DOCSLIB.ORG

Arthrodesis Versus ORIF for Lisfranc Fractures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arthrodesis Versus ORIF for Lisfranc Fractures n Feature Article Arthrodesis Versus ORIF for Lisfranc Fractures SHAHIN SHEIBANI-RAD, MD, MS; J. CHRISTIAAN COETZEE, MD; M. RUSSELL GIVEANS, PHD; CHRISTOPHER DIGIOVANNI, MD abstract Full article available online at Healio.com/Orthopedics. Search: 20120525-26 The Lisfranc joints make up the bony structural support of the transverse arch in the midfoot and account for approximately 0.2% of all fractures. Early recognition and treatment of this injury are paramount to preserving normal foot biomechanics and function. Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment of patients with Lisfranc injuries, particularly when the instability is entirely ligamentous. A The authors performed a qualitative, systematic review of the literature to compare the 2 most common procedures for Lisfranc fractures: primary arthrodesis and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Six articles with a total of 193 patients met the inclusion criteria. At 1-year follow-up, the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score of ORIF patients was 72.5 and of arthrodesis patients was 88.0. Fisher’s exact test revealed no significant effect of treatment group on the percentage on pa- tients who had an anatomic reduction (P5.319). B This study highlights that both procedures yield satisfactory and equivalent results. A slight advantage may exist in performing a primary arthrodesis for Lisfranc joint injuries in terms of clinical outcomes. C Figure: Myerson classification. Total incongruity (A). Partial incongruity (B). Divergent (C). Dr Sheibani-Rad is from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McLaren Regional Medical Center, Michigan State University, Flint, Michigan; Drs Coetzee and Giveans are from Minnesota Sports Medi- cine and Twin Cities Orthopedics, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Dr DiGiovanni is from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brown Medical School, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island. Drs Sheibani-Rad, Coetzee, Giveans, and DiGiovanni have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Correspondence should be addressed to: Shahin Sheibani-Rad, MD, MS, Department of Orthopae- dic Surgery, McLaren Regional Medical Center, Michigan State University, 401 S Ballenger Hwy, Flint, MI 48532 ([email protected]). doi: 10.3928/01477447-20120525-26 e868 Healio.com The new online home of ORTHOPEDICS | Healio.com/Orthopedics LISFRANC FRACTURES | SHEIBANI-RAD ET AL he Lisfranc joints make up the bony structural support of the transverse Tarch in the midfoot. Lisfranc inju- ries account for approximately 0.2% of all fractures,1 with an incidence of 1/55,000 cases per year.1,2 Early recognition and treatment of this injury are paramount to preserving normal foot biomechanics and function. Approximately 20% of Lisfranc joint injuries are missed on initial antero- posterior and oblique radiographs,3 and 1 persistent malalignment after this injury Figure 1: Graph showing flow of studies retrieved for systematic review. can lead to chronic pain, progressive de- formity, and prolonged disability.4,5 Controversy exists regarding the op- tarsocuneiform joint, talometatarsal an- Quenu and Kuss15 or a modification of timal treatment of patients with Lisfranc gle, and the line tangential to the medial Myerson et al5 or Hardcastle et al,16 (2) injuries, particularly when the instabil- aspect of the navicular and the medial cu- treatment within 48 hours of injury, (3) ity is entirely ligamentous.6 Although neiform intersecting the base of the first the use of 1 of the 2 treatments of interest, the current trend is treating these patients metatarsal. Clinical outcome assessment and (4) publication between January 1985 with open reduction and internal fixation was determined via patient scoring based and September 2011 in English. All injury (ORIF),6-8 those with dislocation in the on the postoperative American Ortho- mechanisms were eligible for the study. absence of significant fracture continue paedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Exclusion criteria included studies that to pose a therapeutic challenge. Despite midfoot scale. The purpose of the study focused on a biomechanical model, review appropriate initial treatment, up to 94% was to compare clinical and radiographic articles, articles on the pediatric popula- of these patients develop posttraumatic outcomes between arthrodesis