Daugaardhoffman9572

No other interfragmentary displacement comparisons were significant. No differences were found comparing the one-third and one-half size fragments.

The addition of a dorsal ulnar pin plate improved stability characteristics with respect to the dorsal ulnar fragment.

The addition of the dorsal ulnar pin plate, although statistically significant, improved displacement by less than 0.3 mm on average and thus may not prove to be important in clinical scenarios.

The addition of the dorsal ulnar pin plate, although statistically significant, improved displacement by less than 0.3 mm on average and thus may not prove to be important in clinical scenarios.

To assess diagnostic performance of dorsal tangential views (DTVs) to detect dorsal screw protrusion in clinical practice.

Prospective cohort study.

Level-1 trauma center.

Fifty consecutive patients undergoing volar plating for 50 distal radius fractures were prospectively included.

Fluoroscopic DTVs were routinely obtained, and screw revision was documented. Multiplanar reconstructions of postoperative CTs allowed for detection and quantification of dorsal screw penetration using reproducible measuring techniques.

Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy) of DTV.

Intraoperatively, in 16 of 50 patients (32%), screws were revised based on DTV, with 13 of 218 screws (6.0%) being revised due to dorsal prominence. One screw was changed because DTV showed it was in the distal radioulnar joint. Postoperatively, in 10 patients (20%), the computed tomography revealed 12 additional screws penetrating ≥1 mm with an average of 1.8 mm (range 1.0-4.5 mm). DTV had a sensitivity of 52%, a negative predictive value of 95%, and accuracy of 95%. No ≥1-mm protruding screw remained in the third compartment.

In one-third of our patients, the incidence of protruding screws that can cause iatrogenic extensor tendon rupture was reduced by obtaining additional DTVs. Although DTV reduces the incidence of dorsal screw penetration considerably, this study reveals limited sensitivity. Therefore, one should keep in mind that dorsal screw penetration may go unnoticed on DTVs, and proper surgical technique remains paramount of DTV.

Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

To compare reoperation risk after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for intra-articular distal humerus fractures in elderly patients.

Retrospective comparative.

Five percent Medicare Part B claims database.

Patients older than 65 years of age with closed distal humerus fractures undergoing TEA or ORIF from 1996 to 2016.

TEA and ORIF.

Reoperation risk based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling.

A total of 142 TEA and 522 ORIF cases were identified. TEA patients had a greater age and Charlson Comorbidity Index , as well as a higher prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis than ORIF patients (P < 0.05). Although reoperation risk was lower for TEA than that for ORIF within the entire cohort (11.3% vs. 25.1%; hazard ratio = 0.49; P = 0.014), no significant difference was found for TEA and ORIF performed between 2006 and 2016 (12.6% vs. 18.4%; hazard ratio = 0.73; P = 0.380). The death rate was 65.5% in the TEA group at 3.6 years and 55.7% in the ORIF group at 4.9 years.

TEA was associated with a decreased reoperation risk compared with ORIF, although this difference did not exist for more recent procedures after popularization of the locking plate technology and half of the reoperations after ORIF were for instrumentation removal. The high death rate within several years of the index procedure may contribute to the low TEA revision rate beyond the short-term when following patients into the medium and long term. Further study comparing TEA and locked plating using prospective, randomized data with long-term follow-up and functional outcomes is warranted.

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

To characterize the literature on operative interventions for proximal humerus nonunions in adults. Second, to identify prognostic factors associated with outcomes for locked plate open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles from 1990 to 2020.

Studies reporting outcomes of proximal humerus nonunions managed with ORIF, hemiarthroplasty (HA), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), or reverse TSA (RTSA) were included. Studies failing to stratify outcomes by treatment or fracture sequelae were excluded.

Two authors independently extracted data and appraised study quality using MINORS score.

Descriptive statistics were reported. Outcomes for ORIF and arthroplasty groups were not compared due to differing patient populations.

Thirty-seven articles were included, representing 508 patients (246 ORIF, 137 HA/TSA, and 125 RTSA). Patients managed by ORIF were younger with simpler fracture patterns than those managed by arthroplasty. Selleckchem 3-Amino-9-ethylcarbazole Regarding ORIF, locked plates achieved highest union rates (97.0%), but clinical outcomes were comparable with all plate fixation constructs [forward flexion (FF) 123-144°; external rotation 42-46°; Constant score 75-84]. Complication and reoperation rates for ORIF were 26.0% and 14.6%, respectively. Furthermore, subgroup analysis of locked plate ORIF demonstrated shorter consolidation time with initial conservative fracture management (4.3 vs. 6.0 months) and autograft use (3.9 vs. 5.5 months). With arthroplasty, RTSA demonstrated greater forward flexion (109.4° vs. 97.2°) but less external rotation (16.5° vs. 36.8°) than HA/TSA. Complication and reoperation rates were 18.2% and 10.9% for HA/TSA and 21.6% and 14.4% for RTSA, respectively.

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.