OSTEOLYSIS AND LOOSENING OF total hip arthroplasty IMPLANTS.pptx by dr vasu ...Vasu Srivastava
Aseptic Loosening of implants is caused by osteolysis. It is most significant factor limiting longevity of THA. Revision for loosening is 4x higher than next leading cause (dislocation at 13.6%), and its particularly problematic in younger patients [2].
Osteolysis is bone resorption caused by the body’s response to particulate debris generated as the THA implant wears out. Motion between any two components of the prosthesis (ie the femoral head and the acetabuluar liner, the head-neck junction of the femoral stem, or the liner and shell of the acetabulum) generates debris that floats around the joint. This debris stimulates a host response. Particles of metal, poly, or cement can all cause osteolysis, albeit different types of reaction. Osteolysis is important because it leads to implant loosening and/or periprosthetic fractures.
While osteolysis is the primary cause of loosening, infection must be part of the differential diagnosis.
Historical Perspective: Osteolysis was first described by Harris in 1976 and it was attributed to “cement disease” [3], because it was observed around the femoral component, and this was what started the drive for cementless implants. Yet after significant R&D, and development of cementless implants, osteolysis was still seen around the implants [4], and the histology was similar between cemented [5] and cementless implants [6]. Surgeons then looked for another cause of osteolysis and recognized that it was produced by wear particles.
STAGES OF OSTEOLYSIS
1) Debris production (ie poly wear) is the initial stage (we talk about metal debris in a separate section because it behaves totally differently, see section). Particulate debris in THA is produced by Abrasive and Adhesive wear (whereas the TKA produces delaminating wear: small fissures form within the poly).
▪ Adhesive wear is two surfaces bonding together causing the softer material to “peel” off as a thin film onto the harder surface during motion.
Volumetric wear is a specific type of adhesive wear, and it occurs as the femoral head articulates with the cup liner, and the amount of wear is proportional to the femoral head radius squared (therefore larger femoral head = more wear..this is why the initial Charnley implants, which used conventional poly, used a size 22 femoral head). Linear wear is caused by focused stress on a isolated part of the poly due to abnormal loading.
▪ Abrasive wear occurs when a harder surface (which is never completely smooth) cuts or ploughs through a softer surface, like a cheese grater. Both cause particle formation. Most wear occurs superiorly in the cup (or at the rim in cases of impingement).
The conventional PE wear from articulating with a Cobalt-chrome head is 0.10 mm/year. The ultramolecular weight poly (UMWPE, also known as highly-crosslinked poly) wear is about 0.02 mm/year. What is the difference between conventional and UMWPE?
Safe surgical dislocation for femoral head fractures.dr mohamed ashraf,dr rah...drashraf369
femoral head fractures are very complex fractures that need immediate and prompt surgical intervention.conventional surgical appproaches to hip may lead to short and long term complications.dr mohamed ashraf ,dr rahul thampi et al are presenting their experience with gantz safe surgical dislocation approach to surgical management of femoral head fractures
Hoffa's Fracture: Diagnosis, management & New Classification System by BAGARI...Vaibhav Bagaria
Hoffa's Fracture - coronal split fracture of distal femur, its diagnosis, management strategy, a new classification and tips and tricks of management. First described Hoffa, a new classification system by Bagaria et al helps plan the surgery for these tricky fracture. The most crucial step is not to miss these fractures in ER.
Intramedullary nailing of fractures.dr mohamed ashraf.HOD.govt TD medical co...drashraf369
presentation of biology,biomechanics and practice of intramedullary nailing of long bone fractures by dr mohamed ashraf,govt TD medical college,alleppey,kerala,india
Open debridement and radiocapitellar replacement in primary and post-traumati...Alberto Mantovani
Background: Postmortem and clinical studies have shown an early and prevalent involvement of the radiohumeral
joint in primary and secondary arthritis of the elbow. The lateral resurfacing elbow (LRE) prosthesis
has recently been developed for the treatment of lateral elbow arthritis. However, few data have been
published on LRE results.
Materials and methods: A prospective multicenter study was designed to assess LRE preliminary results.
There were 20 patients (average age, 55 years). Preoperative diagnosis were primary osteoarthritis in 11
and post-traumatic osteoarthritis in 9. All patients underwent open debridement and LRE prosthesis.
Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score
(MEPS), modified American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons (m-ASES) elbow assessment, and the Quick
Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Quick-DASH). Mean follow-up was 22.6 months.
Results: At the last follow-up, the mean improvement of MEPS and m-ASES was 35 (P ¼ .001) and 34
(P ¼ .001) respectively; the average Quick DASH decreased by 29 (P ¼ .001). Average range of motion
was improved by 35 (P ¼.001). MEPI results were excellent in 12 patients, good in 2, and fair and poor in
3 each. Mild overstuffing was observed in 5 patients, and an implant malpositioning in 3. The implant
survival rate was 100%.
