Conventional Radiograph Is Still Advised in the Diagnostic Work-up of a Shoulder Dislocation; a Letter to the Editor

Dear editor: A shoulder dislocation is a common diagnosis at the emergency department, showing an incidence of 23.9 per 100,000 person-years. In the current diagnostic work-up, a radiograph is often used to confirm the dislocation. As radiographs are associated with radiation exposure, the ultrasound has been proposed as an alternative. Therefore, the study by Entezari et al is of great importance in evaluating the applicability of the ultrasound. However, the authors suggest that the ultrasound can be used as an alternative to the radiograph. In our opinion, an important advantage of the radiograph has not been discussed and we question some decisions that were made in terms of methodology. Therefore, we think that this study has to be seen in the light of these remarks

Coronoid fractures and traumatic elbow instability

The coronoid process is key to concentric elbow alignment. Malalignment can contribute to post-traumatic osteoarthritis. The aim of treatment is to keep the joint aligned while the collateral ligaments and fractures heal. The injury pattern is apparent in the shape and size of the coronoid fracture fragments: (1) coronoid tip fractures associated with terrible triad (TT) injuries; (2) anteromedial facet fractures with posteromedial varus rotational type injuries; and (3) large coronoid base fractures with anterior (trans-) or posterior olecranon fracture dislocations. Each injury pattern is associated with specific ligamentous injuries and fracture characteristics useful in planning treatment. The tip fractures associated with TT injuries are repaired with suture fixation or screw fixation in addition to repair or replacement of the radial head fracture and reattachment of the lateral collateral ligament origin. Anteromedial facet fractures are usually repaired with a medial buttress plate. If the elbow is concentrically located on computed tomography and the patient can avoid varus stress for a month, TT and anteromedial facet injuries can be treated nonoperatively. Base fractures are associated with olecranon fractures and can usually be fixed with screws through the posterior plate or with an additional medial plate. If the surgery makes elbow subluxation or dislocation unlikely, and the fracture fixation is secure, elbow motion and stretching can commence within a week when the patient is comfortable.</p

Intramedullary nailing versus sliding hip screw for A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures

AIMS: This study evaluated variation in the surgical treatment of stable (A1) and unstable (A2) trochanteric hip fractures among an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, and determined the influence of patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics on choice of implant (intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus sliding hip screw (SHS)). METHODS: A total of 128 orthopaedic surgeons in the Science of Variation Group evaluated radiographs of 30 patients with Type A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures and indicated their preferred treatment: IMN or SHS. The management of Type A3 (reverse obliquity) trochanteric fractures was not evaluated. Agreement between surgeons was calculated using multirater kappa. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess whether patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics were independently associated with choice of implant. RESULTS: The overall agreement between surgeons on implant choice was fair (kappa = 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.28)). Factors associated with preference for IMN included USA compared to Europe or the UK (Europe odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.67); UK OR 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.22); p < 0.001); exposure to IMN only during training compared to surgeons that were exposed to both (only IMN during training OR 2.6 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.4); p < 0.001); and A2 compared to A1 fractures (Type A2 OR 10 (95% CI 8.4 to 12); p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In an international cohort of orthopaedic surgeons, there was a large variation in implant preference for patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric fractures. This is due to surgeon bias (country of practice and aspects of training). The observation that surgeons favoured the more expensive implant (IMN) in the absence of convincing evidence of its superiority suggests that surgeon de-biasing strategies may be a useful focus for optimizing patient outcomes and promoting value-based healthcare. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):775-781

Evaluation of clinical tests for partial distal biceps tendon ruptures and tendinitis

Background: The clinical diagnosis of partial distal biceps tendon ruptures or tendinosis can be challenging. Three clinical tests have been described to aid in an accurate and timely diagnosis: biceps provocation test, tilt sign, and resisted hook test. However, not much is known about the sensitivity, specificity, and inter-rater reliability as the available evaluations are based on small groups or are case based. Furthermore, these tests have not been compared together in the same patient group. Methods: Two dedicated elbow surgeons each included 20 consecutive patients in whom distal biceps tendon pathology was suspected. Patients with a complete distal biceps tendon tear were excluded. As a control, the same number of consecutive patients with various elbow pathologies other than distal biceps tendon problems was included. All 3 tests were performed both in control patients and in patients with suspected biceps tendon pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the flexion-abduction-supination view and/or surgical exploration was performed in both groups. The findings of the clinical tests were determined before the results of MRI and other technical investigations were analyzed. The values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Results: The combined sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values for the biceps provocation test were 95%, 97%, and 96%, respectively. For the resisted hook test, the combined values were 78%, 76%, and 77%, respectively. The combined values for the tilt sign were 58%, 55%, and 56%, respectively. When the biceps provocation test and the resisted hook test were combined in a parallel testing setup, the sensitivity increased to 98% whereas the specificity was 73%. The sensitivity and specificity of the biceps provocation test and the tilt sign in a parallel testing setup were 97% and 53%, respectively. Finally, the sensitivity and specificity of the tilt sign and the resisted hook test in a parallel testing setup were 90% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions: The biceps provocation test yielded higher accuracy than the resisted hook test and the tilt sign. When the biceps provocation test and the resisted hook test were combined, the sensitivity increased to 98%. We advise integration of these tests in daily practice to minimize delays in the diagnosis of partial distal biceps tendon ruptures, distal biceps tendon bursitis, or tendinosis. MRI in the flexion-abduction-supination view is still advised to distinguish between a partial biceps tendon rupture and tendinosis or bursitis at the distal biceps tendon insertion as this may influence further treatment

