Search

Ankle sprains are one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries. A sprain is defined as the stretching or tearing of ligaments; in the ankle these are the lateral ligamentous complex, deltoid ligament and distal tibiofibular syndesmosis ligaments. The mechanism of injury dictates which ligaments get injured, with the most common being inversion injuries causing anterior talofibular ligamentous sprain. Initial management of an ankle sprain consists of protection, rest, ice, compression and elevation. After the first 72 hours, the treatment depends on the severity of the sprain, with physiotherapy forming the mainstay of treatment in the majority of cases. In addition to strengthening exercises proprioceptive re-training helps with rehabilitation. The goal of treatment is to prevent chronic instability from occurring. Aside from syndesmotic injuries, surgical treatment is rarely required in the acute setting. Delayed ligamentous reconstruction may be required if chronic instability occurs, and is described as being an anatomic or non-anatomical reconstruction. This article reviews the anatomy, pathophysiology, clinical assessment and management of patients with ankle sprains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are mainly caused by low energy damage and often require surgical treatment. There are several operative techniques for rigid fixation to solve this problem clinically. This study evaluated the effect of using the Tightrope system to reconstruct the Lisfranc ligament for elastic fixation. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 11 cases with purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries treated with the Tightrope system from 2016 to 2019, including 8 male and 3 female. X-ray was performed regularly after operation to measure the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate pain relief. American orthopedic foot & ankle society (AOFAS) and Maryland foot score were recorded at the last follow-up. Results The average follow-up time was 20.5 months (range, 17–24). There was statistically significant difference in the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and VAS score at 3 months, 6 months, and the last follow-up when compared with preoperative values (P

Background: Purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are mainly caused by low energy damage and often require surgical treatment. There are several operative techniques for rigid fixation to solve this problem clinically. This study evaluated the effect of using the Tightrope system to reconstruct the Lisfranc ligament for elastic fixation.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 11 cases with purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries treated with the Tightrope system from 2016 to 2019, including 8 male and 3 female. X-ray was performed regularly after operation to measure the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate pain relief. American orthopedic foot & ankle society (AOFAS) and Maryland foot score were recorded at the last follow-up.Results: The average follow-up time was 20.5 months (range, 17-24). There was statistically significant difference in the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and VAS score at 3 months, 6 months, and the last follow-up when compared with preoperative values (P < 0.05).Mean of postoperative AOFAS mid-foot scale and Maryland foot score were 92.4 ± 4.3, 94.1 ± 3.5, respectively. The Tightrope system was not removed and the foot obtained better biomechanical stability. No complications occurred during the operation.Conclusion: Tightrope system in the treatment of purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries can stabilize the tarsometatarsal joint and achieve satisfactory effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reconstruction of the coracoclavicular (CC) ligament using a single TightRope (ST) system has some complications. We attempted to use a double TightRope (DT) system to reduce complications and obtain the ideal therapeutic effect. This investigation aimed to compare the ST and DT systems in terms of efficacy and safety in treating acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation. Sixty-six cases of acute AC joint dislocation between January 2013 and January 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were divided into 2 groups based on treatment with the ST or DT system. Patients were evaluated radiologically and clinically using the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, Constant, and visual analog scale scores as clinical outcome measures at 1 day, 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. The CC distance and displacement ratio were assessed radiologically. The mean follow-up period was 49 months. Satisfactory clinical outcomes were obtained after CC fixation in both groups. No intergroup difference was found regarding the visual analog scale (P =.80), Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (P =.42), or Constant score (P =.28) at 2 years. However, there was a significant difference in the displacement ratio at 6 weeks (P <.0001), 3 months (P <.0001), 6 months (P <.0001), 1 year (P <.0001), and 2 years (P <.0001) postoperatively between the 2 groups. There were 3 complications in the ST group, including 1 case of secondary coracoid fracture, 1 case of AC joint arthrosis combined with ossification of the CC ligaments, and 1 case of clavicular erosion. All complications occurred in the ST group. Both surgical methods are effective in treating AC joint dislocation, but the DT system is more reliable for reduction maintenance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Surgical treatment is usually recommended for the acute unstable acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations. Among the wide variety of different surgical techniques, the Double Endobutton and the Nottingham Surgilig technique are two of the most widely acceptable and well described techniques. The aim of this study was to offer a direct comparison of the above techniques in question, analysing the patients outcomes and assessing the risk of early loss of radiographic reduction. Materials and methods: A total of 48 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Patients were categorised in two groups (Endobutton and Nottingham Surgilig group) and post operative assessment of the patients was performed using the Oxford Shoulder (OSS) and Constant Murley (CMS) scores. Patient demographics, hand dominance, ACJ classification and co-morbidities were included in the analysis and radiographic evaluation was conducted for both groups. Results: Both techniques provide a good outcome in the management of unstable ACJ dislocations but the risk of early radiographic failure remains higher in the double Endobutton technique (26% vs. 17.39% for the Nottingham Surgilig group). Factors such as patients’ demographics, hand dominance, co-morbidities and grade of ACJ separation do not seem to contribute to radiographic loss of reduction, whereas the incorrect positioning of the coracoid endobutton is a significant factor predisposing to early radiographic failure, P

