Comparison of three different minimally invasive intramedullary screw for proximal phalanx fractures: a biomechanical study

Falange proximal; Tornillo endomedular; BiomecánicaProximal phalanx; Intramedullary screw; BiomechanicsFalange proximal; Cargol endomedular; BiomecànicaAntecedentes y objetivo Las fracturas de falange proximal (FP) son las fracturas más frecuentes de la mano. En los últimos años, se ha descrito el uso de tornillos endomedulares sin cabeza (TESC) para las fracturas inestables transversas u oblicuas de la FP. A pesar de que tanto la técnica anterógrada como retrógrada con TESC han mostrado buenos resultados, no se ha publicado ningún estudio comparativo de su uso en fracturas de FP. Nuestro objetivo es determinar la estabilidad que se obtiene con el uso de TESC retrógrados y anterógrados en un modelo en cadáver de fractura transversa proximal de FP, a dos niveles diferentes. Material y métodos Realizamos un estudio biomecánico en 30 modelos de fractura de FP de cadáver fresco-congelado. La osteotomía se realizó a los 9 mm desde la articulación metacarpofalángica (MCF) en 15 especímenes, y a una distancia de 15 mm en los otros 15. A su vez, en cada grupo, cinco osteotomías se estabilizaron con un TESC anterógrado intraarticular, cinco mediante un TESC anterógrado transarticular y cinco con un TESC retrógrado. Resultados La fijación con TESC anterógrado en osteotomías realizadas a los 9 mm (tanto con la técnica transarticular como intraarticular, 62,74 N y 70,86 N, respectivamente) fue más estable que la fijación con TESC retrógrado (32,72 N) (p 0,022). Por otra parte, la fijación con TESC retrógrado fue más estable en el modelo de fractura más distal (90,52 N retrógrado vs. 57,64 N transarticular vs. 42,92 N intraarticular (p = 0,20). Conclusiones La fijación con TESC retrógrado ofrece más estabilidad en fracturas más distales, mientras que las técnicas anterógradas son más estables en fracturas proximales.Background and objective Phalangeal fractures are the most common hand fractures. In the last years, intramedullary compression screw (IMHCS) for instable transverse or short oblique proximal P1 fractures have been described. Although both anterograde (intraarticular or trans-articular) and retrograde IMHCS techniques have shown good results, no comparison between anterograde and retrograde screw in P1 fractures has been published. We sought to determine stability with retrograde IMHCS and anterograde IMHCS, both trans-articular and intra-articular technique, in a cadaveric transverse proximal P1 fracture model, at two different levels. Material and methods We performed a biomechanical study in 30 fresh-frozen human cadaveric P1 fracture model. Fracture was performed at 9-mm from the metacarpo-phalangeal (MCP) joint in 15 specimens, whereas it was done at 15 mm in the other 15. In turn, in each group, five fractures were stabilized with an anterograde intra-articular IMHCS, five with anterograde trans-articular IMHCS and other five with retrograde IMHCS. Results Anterograde IMHCS fixation in 9-mm P1 fractures (both trans- and intra-articular technique, 62.74 N and 70.86 N, respectively) was found to be more stable than retrograde IMHCS one (32.72 N) (p = 0.022). Otherwise, retrograde IMHCS fixation was found to be more stable in more distal P1 fractures (90.52 N retrograde vs. 57.64 N trans-articular vs. 42.92 N intra-articular; p = 0.20). Conclusions Anterograde IMHCS fixation in proximal transverse P1 bone cut in a cadaveric model provides more stability than retrograde IMHCS, while retrograde screw provides more stability when the bone cut is located more distal.El presente trabajo ha sido financiado por la Sociedad Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología: Proyectos de Iniciación a la Investigación Fundación SECOT

Good rates of return-to-sport in athletes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous patellar tendon and lateral extra-articular tenodesis: a 2-year follow-up prospective study

Anterior cruciate ligament; Autografts; TenodesisLigamento cruzado anterior; Autoinjertos; TenodesisLligament creuat anterior; Autoempelts; TenodesiBackground Most athletes who undergo revision of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) aim to return to their preinjury sport at a similar level of performance while minimizing the risk for reinjury. Additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has recently been correlated with improved outcomes and low complication rate. Yet, there are few series evaluating return-to-sport (RTS) and clinical outcomes after revision ACLR using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) and LET in athletes. Methods The study cohort consisted of 19 eligible athletes who had undergone their first revision ACLR using BPTB and LET (modified Lemaire) between January 2019 and 2020. Patients were prospectively followed and interviewed in a sports activity survey during a 2-year follow-up. Results Despite all patients returning to sports after revision ACLR surgery, 52.6% resumed playing at their preinjury level. Furthermore, patient-reported functional outcomes improved significantly following revision surgery, as evidenced by improvements in IKDC [64.4 (± 12) to 87.8 (± 6)], Lysholm [71.27 (± 12) to 84.2 (± 9.7)], and SF-12 scales [Physical: 53.3 (± 3) 57 (± 1.2); Mental: 50.2 (± 3.3) to 52.7 (± 2.4)]. One case (5.3%) experienced persistent pain and underwent reoperation for a partial meniscectomy. Conclusion After revision ACLR using autologous BPTB and LET, all active individuals are expected to RTS, similar to primary ACLR. The difference comes down to returning to the preinjury level, where the levels are lower depending on the sport and initial level of play. Good mid-term functional outcomes with a low complication rate can be expected in most cases.Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. This work was carried out as part of the Doctorate in Surgery and Morphological Sciences of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. The “Post-FSE Carles Margarit” grant was awarded by the VHIR—Vall d'Hebron Institut de Investigación to one of the authors (FMB)