Evaluation of clinical tests for partial distal biceps tendon ruptures and tendinitis

Background: The clinical diagnosis of partial distal biceps tendon ruptures or tendinosis can be challenging. Three clinical tests have been described to aid in an accurate and timely diagnosis: biceps provocation test, tilt sign, and resisted hook test. However, not much is known about the sensitivity, specificity, and inter-rater reliability as the available evaluations are based on small groups or are case based. Furthermore, these tests have not been compared together in the same patient group. Methods: Two dedicated elbow surgeons each included 20 consecutive patients in whom distal biceps tendon pathology was suspected. Patients with a complete distal biceps tendon tear were excluded. As a control, the same number of consecutive patients with various elbow pathologies other than distal biceps tendon problems was included. All 3 tests were performed both in control patients and in patients with suspected biceps tendon pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the flexion-abduction-supination view and/or surgical exploration was performed in both groups. The findings of the clinical tests were determined before the results of MRI and other technical investigations were analyzed. The values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Results: The combined sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values for the biceps provocation test were 95%, 97%, and 96%, respectively. For the resisted hook test, the combined values were 78%, 76%, and 77%, respectively. The combined values for the tilt sign were 58%, 55%, and 56%, respectively. When the biceps provocation test and the resisted hook test were combined in a parallel testing setup, the sensitivity increased to 98% whereas the specificity was 73%. The sensitivity and specificity of the biceps provocation test and the tilt sign in a parallel testing setup were 97% and 53%, respectively. Finally, the sensitivity and specificity of the tilt sign and the resisted hook test in a parallel testing setup were 90% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions: The biceps provocation test yielded higher accuracy than the resisted hook test and the tilt sign. When the biceps provocation test and the resisted hook test were combined, the sensitivity increased to 98%. We advise integration of these tests in daily practice to minimize delays in the diagnosis of partial distal biceps tendon ruptures, distal biceps tendon bursitis, or tendinosis. MRI in the flexion-abduction-supination view is still advised to distinguish between a partial biceps tendon rupture and tendinosis or bursitis at the distal biceps tendon insertion as this may influence further treatment

Outcomes, Union Rate, and Complications After Operative and Nonoperative Treatments of Neer Type II Distal Clavicle Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 2284 Patients

Background: As nonoperative treatment of Neer type II distal clavicle fractures is associated with nonunion rates up to 33%, operative treatment is frequently advocated. However, evidence is lacking regarding which operative treatment to perform and whether this is superior to nonoperative treatment in terms of functional outcome and complication rate. Purpose: (1) To evaluate which surgical technique in the treatment of Neer type II distal clavicle fractures is optimal with regard to patient-reported outcomes and union and complication rates. (2) To review nonoperatively treated patients. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis were performed on January 27, 2021, in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL/EBSCO, Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics, and SPORTDiscus/EBSCO. The search included all studies regarding nonoperative and operative treatment of Neer type II distal clavicle fractures with a minimum of 20 patients and follow-up of 12 months. The primary and secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures at 12 months and union, complication, and revision rates. Results: A total of 59 articles were included involving 2284 patients. Coracoclavicular fixation, hook plate, transacromial pins, alternative plate, tension band wire/K-wire, a combination of surgical techniques, and a nonoperative group were described. Hook plates showed lower Constant-Murley scores as compared with coracoclavicular fixation (standard mean difference, –0.77; 95% CI, –1.26 to –0.28; P =.002). However, no significant difference was seen when the hook plate was compared with the locking plate and tension band wire/K-wire groups, and no significant difference in union rate was seen among all operative treatment groups. Operatively treated patients had significantly higher union rates than patients treated nonoperatively (standard mean difference: 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.37; P =.004). Conclusion: Patients treated with hook plates showed significantly lower Constant-Murley scores and higher complication and revision rates as compared with those treated with coracoclavicular fixation, without differences in union rate. Higher Constant-Murley scores were seen in those patients with supplemental coracoclavicular fixation when using locking. Nonoperatively treated patients showed good functional outcome despite the 31% nonunion rate, although future studies are necessary to substantiate this conclusion. When using a locking plate, additional craniocaudal fixation showed significant better functional outcome