Conclusion: LRE showed promising results in this prospective investigation. Most patients had an
uneventful postoperative course and have shown a painless elbow joint, with satisfactory functional
recovery at short-term follow-up. Further studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
OSTEOLYSIS AND LOOSENING OF total hip arthroplasty IMPLANTS.pptx by dr vasu ...Vasu Srivastava
Aseptic Loosening of implants is caused by osteolysis. It is most significant factor limiting longevity of THA. Revision for loosening is 4x higher than next leading cause (dislocation at 13.6%), and its particularly problematic in younger patients [2].
Osteolysis is bone resorption caused by the body’s response to particulate debris generated as the THA implant wears out. Motion between any two components of the prosthesis (ie the femoral head and the acetabuluar liner, the head-neck junction of the femoral stem, or the liner and shell of the acetabulum) generates debris that floats around the joint. This debris stimulates a host response. Particles of metal, poly, or cement can all cause osteolysis, albeit different types of reaction. Osteolysis is important because it leads to implant loosening and/or periprosthetic fractures.
While osteolysis is the primary cause of loosening, infection must be part of the differential diagnosis.
Historical Perspective: Osteolysis was first described by Harris in 1976 and it was attributed to “cement disease” [3], because it was observed around the femoral component, and this was what started the drive for cementless implants. Yet after significant R&D, and development of cementless implants, osteolysis was still seen around the implants [4], and the histology was similar between cemented [5] and cementless implants [6]. Surgeons then looked for another cause of osteolysis and recognized that it was produced by wear particles.
STAGES OF OSTEOLYSIS
1) Debris production (ie poly wear) is the initial stage (we talk about metal debris in a separate section because it behaves totally differently, see section). Particulate debris in THA is produced by Abrasive and Adhesive wear (whereas the TKA produces delaminating wear: small fissures form within the poly).
▪ Adhesive wear is two surfaces bonding together causing the softer material to “peel” off as a thin film onto the harder surface during motion.
Volumetric wear is a specific type of adhesive wear, and it occurs as the femoral head articulates with the cup liner, and the amount of wear is proportional to the femoral head radius squared (therefore larger femoral head = more wear..this is why the initial Charnley implants, which used conventional poly, used a size 22 femoral head). Linear wear is caused by focused stress on a isolated part of the poly due to abnormal loading.
▪ Abrasive wear occurs when a harder surface (which is never completely smooth) cuts or ploughs through a softer surface, like a cheese grater. Both cause particle formation. Most wear occurs superiorly in the cup (or at the rim in cases of impingement).
The conventional PE wear from articulating with a Cobalt-chrome head is 0.10 mm/year. The ultramolecular weight poly (UMWPE, also known as highly-crosslinked poly) wear is about 0.02 mm/year. What is the difference between conventional and UMWPE?
Safe surgical dislocation for femoral head fractures.dr mohamed ashraf,dr rah...drashraf369
femoral head fractures are very complex fractures that need immediate and prompt surgical intervention.conventional surgical appproaches to hip may lead to short and long term complications.dr mohamed ashraf ,dr rahul thampi et al are presenting their experience with gantz safe surgical dislocation approach to surgical management of femoral head fractures
Hoffa's Fracture: Diagnosis, management & New Classification System by BAGARI...Vaibhav Bagaria
Hoffa's Fracture - coronal split fracture of distal femur, its diagnosis, management strategy, a new classification and tips and tricks of management. First described Hoffa, a new classification system by Bagaria et al helps plan the surgery for these tricky fracture. The most crucial step is not to miss these fractures in ER.
Intramedullary nailing of fractures.dr mohamed ashraf.HOD.govt TD medical co...drashraf369
presentation of biology,biomechanics and practice of intramedullary nailing of long bone fractures by dr mohamed ashraf,govt TD medical college,alleppey,kerala,india
Open debridement and radiocapitellar replacement in primary and post-traumati...Alberto Mantovani
Background: Postmortem and clinical studies have shown an early and prevalent involvement of the radiohumeral
joint in primary and secondary arthritis of the elbow. The lateral resurfacing elbow (LRE) prosthesis
has recently been developed for the treatment of lateral elbow arthritis. However, few data have been
published on LRE results.
Materials and methods: A prospective multicenter study was designed to assess LRE preliminary results.
There were 20 patients (average age, 55 years). Preoperative diagnosis were primary osteoarthritis in 11
and post-traumatic osteoarthritis in 9. All patients underwent open debridement and LRE prosthesis.
Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score
(MEPS), modified American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons (m-ASES) elbow assessment, and the Quick
Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Quick-DASH). Mean follow-up was 22.6 months.
Results: At the last follow-up, the mean improvement of MEPS and m-ASES was 35 (P ¼ .001) and 34
(P ¼ .001) respectively; the average Quick DASH decreased by 29 (P ¼ .001). Average range of motion
was improved by 35 (P ¼.001). MEPI results were excellent in 12 patients, good in 2, and fair and poor in
3 each. Mild overstuffing was observed in 5 patients, and an implant malpositioning in 3. The implant
survival rate was 100%.