Abstract: Introduction: Numerous static and dynamic techniques have been described for the management of acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation. To date, no standard technique has been established and several complications have been described for each of these techniques. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the functional and radiographic outcomes of acute AC joint reconstruction after a mini-open technique using the double-button fixation system. Patients and methods: Twelve patients with acute AC joint dislocation treated with the double-button fixation system by one surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Functional assessment was performed by an independent reviewer using the DASH, Constant and the VAS scores. The coracoclavicular (CC) distance of the affected shoulder was assessed on a standard radiograph and compared with the contralateral normal one. Results: Eight patients were operated on for grade III AC joint dislocation and 4 for grade IV. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 27.5 years. The mean follow-up was 18.25 months (range: 12–30 months). At the most recent follow-up, the mean Constant score was 94.8 (range: 84–100) showing a significant increase compared with the mean pre-operative value of 34.4 (range: 25–52) (p <0.001). The mean DASH score was significantly decreased from 19.6 (range: 14–28) preoperatively to 0.25 (range: 0–3) at the last follow-up (p <0.001). The mean VAS score showed a significant decrease from 5.75 (range: 4–7) to 0.2 (range: 0–2) (p <0.001). The mean CC distance on the operated shoulder was found to have no significant difference from the CC distance on the contralateral normal side (10.5 vs. 10mm) (p >0.05). There was no evidence of AC joint osteoarthrosis, CC calcification or osteolysis of the distal clavicle or the coracoid process. Conclusions: The proposed mini-open technique provides adequate exposure of the base of the coracoid with minimal damage to the soft tissues surrounding the CC ligaments while ensures an excellent cosmetic result. We recommend this fast and relatively simple technique for all type IV injuries and for type III injuries in heavy manual workers and high-demand upper extremities athletes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations indicated for surgery can be treated with several stabilization techniques. This in vitro study evaluated the acromioclavicular joint stability after 3 types of validated repair techniques compared with the native situation. Materials and methods: Nine pairs (right-left) of intact cadaveric shoulder specimens were assigned to 3 study groups with randomly distributed samples according to the coracoclavicular distance. The groups were instrumented with acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular cerclages (CE), a Twin Tail TightRope (TR), or a locking compression superior and anterior clavicle plate (CP). Native and instrumented specimens were tested quasi-static nondestructively (superior: 70 N; anteroposterior: ±35 N, 10 mm/min) and cyclically until failure (superior, valley load: 20 N; initial peak load: 70 N; increment: 0.02 N/cycle). Results: The TR study group showed the highest (in N/mm) superoinferior (73.77 ± 14.04) and anteroposterior (29.58 ± 1.52) stiffness, followed by CE (superoinferior: 59.73 ± 10.33; anteroposterior: 24.31 ± 4.14) and CP (superoinferior: 24.08 ± 5.29). Instrumentation generally led to increased superoinferior and anteroposterior stiffness in each study group but to a significant superoinferior stiffness reduction for CP (P = .029). Significantly lower coracoclavicular displacement at valley load after 1 and 500 cycles was observed for TR (P = .018) and CE (P = .041) compared with CP. Cycles to failure were significantly higher in CE (7298 ± 1244 cycles, P = .011) and TR (4434 ± 727 cycles, P = .031) compared with CP (1683 ± 509 cycles). Conclusions: The CE and TR techniques led to similar biomechanical performances. The CE repair might mimic the native acromioclavicular joint stiffness better than the other 2 setups, leading to more physiological stabilization. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]