Comparison of the ALPS and PHILOS plating systems in proximal humeral fracture fixation – a retrospective study

Abstract Background Open reduction and plate osteosynthesis are considered as a successful technique for the treatment of proximal humerus fracture (PHF) despite high complication rates. The objective of our study was to review the clinical outcome and complications of the Anatomic Locking Plate System (ALPS) and compare it to the Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System (PHILOS). Our hypothesis was that ranges of motion (ROM) were superior and complication rates were lower with ALPS. Methods Twenty patients treated with ALPS for PHF were retrospectively compared to 27 patients treated with PHILOS. Union, ROM and complications were clinically and radiologically assessed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 18–24 months post-operatively. Results Mean age was 52 ± 14 in the ALPS group and 58 ± 13 in the PHILOS group. Last follow-ups were conducted at a mean of 20.6 ± 4.8 months. Mean shoulder abduction was superior with ALPS by 14° (p-value = 0.036), 15° (p-value = 0.049), and 15° (p-value = 0.049) at 3, 6, and 12 months respectively. Mean shoulder external rotation was superior with ALPS by 11° (p-value = 0.032), 15° (p-value = 0.010) and 12° (p-value = 0.016) at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months respectively. At the end of the follow-up, ROM remained better with ALPS, but not significantly. Complication rates over 21 months reached 20% with ALPS and 48% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.045). Implant removal rates reached 10% with ALPS and 37% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.036). Avascular necrosis was the only cause for hardware removal in the ALPS group. Conclusion The ALPS group showed better clinical outcomes with faster recovery in abduction and external rotation, although no difference in ROM remained after 21 months. Additionally, the complications rate was lower at last follow up. In our experience, the ALPS plating system is an effective management option in some PHF

Symphysis Pubis Osteomyelitis with Bilateral Adductor Muscles Abscess

Osteomyelitis of the pubis symphysis is a rare condition. There have been various reports in the literature of inflammation and osteomyelitis as well as septic arthritis of pubic symphysis. However, due to the fact that these conditions are rare and that the usual presenting symptoms are very nonspecific, osteomyelitis of the pubic symphysis is often misdiagnosed, thus delaying definitive treatment. We present a case that to our knowledge is the first case in literature of osteomyelitis of the pubic symphysis in a 17-year-old boy with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), which was initially misdiagnosed and progressed to bilateral adductor abscesses. A high suspicion of such condition should be considered in a JIA patient who presents with symphysis or thigh pain

The smartphone inclinometer: A new tool to determine elbow range of motion?

There are easily accessible tools on smartphones (APP) for measuring elbow range of motion (ROM). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the validity of a particular APP in determining elbow ROM in comparison with the commonly used goniometer (GON), surgeon estimation of range (EST) and measurement on X-ray (XR). The study included 20 patients (40 elbows). Flexion, extension, pronation and supination were measured using three different methods: EST, GON and APP. Radiographic measurements were taken using the average humeral diaphysis axis and dorsal midthird of ulna in flexion and extension. The accuracy of the three different methods has been compared to GON using statistical analysis (ANOVA and paired samples test). There was no statistically significant difference for XR flexion measurement (mean of 2.8° ± 1.5°). The APP overestimated flexion (mean of 6.4° ± 1.0°), and EST underestimated it (mean of - 7.9° ± 1.1°). For extension, the mean difference was 2.8° ± 0.7° for EST and - 26.8° ± 3.1° for XR. The APP method did not significantly differ from GON. Supination accuracy was greater with EST (2.7° ± 1.7°) than with APP (5.9° ± 1.9°). There was no difference for pronation measurement with both EST and APP. This study is the first comparing four measurement techniques of elbow ROM. Our results showed that EST was only accurate for forearm rotation. The XR scored the best for flexion but is less reliable for extension. Surprisingly, compared to GON, APP did not correlate as we expected for flexion and supination, but the other methods were also inaccurate. We found APP to be very useful to measure complete arc of motion (difference between maximal flexion and maximal extension). III, Retrospective review of a prospective cohort of elbow fracture patients: Diagnostic Study