Conclusion: LRE showed promising results in this prospective investigation. Most patients had an
uneventful postoperative course and have shown a painless elbow joint, with satisfactory functional
recovery at short-term follow-up. Further studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
Treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fracture with locking compression plate provides better biomechanical stability, good fracture union rates, high post-operative constant score, early pain resolution, early return to activity, high patient satisfaction rates and excellent functional outcome. These benefits of plating overweigh complications when used in specific indications like displaced with or without comminuted middle third clavicle fracture (Robinson Type 2B1, 2B2).
Background: Distal femur fractures make up 6 to 7% of all femur fractures. Various plating options for distal femur fracture are conventional buttress plates, fixed-angle devices, and locking plates. This study was planned to evaluate and explore locking compression plate fixation in distal end femur fractures which is expected to provide a stable fixation with minimum exposure, early mobilization, less complications and a better quality of life.
Methods: The study was conducted as prospective clinical study in 20 skeletally mature patients with x-ray evidence of distal femur fracture fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria, operated with distal femur LCP plating. Patients were assessed radiologically and classified according to distal femur fracture classification and outcome graded as excellent, good, fair and poor based on Lysholm Knee Score.
Results: Out of 15 excellent outcome cases, 3 cases were type A1 fracture, 1 case had type A3, 2 cases had type B1 and B2 each, 5 cases had type C2 and 2 cases had type C3 fracture. 1 case with good outcome was type C3. 1 case with fair outcome was type B2. While 3 cases with poor outcome were type A1, A2 and C3.
Conclusions: The DF-LCP is an ideal implant to use for fractures of the distal femur. However, accurate positioning and fixation are required to produce satisfactory results. We recommend use of this implant in Type A and C, osteoporotic and periprosthetic fractures.
Keywords: Distal femur, DF-LCP, Lysholm score, Periprosthetic fracture
The presentation discusses evidence based medicine in the stream of Orthopaedics. Here I have discussed a case of Ipsilateral Intertronchanteric and Femoral shaft Fracture and its various treatment modalities. The presentation was done at J.N. Medical College Belagavi, India. Lets share, discuss and keep learning.
Periprosthetic fractures are the third most common reason for revision total hip arthroplasty. Surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures belongs to the most difficult procedures due to the extensive surgery, elderly polymorbid patients and the high frequency of other complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of operatively treated periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty.
We evaluated 47 periprosthetic fractures in 40 patients (18 men and 22 women) operated on between January 2004 and December 2010. The mean follow-up period was 27 months (within a range of 12-45 months). For the clinical evaluation, we used modified Merle d'Aubigné scoring system.
In group of Vancouver A fractures, 3 patients were treated with a mean score of 15,7 points (good result). We recorded a mean score of 14,2 points (fair result) in 6 patients with Vancouver B1 fractures, 12,4 points (fair result) in 24 patients with Vancouver B2 fractures and 12,8 points (fair result) in 7 patients with Vancouver B3 fractures. In group of Vancouver C fractures, we found a mean score of 16,2 points (good result) in 7 patients.
Therapeutic algorithm based on the Vancouver classification system is, in our opinion, satisfactory. Accurate differentiation of B1 and B2 type of fractures is essential. Preoperative radiographic images may not be reliable and checking the stability of the prosthesis fixation during surgery should be performed.
Functional and radiological assessment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures treated through open reduction and internal fixation surgery using pre-contoured locking compression plates
These lecture slides, by Dr Sidra Arshad, offer a quick overview of physiological basis of a normal electrocardiogram.
Learning objectives:
1. Define an electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrocardiography
2. Describe how dipoles generated by the heart produce the waveforms of the ECG
3. Describe the components of a normal electrocardiogram of a typical bipolar leads (limb II)
4. Differentiate between intervals and segments
5. Enlist some common indications for obtaining an ECG
Study Resources:
1. Chapter 11, Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, 14th edition
2. Chapter 9, Human Physiology - From Cells to Systems, Lauralee Sherwood, 9th edition
3. Chapter 29, Ganong’s Review of Medical Physiology, 26th edition
4. Electrocardiogram, StatPearls - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549803/
5. ECG in Medical Practice by ABM Abdullah, 4th edition
6. ECG Basics, http://www.nataliescasebook.com/tag/e-c-g-basics
Prix Galien International 2024 Forum ProgramLevi Shapiro
June 20, 2024, Prix Galien International and Jerusalem Ethics Forum in ROME. Detailed agenda including panels:
- ADVANCES IN CARDIOLOGY: A NEW PARADIGM IS COMING
- WOMEN’S HEALTH: FERTILITY PRESERVATION
- WHAT’S NEW IN THE TREATMENT OF INFECTIOUS,
ONCOLOGICAL AND INFLAMMATORY SKIN DISEASES?
