower back, shoulder, elbow, wrist, and racquet between the flat, kick, and slice serves using a markerless motion capture (MMC) system. Seven male NCAA Division 1 players were tested on an outdoor court in daylight conditions. Peak racquet and joint center speeds occurred sequentially and increased from proximal (back) to distal (racquet). Racquet speeds at ball impact were not significantly different between serve types. However, there were significant differences in the direction of the racquet velocity vector between serves: the kick serve had the largest lateral and smallest forward racquet velocity components, while the flat serve had the smallest vertical component (p < 0.01). The slice serve had lateral velocity, like the kick, and large forward velocity, like the flat. Additionally, the racquet in the kick serve was positioned 8.7 cm more posterior and 21.1 cm more medial than the shoulder compared with the flat, which could suggest an increased risk of shoulder and back injury associated with the kick serve. This study demonstrated the potential for MMC for testing sports performance under natural conditions.
View details for DOI 10.1007/s10439-011-0418-y
View details for Web of Science ID 000296507000014
View details for PubMedID 21984513
Diagnosis and management of superior labrum anterior posterior lesions in overhead athletes
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
2010; 44 (5): 311-318
The tennis serve has the potential for musculoskeletal injury as it is an overhead motion and is performed repetitively during play. Early studies evaluating the biomechanics and injury potential of the tennis serve utilized skin-based marker technologies; however, markerless motion measurement systems have recently become available and have obviated some of the problems associated with the marker-based technology. The late cocking and early acceleration phases of the kinetic chain of the service motion produce the highest internal forces and pose the greatest risk of injury during the service motion. Previous biomechanical data on the tennis serve have primarily focused on the flat serve, with some data on the kick serve, and very little published data elucidating the biomechanics of the slice serve. This review discusses the injury potential of the tennis serve with respect to the four phases of the service motion, the history, and early findings of service motion evaluation, as well as biomechanical data detailing the differences between the three types of serves and how this may relate to injury prevention, rehabilitation, and return to play.
View details for DOI 10.1080/14763141.2011.629302
View details for Web of Science ID 000299832400010
View details for PubMedID 22303788
Shoulder pain is a common complaint in overhead athletes, and superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesions are a common cause of this pain. The pathological cascade which results in the SLAP lesion consists of a combination of posterior inferior capsular tightness and scapular dyskinesis, resulting in a 'peel back' phenomenon at the biceps anchor and leading to the SLAP tear. Physical exam tests vary in their sensitivity and specificity in detecting SLAP lesions, so MRI is helpful in demonstrating the anatomical alteration. Treatment can be conservative, with posterior inferior capsular stretching and scapular open and closed chain exercises. Many SLAP lesions in overhead athletes require surgical treatment that involves repair of the labrum back to the glenoid. Treatment of concomitant injuries such as rotator cuff tears and Bankart lesions in conjunction with the SLAP repair may be necessary.
View details for DOI 10.1136/bjsm.2009.070458
View details for Web of Science ID 000276368100005
View details for PubMedID 20371556