and ORIF tion, isolated case reports, surgical tech- arthritis and require a conversion to an ar- interventions for Lisfranc injuries based nique articles, foreign language reports, throdesis of the tarsometatarsal joints.9-11 on available clinical and radiologic out- studies using either closed reduction or Some studies report primary arthrodesis comes. percutaneous pinning as the primary treat- to be a salvage method,12,13 whereas oth- ment, reports of arthrodesis as a salvage ers recommend it as a primary treatment.14 Literature Search or secondary procedure, and patient as- Because no consensus exists for manag- A comprehensive search was per- sessment that did not include the AOFAS ing Lisfranc fracture-dislocation variants, formed of Medline, Cochrane Central midfoot score. All study designs were the authors of the current study performed Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid eligible, including randomized, controlled a qualitative, systematic review of the lit- using the key words Lisfranc, Lisfranc trials and prospectively or retrospectively erature to compare the 2 most common fracture, Lisfranc dislocation, metatarsal nonrandomized, controlled trials. procedures for Lisfranc fractures: primary fracture, metatarsal dislocation, Lisfranc arthrodesis and ORIF. Review of radio- arthrodesis, Lisfranc ORIF, and Lisfranc Statistical Methods graphic reduction and patient outcomes open reduction internal fixation. The data- Statistical analysis was performed was peformed. base review also included a search of any using SPSS version 16.0 for Windows published report in the American Associa- software (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, Illinois). MATERIALS AND METHODS tion of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) an- Fisher’s exact test was performed to com- A formal review was performed of all nual meeting proceedings between 2006 pare the reduction rate between the ORIF available reports in the English literature and 2010. To ensure that all possible ar- group and the arthrodesis group. Statisti- pertaining to ORIF and primary arthrod- ticles were considered, the references of cal significance was set at P,.05. esis (complete and partial) of the Lisfranc all relevant articles were manually cross- joints. Radiographic outcome assessment referenced to identify potential additional RESULTS included final or postoperative anatomic studies. The database search resulted in 1743 ar- reduction based on >1 of the following For a study to satisfy the inclusion ticles (Figure 1). After limiting the search radiological findings: diastasis between criteria, it required (1) inclusion of a Lis- to clinical trials in English and excluding the first and second metatarsals or meta- franc classification system according to biomechanical and surgical techniques, JUNE 2012 | Volume 35 • Number 6 e869 n Feature Article This left a total of 6 studies for the Table 1 current review (Table 1). The studies in- Selected Articles From Systematic Review cluded 8 treatment arms and a total of 193 eligible patients. Of the 6 studies, 4 Author Study Design Fixation Type No. of Patients True Na focused on ORIF alone. Two studies di- Arntz et al6 PCS ORIF 40 40 rectly compared ORIF and arthrodesis. Mulier et al12 PCS ORIF vs primary 28 28 The ORIF group comprised a total 160 arthrodesis eligible patients, with 152 patients under- Kuo et al17 RR ORIF 48 42 going the procedure and returning for fol- Ly & Coetzee18 PRC ORIF vs primary 41 41 low-up. The arthrodesis group comprised arthrodesis 33 patients. Rajapakse et al19 RR ORIF 25 17 Six articles included data on post- Teng et al20 RR ORIF 11 11 operative anatomic reduction,6,12,17-20 Abbreviations: ORIF, open reduction and internal fixation; PCS, prospective consecutive and 4 articles provided AOFAS midfoot series; PRS, prospective randomized comparison; RR, retrospective review. scores.17-20 Of 3 prospective studies, 2 in- aOnly patients who were available for follow-up and/or met inclusion/exclusion criteria, not total patient population. cluded direct comparisons of ORIF and arthrodesis. One study used a randomized design, and in the remaining prospective Table 2 studies, it was unclear whether the pa- tients were randomized. Mean follow-up Comparison of AOFAS Scores Between Selected Studies was 39.8 months. Kuo Ly & Rajapakse Teng Mean Of the 6 articles that met the inclusion Procedure et al17 Coetzee18 et al19 et al20 AOFAS Significance criteria, 6,12,17-20 4 reported AOFAS scores 17-20 ORIF 80.2 68.6 70.3 71.0 72.5 NA at 1-year follow-up. Each of