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ETHICS
- GENE THERAPY
- BEYOND BORDERS: GLOBAL INITIATIVES FOR DEMOCRATIZING LIFE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROMOTING ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE
- ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN LIFE SCIENCES
- Prix Galien International Awards Ceremony
New Directions in Targeted Therapeutic Approaches for Older Adults With Mantl...i3 Health
i3 Health is pleased to make the speaker slides from this activity available for use as a non-accredited self-study or teaching resource.
This slide deck presented by Dr. Kami Maddocks, Professor-Clinical in the Division of Hematology and
Associate Division Director for Ambulatory Operations
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, will provide insight into new directions in targeted therapeutic approaches for older adults with mantle cell lymphoma.
STATEMENT OF NEED
Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) accounting for 5% to 7% of all lymphomas. Its prognosis ranges from indolent disease that does not require treatment for years to very aggressive disease, which is associated with poor survival (Silkenstedt et al, 2021). Typically, MCL is diagnosed at advanced stage and in older patients who cannot tolerate intensive therapy (NCCN, 2022). Although recent advances have slightly increased remission rates, recurrence and relapse remain very common, leading to a median overall survival between 3 and 6 years (LLS, 2021). Though there are several effective options, progress is still needed towards establishing an accepted frontline approach for MCL (Castellino et al, 2022). Treatment selection and management of MCL are complicated by the heterogeneity of prognosis, advanced age and comorbidities of patients, and lack of an established standard approach for treatment, making it vital that clinicians be familiar with the latest research and advances in this area. In this activity chaired by Michael Wang, MD, Professor in the Department of Lymphoma & Myeloma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, expert faculty will discuss prognostic factors informing treatment, the promising results of recent trials in new therapeutic approaches, and the implications of treatment resistance in therapeutic selection for MCL.
Target Audience
Hematology/oncology fellows, attending faculty, and other health care professionals involved in the treatment of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
Learning Objectives
1.) Identify clinical and biological prognostic factors that can guide treatment decision making for older adults with MCL
2.) Evaluate emerging data on targeted therapeutic approaches for treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory MCL and their applicability to older adults
3.) Assess mechanisms of resistance to targeted therapies for MCL and their implications for treatment selection
Ethanol (CH3CH2OH), or beverage alcohol, is a two-carbon alcohol
that is rapidly distributed in the body and brain. Ethanol alters many
neurochemical systems and has rewarding and addictive properties. It
is the oldest recreational drug and likely contributes to more morbidity,
mortality, and public health costs than all illicit drugs combined. The
5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5) integrates alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence into a single
disorder called alcohol use disorder (AUD), with mild, moderate,
and severe subclassifications (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
In the DSM-5, all types of substance abuse and dependence have been
combined into a single substance use disorder (SUD) on a continuum
from mild to severe. A diagnosis of AUD requires that at least two of
the 11 DSM-5 behaviors be present within a 12-month period (mild
AUD: 2–3 criteria; moderate AUD: 4–5 criteria; severe AUD: 6–11 criteria).
The four main behavioral effects of AUD are impaired control over
drinking, negative social consequences, risky use, and altered physiological
effects (tolerance, withdrawal). This chapter presents an overview
of the prevalence and harmful consequences of AUD in the U.S.,
the systemic nature of the disease, neurocircuitry and stages of AUD,
comorbidities, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, genetic risk factors, and
pharmacotherapies for AUD.
Lung Cancer: Artificial Intelligence, Synergetics, Complex System Analysis, S...Oleg Kshivets
RESULTS: Overall life span (LS) was 2252.1±1742.5 days and cumulative 5-year survival (5YS) reached 73.2%, 10 years – 64.8%, 20 years – 42.5%. 513 LCP lived more than 5 years (LS=3124.6±1525.6 days), 148 LCP – more than 10 years (LS=5054.4±1504.1 days).199 LCP died because of LC (LS=562.7±374.5 days). 5YS of LCP after bi/lobectomies was significantly superior in comparison with LCP after pneumonectomies (78.1% vs.63.7%, P=0.00001 by log-rank test). AT significantly improved 5YS (66.3% vs. 34.8%) (P=0.00000 by log-rank test) only for LCP with N1-2. Cox modeling displayed that 5YS of LCP significantly depended on: phase transition (PT) early-invasive LC in terms of synergetics, PT N0—N12, cell ratio factors (ratio between cancer cells- CC and blood cells subpopulations), G1-3, histology, glucose, AT, blood cell circuit, prothrombin index, heparin tolerance, recalcification time (P=0.000-0.038). Neural networks, genetic algorithm selection and bootstrap simulation revealed relationships between 5YS and PT early-invasive LC (rank=1), PT N0—N12 (rank=2), thrombocytes/CC (3), erythrocytes/CC (4), eosinophils/CC (5), healthy cells/CC (6), lymphocytes/CC (7), segmented neutrophils/CC (8), stick neutrophils/CC (9), monocytes/CC (10); leucocytes/CC (11). Correct prediction of 5YS was 100% by neural networks computing (area under ROC curve=1.0; error=0.0).