these arti- Arthrodesis NA 88.0 NA NA 88.0 NA cles included patients treated with ORIF, with 1 of the 4 also reporting AOFAS Abbreviations: AOFAS, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society; NA, not applicable; ORIF, open reduction and internal fixation. scores for an arthrodesis group (Table 2).18 The total number of patients evaluat- ed was 90 in the ORIF group and 21 in the Table 3 arthrodesis group. At 1-year follow-up, Comparison of Anatomic Reduction the mean AOFAS score of ORIF patients was 72.5 and of arthrodesis patients was Patients ORIF Arthrodesis P 88.0. By not having access to the origi- Total No. 146 33 nal data sets, the authors were unable to perform a statistical analysis on AOFAS No. with reduction 134 28 scores at 1 year between patients under- % 91.8 84.8 .319 going ORIF and arthrodesis. However, al- Abbreviation: ORIF, open reduction and internal fixation. though the sample size is somewhat small for the arthrodesis group, a clinical differ- ence between the 2 groups is evident at case reports, imaging studies, studies not this could not be determined from the ab- 1-year follow-up, with the AOFAS score involving ORIF or arthrodesis, studies not stract. From this group, 16 articles were for the arthrodesis group higher than that involving the Lisfranc joint, nonoperative determined to fulfill the inclusion criteria.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unicompartmental Knee Replacement
    This is a repository copy of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/120113/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Takahashi, T, Pandit, HG orcid.org/0000-0001-7392-8561 and Phil, D (2017) Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. Journal of Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery, 4 (2). pp. 55-60. ISSN 0021-8790 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jajs.2017.08.009 © 2017 International Society for Knowledge for Surgeons on Arthroscopy and Arthroplasty. Published by Elsevier, a division of RELX India, Pvt. Ltd. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Accepted Manuscript Title: Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Author: Tsuneari Takahashi PII: S2214-9635(17)30041-X DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jajs.2017.08.009 Reference: JAJS 97 To appear in: Authors: Hemant G.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedure Coding in ICD-9-CM and ICD- 10-PCS
    Procedure Coding in ICD-9-CM and ICD- 10-PCS ICD-9-CM Volume 3 Procedures are classified in volume 3 of ICD-9-CM, and this section includes both an Alphabetic Index and a Tabular List. This volume follows the same format, organization and conventions as the classification of diseases in volumes 1 and 2. ICD-10-PCS ICD-10-PCS will replace volume 3 of ICD-9-CM. Unlike ICD-10-CM for diagnoses, which is similar in structure and format as the ICD-9-CM volumes 1 and 2, ICD-10-PCS is a completely different system. ICD-10-PCS has a multiaxial seven-character alphanumeric code structure providing unique codes for procedures. The table below gives a brief side-by-side comparison of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-PCS. ICD-9-CM Volume3 ICD-10-PCS Follows ICD structure (designed for diagnosis Designed and developed to meet healthcare coding) needs for a procedure code system Codes available as a fixed or finite set in list form Codes constructed from flexible code components (values) using tables Codes are numeric Codes are alphanumeric Codes are 3-4 digits long All codes are seven characters long ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-PCS are used to code only hospital inpatient procedures. Hospital outpatient departments, other ambulatory facilities, and physician practices are required to use CPT and HCPCS to report procedures. ICD-9-CM Conventions in Volume 3 Code Also In volume 3, the phrase “code also” is a reminder to code additional procedures only when they have actually been performed.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF)
    FACT SHEET FOR PATIENTS AND FAMILIES Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) What is it and why do I need it? Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is surgery to repair a broken bone. Open reduction means the doctor makes an incision (cut) to reach the bones and move them back into their normal position. Internal fixation means metal screws, plates, sutures, or rods are placed on the bone to keep it in place while it heals. The internal fixation will not be removed. Why do I need it? This surgery is done on an arm or a leg to repair fractures Before After that would not heal properly with a cast or splint alone. Your surgeon may recommend ORIF if: In the picture on the left, the arm bone is severely broken. In the picture on the right, the arm bone is held • The bone is broken into many pieces together with metal devices called internal fixation. • The bone is sticking out of the skin They will not be removed after the bone heals. • The bone is not lined up correctly • A closed reduction (without opening the skin) Talking with your doctor was done before and it didn’t heal properly The table below lists the most common potential benefits, • A joint is dislocated risks, and alternatives for ORIF surgery to repair a broken This surgery should allow your bone to heal properly. bone. There may be other benefits or risks in your unique When it does, you will have less pain and be better able to medical situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilson Osteotomy Stabilised by Means of Internal Fixation for the Treatment of Hallux Valgus
    Acta Orthop. Belg., 2004, 70, 57-63 Wilson osteotomy stabilised by means of internal fixation for the treatment of hallux valgus Panagiotis GIVISSIS, Dimitrios KARATAGLIS, Anastasios CHRISTODOULOU, Ioannis TERZIDIS, John POURNARAS The results achieved in 20 patients (32 feet) who tomy did not include any type of internal stabilisa- underwent Wilson’s osteotomy of the first metatarsal tion ; the operation therefore frequently necessitat- for the treatment of hallux valgus were reviewed. In ed prolonged plaster cast immobilisation due to the all cases the osteotomy site was stabilised with one or lack of inherent mechanical stability. two cortical screws. The patients’ average age was Some authors have subsequently tried various 50.7 years (range : 34-74 years) and they were fol- types of internal fixation of the osteotomy site, in lowed for a mean period of 33.1 months (range 12- 63 months). order to obviate the need for plaster cast immobili- The average AOFAS score was 85.5 (range : 62-100) sation (1, 8, 21). In this paper the results of Wilson’s at the final follow-up and in 84.4% of the cases the osteotomy stabilised with one or two cortical final outcome was very satisfactory as far as sympto- screws are presented. matic improvement was concerned. Wilson’s osteotomy stabilised with cortical screws PATIENTS AND METHODS was found to reliably give satisfactory correction of the hallux valgus and first intermetatarsal angles, Twenty patients (32 feet) who underwent Wilson’s while allowing safe patient mobilisation and early osteotomy with internal fixation with one or two screws weight bearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction Internal
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY ANZJSurg.com Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations: a retrospective study comparing functional and radiological outcomes Nathan Kirzner , Wesley Teoh, Sianne Toemoe, Tim Maher, Rejith Mannambeth, Andrew Hughes, Daniel Goldbloom, Hamish Curry and Harvinder Bedi Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Key words Abstract anatomical reduction, complete Lisfranc fracture dislocation, functional outcome, open reduction Background: The aims of this retrospective study were to compare the functional and internal fixation, primary arthrodesis. radiological outcomes of primary arthrodesis and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations. Correspondence Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 39 patients treated for a complete Lisfranc frac- Dr Nathan Kirzner, Alfred Hospital, 55 Commercial ture dislocation, defined as Myerson types A and C2, over a period of 8 years at a level Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia. 1 trauma centre was performed. Of these, 18 underwent primary arthrodesis, and 21 ORIF. Email: [email protected] The primary outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society N. Kirzner MBBS, BSc, MSurgSC, MRadTher; score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire functional tool, and the second- W. Teoh MBBS; S. Toemoe MBBS; T. Maher ary outcome was the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction. MBBS; R. Mannambeth MBBS, MS (Ortho), DNB Results: Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the primary arthrodesis (Ortho); A. Hughes FRACS (Ortho); D. Goldbloom group. These patients had a mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score of 30.1 MBBS, FRACS (Ortho); H. Curry MBBS, FRACS points, compared with 45.1 for the ORIF group (P = 0.017).