CONCLUSIONS: 5YS of LCP after radical procedures significantly depended on: 1) PT early-invasive cancer; 2) PT N0--N12; 3) cell ratio factors; 4) blood cell circuit; 5) biochemical factors; 6) hemostasis system; 7) AT; 8) LC characteristics; 9) LC cell dynamics; 10) surgery type: lobectomy/pneumonectomy; 11) anthropometric data. Optimal diagnosis and treatment strategies for LC are: 1) screening and early detection of LC; 2) availability of experienced thoracic surgeons because of complexity of radical procedures; 3) aggressive en block surgery and adequate lymph node dissection for completeness; 4) precise prediction; 5) adjuvant chemoimmunoradiotherapy for LCP with unfavorable prognosis.
- Video recording of this lecture in English language: https://youtu.be/lK81BzxMqdo
- Video recording of this lecture in Arabic language: https://youtu.be/Ve4P0COk9OI
- Link to download the book free: https://nephrotube.blogspot.com/p/nephrotube-nephrology-books.html
- Link to NephroTube website: www.NephroTube.com
- Link to NephroTube social media accounts: https://nephrotube.blogspot.com/p/join-nephrotube-on-social-media.html
Ozempic: Preoperative Management of Patients on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Saeid Safari
Preoperative Management of Patients on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists like Ozempic and Semiglutide
ASA GUIDELINE
NYSORA Guideline
2 Case Reports of Gastric Ultrasound
Title: Sense of Smell
Presenter: Dr. Faiza, Assistant Professor of Physiology
Qualifications:
MBBS (Best Graduate, AIMC Lahore)
FCPS Physiology
ICMT, CHPE, DHPE (STMU)
MPH (GC University, Faisalabad)
MBA (Virtual University of Pakistan)
Learning Objectives:
Describe the primary categories of smells and the concept of odor blindness.
Explain the structure and location of the olfactory membrane and mucosa, including the types and roles of cells involved in olfaction.
Describe the pathway and mechanisms of olfactory signal transmission from the olfactory receptors to the brain.
Illustrate the biochemical cascade triggered by odorant binding to olfactory receptors, including the role of G-proteins and second messengers in generating an action potential.
Identify different types of olfactory disorders such as anosmia, hyposmia, hyperosmia, and dysosmia, including their potential causes.
Key Topics:
Olfactory Genes:
3% of the human genome accounts for olfactory genes.
400 genes for odorant receptors.
Olfactory Membrane:
Located in the superior part of the nasal cavity.
Medially: Folds downward along the superior septum.
Laterally: Folds over the superior turbinate and upper surface of the middle turbinate.
Total surface area: 5-10 square centimeters.
Olfactory Mucosa:
Olfactory Cells: Bipolar nerve cells derived from the CNS (100 million), with 4-25 olfactory cilia per cell.
Sustentacular Cells: Produce mucus and maintain ionic and molecular environment.
Basal Cells: Replace worn-out olfactory cells with an average lifespan of 1-2 months.
Bowman’s Gland: Secretes mucus.
Stimulation of Olfactory Cells:
Odorant dissolves in mucus and attaches to receptors on olfactory cilia.
Involves a cascade effect through G-proteins and second messengers, leading to depolarization and action potential generation in the olfactory nerve.
Quality of a Good Odorant:
Small (3-20 Carbon atoms), volatile, water-soluble, and lipid-soluble.
Facilitated by odorant-binding proteins in mucus.
Membrane Potential and Action Potential:
Resting membrane potential: -55mV.
Action potential frequency in the olfactory nerve increases with odorant strength.
Adaptation Towards the Sense of Smell:
Rapid adaptation within the first second, with further slow adaptation.
Psychological adaptation greater than receptor adaptation, involving feedback inhibition from the central nervous system.
Primary Sensations of Smell:
Camphoraceous, Musky, Floral, Pepperminty, Ethereal, Pungent, Putrid.
Odor Detection Threshold:
Examples: Hydrogen sulfide (0.0005 ppm), Methyl-mercaptan (0.002 ppm).
Some toxic substances are odorless at lethal concentrations.
Characteristics of Smell:
Odor blindness for single substances due to lack of appropriate receptor protein.
Behavioral and emotional influences of smell.
Transmission of Olfactory Signals:
From olfactory cells to glomeruli in the olfactory bulb, involving lateral inhibition.
Primitive, less old, and new olfactory systems with different path
2. Paediatric Supracondylar Humerus
Fractures: Are Medial Pins
Indicated?
Bobby Dezfuli1*, Christopher Larkins2, John T. Ruth1, Lisa M. Truchan1 1Department of
Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA 2Department of
Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA
16. Signs and Symptoms
Type 1 and 2
Swelling
Tenderness
Restriction of range of movements
Mainly full elbow extension
17.
18. Type 3
Swelling
Tenderness
Restriction of range of movements
Gross displacement
S shaped deformity
Anterior puckering sign
Some times neurovascular bundle impaired
19.
20. If neurovascular bundle impaired
Sensory examination
Radial
Median
Ulnar
Motor
Radial
Median
Ulnar
AIN
21. Vascular
Presence of pulse
Capillary refill
Color
Compartment syndrome
Anxity
Agitation
Increasing analgesic
22. Red flags for compartment syndrome
Swelling / ecchymosis
Anterior skin puckering
Absent pulse
29. Paediatric Supracondylar Humerus
Fractures: Are Medial Pins Indicated?
Bobby Dezfuli1*, Christopher Larkins2, John T. Ruth1, Lisa M. Truchan1 1Department
of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, San
Antonio, TX, USA
30. Introduction
The most common elbow fractures that are seen in children are the supracondylar
fractures of the humerus that can be managed by both operative and non-
operative modalities.
Whether a supracondylar fracture can be managed non-operatively depends on
fracture stability, the degree of displacement and the ability to control
displacement through traction.
31. Operative management is managed initially with lateral pinning with further
assessment of stabilization in order to determine if a medial pin is needed.
Several studies have noted that cross pinning is biomechanically superior to
lateral pinning. The drawback with cross pinning is potential iatrogenic ulnar
nerve injury.
The systematic review revealed that although medial and lateral pinning reduced
the probability of deformity or loss of reduction by 0.58 times as compared to
only lateral pinning, the trade-off was an increased probability of ulnar nerve
injury that was 5.04 times higher in cross pinning as compared with only lateral
pinning of supracondylar humeral fractures.
32. Due to the findings of this systematic review, we analyzed two board certified
fellowship trained orthopedic trauma surgeons (J.T.R. and L.M.T.) at a Level One
Trauma Center in order to evaluate trends in pin placement for all children that
were treated operatively for a supracondylar humerus fracture.
33. Materials and Methods
A retrospective review was performed on all children sustaining a Gartland type II
and III supracondylar distal humerus fractures treated by closed reduction and
percutaneous pinning between January 2006 to December 2008 and January
2009 to December 2011.
Prior to 2009, medial pins were routinely used for type III fractures. At the end of
2008 and beginning of 2009, there was a systematic effort to minimize the use of
medial pins.
34. The protocol initiated for surgical technique included the placement of two lateral
pins after reduction was obtained. Then, the fracture was stressed and analyzed
radiographically. If the fracture was stable, a third lateral pin was placed. If there
was motion at the fracture site, then a medial pin was placed. The attending
surgeon made this determination.
Patients were excluded if radiographs or post-operative reports could not be
obtained to verify the number and placement of Kirschner Wires.
35. Minimum follow-up of 3 months was required.
Each chart and postoperative report was carefully reviewed to evaluate patient
demographics, intra-operative technique, and pin placement that was verified by
radiographs.
Charts reviewed from 2006 through 2008 were then compiled and compared with
patient charts reviewed from 2009 through 2011.
Two trauma surgeons at a Level One University Trauma Center operatively treated
a total of 49 patients from the years of 2006 through 2011.
36. Of these patients, 22 were treated in 2006-2008 and 27 were treated in 2009- 2011. Of
the 22 patients treated between 2006 and 2007, 5 (23%) supracondylar fractures were
classified as type II and 17 (77%) were classified as type III fractures.
In 2009-2011 16 (59%) fractures were classified as type II and 11 (41%) fractures were
classified as type III.
The number and configuration of pins that were placed per patient in 2006-2008 was
compared to the number and configuration of pins that were placed per patient in
2009-2011. In addition to the number of pins placed, the location (medial vs. lateral) of
pin placement was compared between the same set of years.
Post-operative complications of non-union, varus misalignment deformity assessed by
Bauman’s angle > 80˚, any re-operation, and any ulnar nerve deficits on follow-up
were evaluated.
37. Results
A total of 49 patients met inclusion criteria. Of 22 patients treated in 2006-2008, 5
(23%) were type II and 17 (77%) were type III (Table 1). In 2009-2011, 16 (59%) were
type II and 11 (41%) were type III (Table 1).
Of type II fractures treated in 2006-2008, 4 (80%) were repaired with lateral only
pinning and 1 (20%) was repaired with both medial and lateral pinning .
Of the type II fractures repaired in 2009-2011, 15 (94%) were repaired with lateral only
pinning and 1 (6%) repaired with both medial and lateral pinning.
Of the type III fractures repaired in 2006-2008, 2 (12%) were repaired with lateral only
pinning and 15 (88%) repaired with both medial and lateral pinning .
Of the type III fractures repaired in 2009-2011, 7 (64%) were repaired with lateral only
pinning and 4 (26%) repaired with both medial and lateral pinning.