    [Show full text]
  • Arthroscopic Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation of Tibial Plateau Fractures
    ID Design Press, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2019 Apr 15; 7(7):1133-1137. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.248 eISSN: 1857-9655 Clinical Science Arthroscopic Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation of Tibial Plateau Fractures Sherif Hamdy Mohamed Zawam*, Ahmed Mahmoud Gad Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt Abstract Citation: Zawam SHM, Gad AM. Arthroscopic Assisted BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fractures present an important entity in orthopaedic fractures. Arthroscopic- Reduction and Internal Fixation of Tibial Plateau assisted reduction and internal fixation is a good alternative to ORIF as it has the advantage of direct visualisation Fractures. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Apr 15; 7(7):1133-1137. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.248 of the articular surface of the plateau, direct assessment of the reduction of the articular surface, and managing Keywords: Arthroscopic assisted; Tibial plateau any associated intra-articular pathology. fractures; ORIF; Schatzker *Correspondence: Sherif Hamdy Mohamed Zawam. AIM: Our study aim is to determine the results of arthroscopic assisted reduction and internal fixation of tibial Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. E- plateau fractures. mail: [email protected] Received: 07-Feb-2019; Revised: 25-Mar-2019; METHODS: This study involved 25 patients with tibial plateau fractures presenting to the emergency department Accepted: 26-Mar-2019; Online first: 14-Apr-2019 of Cairo University Hospitals between the periods of November 2016 and May 2017. The patients were followed Copyright: © 2019 Sherif Hamdy Mohamed Zawam, up for an average of 14 months (11-18 months). According to Schatzker’s classification, five patients had type I, Ahmed Mahmoud Gad.
    [Show full text]
  • Icd-9-Cm (2010)
    ICD-9-CM (2010) PROCEDURE CODE LONG DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION 0001 Therapeutic ultrasound of vessels of head and neck Ther ult head & neck ves 0002 Therapeutic ultrasound of heart Ther ultrasound of heart 0003 Therapeutic ultrasound of peripheral vascular vessels Ther ult peripheral ves 0009 Other therapeutic ultrasound Other therapeutic ultsnd 0010 Implantation of chemotherapeutic agent Implant chemothera agent 0011 Infusion of drotrecogin alfa (activated) Infus drotrecogin alfa 0012 Administration of inhaled nitric oxide Adm inhal nitric oxide 0013 Injection or infusion of nesiritide Inject/infus nesiritide 0014 Injection or infusion of oxazolidinone class of antibiotics Injection oxazolidinone 0015 High-dose infusion interleukin-2 [IL-2] High-dose infusion IL-2 0016 Pressurized treatment of venous bypass graft [conduit] with pharmaceutical substance Pressurized treat graft 0017 Infusion of vasopressor agent Infusion of vasopressor 0018 Infusion of immunosuppressive antibody therapy Infus immunosup antibody 0019 Disruption of blood brain barrier via infusion [BBBD] BBBD via infusion 0021 Intravascular imaging of extracranial cerebral vessels IVUS extracran cereb ves 0022 Intravascular imaging of intrathoracic vessels IVUS intrathoracic ves 0023 Intravascular imaging of peripheral vessels IVUS peripheral vessels 0024 Intravascular imaging of coronary vessels IVUS coronary vessels 0025 Intravascular imaging of renal vessels IVUS renal vessels 0028 Intravascular imaging, other specified vessel(s) Intravascul imaging NEC 0029 Intravascular
    [Show full text]
  • Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocations
    Lisfranc Injuries Keith D. Cook, DPM Director, Podiatric Medical Education University Hospital Newark, New Jersey JULY 13, 2019 Disclosures DePuy Synthes: Consultant, Lecturer Osteomed: Consultant, Lecturer, Royalties UMDNJ OFFICE OF ADVANCEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS 2 Objectives Maintain a high clinical suspicion for Lisfranc fracture-dislocations Decide between Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis Utilize latest fixation techniques UMDNJ OFFICE OF ADVANCEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS 3 Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation Overall frequency: • Lisfranc = 14% of all foot and ankle injuries • 20% Misdiagnosed 4 Obvious Subtle 5 Clinical Suspicion Edema Ecchymosis Erythema Pain Unable to walk Fracture blisters Compartment syndrome? 