38. Comparison of pinning pattern in type II fractures between 2006-2008 and 2009-
2011 did not indicate statistical significance (p = 0.429). Comparison of pinning
pattern in type III fractures during the same time period did show that there was a
statistically significant decrease (p = 0.010) in the number of cross pin fixation.
There were no non-unions, re-operations, ulnar nerve injury, or varus
malalignment in any patient on final follow-up.
39. Table 1. Summary of fracture pattern, pin placement, and outcomes.
2006-2008 2009-2011
Total Number of Fractures 22 27
Type II 5 16
Type III 17 11
2 Total Pins 9 14
3 Total Pins 12 13
4 Total Pins 1 0 Ulnar
Nerve Symptoms 0 0 Baumann’s
Angle > 80˚ 0 0 Re-Operation
0 0 Non-
Union 0 0
40. Type II fracture pin pattern.
Type II Fractures 2006-2008 2009-2011
# % # %
Number of Fractures 5 16
1 Medial Pin and 1 Lateral Pin 1 20 0 0
1 Medial Pin and 2 Lateral Pins 0 0 1 6
2 Lateral Pins 4 80 12 75
3 Lateral Pins 0 0 3 19
41. Type III fracture pin pattern.
Type III Fractures 2006-2008 2009-2011 2006-2008 2009-2011
# % # %
Number of Fractures 17 11
1 Medial Pin and 1 Lateral Pin 2 12 1 9
1 Medial Pin and 2 Lateral Pins 12 70 3 27
1 Medial Pin and 3 Lateral Pins 1 6 0 0
2 Lateral Pins 2 12 1 9
3 Lateral Pins 0 0 6 55
42. This study presents a shift in operative management with a significant decrease in cross pin
fixation for type III fractures with clinical outcomes, such as ulnar nerve injury, non-unions, re-
operation rate, and varus malalignment, comparable to lateral only pinning.
The primary advantage of utilizing only lateral pinning to correct supracondylar humeral fractures
is to decrease the risk of iatrogenic nerve injury.
Iatrogenic nerve injury often occurs with the placement of a medial pin and can occur after a
correctly placed medial pin.
Brown and Zinar reported that even with a medial pin that is placed correctly, and there is a risk
of damaging the ulnar nerve . By only using lateral pins to fixate supracondylar humeral fractures,
there is little risk for iatrogenic injury to the ulnar nerve.
Bronwyn et al. found that there is an iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury for every 28 patients treated
with cross pinning as opposed to lateral pinning . Even with the decreased risk for iatrogenic
nerve injury, there are disadvantages to using only lateral pinning to correct supracondylar
humeral fractures. One disadvantage to using lateral pinning is that it is biomechanically inferior
to cross pinning.
43. Zionts et al. concluded that maximal stability was achieved using cross pinning
after analyzing adult cadaveric specimens . Zamzam and Bakarman found that
type III fractures that were fixed with lateral only pinning with two pins were
predisposed to postoperative instability, late complications and the need for a
medial pin .
However with regard to torsional stability, Larson et al. found that there was no
statistically significant difference between lateral pins versus cross pinning
techniques in synthetic humerus.
Even with the biomechanical superiority of cross pinning, clinical outcomes in our
study were the same. This may indicate the biomechanical superiority of cross
pinning may not necessarily confer outcomes that are statistically or clinically
significant.
44. This sentence is “awkward” perhaps “this may indicate the biomechanical
superiority of cross pinning may not necessarily confer outcomes that are either
statistically or clinically significant” might be preferred.
Also the authors might wish to state something about a power calculation here in
terms of how many fractures needed to be treated in this way to identify a
possible difference in outcome and how many fractures were not amenable to
treatment with lateral wires only, owing to insufficient stability on stress-testing
(stress testing as noted in methods section were done in all cases; in cases with
persistent instability, all received medial pin. Therefore the number of medial pins
placed is equal to number of persistent instability after stress testing).
45. The systematic review by Brauer et al. showed an increased risk of reduction loss
using lateral pinning only compared to cross pinning . We maintained adequate
acceptable alignment without increasing need for reoperation. No fractures
developed varus malalignment.
Our results are similar to Lee et al. who performed lateral pinning for all fractures
over a four-year period with excellent outcomes .
Kocher et al. also found excellent results with lateral only pinning in completely
displaced type III fractures in a randomized trial .
Similar results were also obtained by Tripuraneni et al. as their prospective
surgeon randomized trial showed no clinical difference between cross and lateral
pinning .
46. Another prospective, surgeon randomized trial conducted by Gaston et al. also
revealed that there was no statistical difference in radiographic outcomes of
lateral vs. cross pinning of type III fractures [14].
Mahan et al. analyzed surgeon preference of cross pins vs. lateral only pinning
after the prospective randomized control trial conducted by Kocher in 2007.
Consistent with our result, Mahan et al. found that there was a statistically
significant change in surgeon preference from cross pinning before the trial to
lateral only pinning after the trial
47. This study has several limitations. It is retrospective. It is possible that more
unstable fractures required cross pinning. The study only evaluated two trauma
surgeons at a level one trauma center and did not include data from other level
two and three trauma centers. The study also did not evaluate any pediatric
orthopedic surgeon preferences in pin placement.
However, within a three year period—2009-20011—there was a significant
reduction in the utilization of cross pinning with excellent clinic outcomes. Further
limitations include the overall sample size and the lack of long-term clinical
outcomes.
48. Nevertheless, this study finds similar results as others in the recent literature
about the reproducible outcomes with lateral pinning only for pediatric
supracondylar humerus fractures.
Future studies analyzing trends in pin placement for supracondylar humeral
fractures should include the comparison of academic to private orthopedic
institutions.
At a level one academic trauma center, there has been a trend toward decreasing
cross pin fixation for pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures. Outcomes were
excellent. We conclude that pediatric supracondylar fractures can be treated with
lateral pin fixation only with excellent clinical outcomes.
49. Conclusion
No statistically significant difference between lateral pins versus cross pinning
techniques.
Decreased risk of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury.
50. References
[1] Houshian, S., Mehdi, B. and Larsen, M.S. (2001) The Epidemiology of Elbow Fracture in Children: Analysis of 355 Fractures, with Special
Reference to Supracondylar Humerus Fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 6, 312-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s007760100024
[2] Mahan, S.T., May, C.D. and Kocher, M.S. (2007) Operative Management of Displaced Flexion Supracondylar Fractures in Children. Journal
of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 27, 551-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.bpb.0000279032.04892.6c
[3] Lee, Y.H., et al. (2008) Three Lateral Divergent or Parallel Pin Fixations for the Treatment of Displaced Supracondylar Humerus Fractures
in Children. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 28, 417-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318173e13d
[4] Kim, W.Y., Chandru, R., Bonshahi, A., et al. (2003) Displaced Supracondylar Humeral Fractures in Children: Results of a National Survey of
Pediatric Orthopedic Consultants. Injury, 34, 274-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(02)00321-2
[5] Lee, S.S., Mahar, A.T., Miesen, D., et al. (2002) Displaced Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures: Biomechanical Analysis of
Percutaneous Pinning Techniques. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 22, 440-443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01241398-200207000-00005
[6] Kocher, M.S., Kasser, J.R., Waters, P.M., et al. (2007) Lateral Entry Compared with Medial and Lateral Entry Pin Fixation for Completely
Displaced Supracondylar Humeral Fractures in Children. A Randomized Control Trial. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 89, 706-712.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00379
[7] Brauer, C.A., Lee, B.M., Bae, D.S., et al. (2007) A Systematic Review of Medial and Lateral Entry Pinning Versus Lateral Entry Pinning for
Supracondylar Fractures of the Humerus. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 27, 181-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0b013e3180316cf1
51. 8] Brown, I.C. and Zinar, D.M. (1995) Traumatic and Iatrogenic Neurological Complications after Supracondylar Humerus Fractures in Children. Journal of
Pediatric Orthopaedics, 14, 440-443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01241398-199507000-00005
[9] Bronwyn, S.L., Jackman, H., Tennant, S., et al. (2010) Iatrogenic Ulnar Nerve Injury after the Surgical Treatment of Displaced Supracondylar Fractures of
the Humerus: Number Needed to Harm, A Systematic Review. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 30, 430-436.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181e00c0d
[10] Zionts, L.E., McKellop, H.A. and Hathaway, R. (1994) Torsional Strength of Pin Configurations Used to Fix Supracondylar Fractures of the Humerus in
Children. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 76, 253-256.
[11] Zamzam, M.M. and Bakarman, K.A. (2009) Treatment of Displaced Supracondylar Humerus Fractures among Children: Crossed versus Lateral Pinning.
Injury, 40, 625-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2008.10.029
[12] Larson, L., Firoozbakhsh, K., Passarelli, R. and Bosch, P. (2006) Biomechanical Analysis of Pinning Techniques for Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus
Fractures. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 26, 573-578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.bpo.0000230336.26652.1c
[13] Tripuraneni, K.R., Bosch, P.P., Schwend, R.M. and Yaste, J.J. (2009) Prospective, Surgeon-Randomized Evaluation of Crossed Pins versus Lateral Pins for
Unstable Supracondylar Humerus Fractures in Children. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B, 18, 93-98.
[14] Gaston, R.G., Cates, T.B., Devito, D., et al. (2010) Medial and Lateral Pin Versus Lateral-Entry Pin Fixation for Type 3 Supracondylar Fractures in
Children: A Prospective, Surgeon-Randomized Study. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 30, 799-806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181f73d59
[15] Mahan, S.T., Osborn, E., Bae, D.S., et al. (2012) Changing Practice Patterns: The Impact of a RandomizedClinical Trial on Surgeons Preference for
Treatmentof Type 3 Supracondylar Humerus Fractures. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 32, 340-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3182519d1d