6 Diagnosis X-rays Contralateral x-rays Stress radiographs CT Scan MRI for ligament rupture 7 “Outcome After Open Reduction & Internal Fixation of Lisfranc Joint Injuries” Kuo, Hansen, et al. JBJS 82-A(11), Nov. 2000 Review of 48 patients with Lisfranc ORIF Pts. with non-anatomic reduction had a significantly higher prevalence of post- traumatic osteoarthritis than did those with anatomic reduction Anatomic reduction resulted in better AOFAS & MFA scores “Anatomic reduction & stable internal fixation has become a standard principle governing treatment of tarsometatarsal fracture-dislocations” 8 Treatment “It is well accepted that patients are likely to develop late joint deformity at the tarsometatarsal junction, joint separation, and radiographic and clinical evidence of post- traumatic arthritis when anatomic reduction is not obtained.” • Teng, Pinzur, et al. Foot ankle Int. 23:922-926, 2002. 9 Treatment Fusion vs ORIF 3.5 or 4.0mm screws K-wires Ex-Fix Bridge Plating 10 “Treatment of Primary Ligamentous Lisfranc Joint Injuries: Primary Arthrodesis Compared with Open Reduction and Internal Fixation” Ly, Coetzee.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthopaedics AMPUTATION PRE-APPROVAL CODE DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PAYMENT INDICATORS PAYMENT RULES
    Schedule of Benefits for Professional Fees 2019 Orthopaedics AMPUTATION PRE-APPROVAL CODE DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PAYMENT INDICATORS PAYMENT RULES Amputation, finger or thumb, primary or secondary, any joint or phalanx, single, including 3140 neurectomies; with direct closure (use also for traumatic amputations) No 3145 Amputation of two or more fingers No 3280 Amputation through forearm No 3415 Amputation through arm No 3464 Fore quarter amputation No 3645 Above knee amputation No 3690 Hind quarter amputation No 3790 Below knee amputation No 4255 Trans metatarsal amputation of foot No 4260 Trans metatarsal amputation of one toe No 4261 Trans metatarsal amputation of two or more toes No 4330 Trimming of stump following amputation of limb No ANKLE PRE-APPROVAL CODE DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PAYMENT INDICATORS PAYMENT RULES 3955 Arthrodesis of ankle joint No Arthroscopy, ankle, with or without removal of loose body or foreign body, with or without 3956 synovectomy, debridement (I.P.) No Independent Procedure, Day Care Arthroscopy, ankle, surgical, excision of osteochondral defect of talus and/ or tibia, including 3961 drilling of the defect (I.P.) No Independent Procedure 1 Night Only Arthroscopically aided repair of large osteochondritis dissecans lesion, talar dome fracture, or 3962 tibial plafond fracture, with or without internal fixation (includes arthroscopy) (I.P.) No Independent Procedure 3963 Arthroscopy, subtalar joint, surgical, with subtalar arthrodesis (I.P.) No Independent Procedure 3965 Fracture of medial or lateral malleolus (1st
    [Show full text]
  • Patient Education Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) Distal Humerus
    Patient Education Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) Distal Humerus Explanation of Procedure and/or Diagnosis The elbow joint is made up of three bones. The lower end of the arm bone (humerus) joins with the two bones that form the forearm (radius and ulna). The ulna and radius run from the wrist to the elbow where the upper ends of these bones, the olecranon and radial head, form a hinge joint with the humerus. This is the main joint of the elbow Distal Humerus which allows bending and straightening of the elbow. The Humerus combination of this joint along with the muscles and ligaments of the elbow allow the hand to be positioned in space for sports, physical labor and normal daily activities. The distal humerus has several complex articulations it forms, one with the ulna and the other with the radius. Radius Ulna The distal humerus also serves as the attachment site for the two major ligaments of the elbow. Fractures A fracture of the distal humerus can involve the portion of the joint which forms with the ulna, the radius, or, as is most common, both. If the fracture is severe, the elbow joint may also be dislocated. There may or may not be a crack heard or felt but there is immediate pain and rapid swelling. Immediately following a distal humerus fracture, it can be quite difficult and painful to try to move the elbow. Many of these fractures are displaced (moved out of the normal anatomic position of the bone) and therefore require some form of surgical stabilization.
    [Show full text]
  • Fixator-Assisted Plating of Limb Deformities
    Fixator-Assisted Plating of Limb Deformities S. Robert Rozbruch, MD Fixator-assisted plating of the distal femur and proximal tibia can be used for accurate and effective correction of acute deformity. The advantage of this hybrid technique is that one can use the best of both internal and external fixation. The external fixator is applied in a fashion that does not impede insertion of the plate. The neutral wedge osteotomy is then performed in a minimally invasive fashion. The fixator is used to incrementally correct the deformity over several minutes in a controlled and gradual fashion in the operating room. Complex deformity correction, including angulation and translation in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes, can be gradually adjusted. The surgeon maintains control of the osteot- omy, and the position can be checked with x-ray and/or computer navigation. The fixator may be further adjusted to tweak the position as needed. Once alignment is optimal, a locked plate is inserted through a minimal incision technique to maintain the position, allowing removal of the fixator. Oper Tech Orthop 21:174-179 © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. KEYWORDS osteotomy, deformity, external fixator, fixator assisted plating, Taylor spatial frame symmetric joint wear, caused by malalignment and/or correction is often not achieved, and the alignment cannot be Arotational deformity, skews the proper transmission of adjusted further without additional surgery. Shortening re- forces across a joint. In the knee, even moderate malalign- sults from the removal of large bone segments for a closing ment can advance or jump-start the progression of osteoar- wedge osteotomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Distal Femoral Osteotomy Is Internal Fixation Better Than External?
    Clin Orthop Relat Res DOI 10.1007/s11999-010-1755-0 CLINICAL RESEARCH Distal Femoral Osteotomy Is Internal Fixation Better than External? K. T. Matthew Seah BMedSci, MBChB, Raheel Shafi MD, Austin T. Fragomen MD, S. Robert Rozbruch MD Received: 24 June 2010 / Accepted: 20 December 2010 Ó The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons1 2011 Abstract 34 minutes) than when using a unilateral frame (94 ± Background Distal femoral osteotomies (DFO) can be 65 minutes). Preoperative and postoperative knee ROMs used to correct deformities around the knee. Although were similar for both techniques and there were no major osteotomies can be fixed with either internal or external complications. fixation techniques, the advantages of one over the other Conclusions We obtained accurate correction of defor- are unclear. mities with both fixation techniques. Our experience Questions/purposes We asked whether (1) for both suggests the method to be used should be left to the dis- techniques, we could accurately correct the deformities cretion of the surgeon and the needs and wishes of the based on our preoperative goals for mechanical axis devi- patient after adequate explanation of the advantages and ation (MAD) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), and disadvantages. (2) intraoperative times, (3) preoperative and postoperative Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the knee ROM, and (4) complications differed. Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels Patients and Methods We identified 26 patients of evidence. (34 limbs) who underwent femoral osteotomies. We com- pared accuracy of correction (based on correction of the MAD and the LDFA), duration of surgery, preoperative Introduction and postoperative knee ROM, and complications.
    [Show full text]