Safe zones in dorsal portals for wrist arthroscopy: a cadaveric study.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta orthopaedica Belgica Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.52628/90.1.11149
G Antonoglou, G Papathanakos, A Vrettakos, A Kitsouli, D N Varvarousis, A Kefalas, G Paraskevas
{"title":"Safe zones in dorsal portals for wrist arthroscopy: a cadaveric study.","authors":"G Antonoglou, G Papathanakos, A Vrettakos, A Kitsouli, D N Varvarousis, A Kefalas, G Paraskevas","doi":"10.52628/90.1.11149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The standard dorsal portals are the most commonly used in wrist arthroscopy. This cadaveric study aims to determine safe zones, by quantitatively describing the neurovascular relationships of the dorsal wrist arthroscopy portals: 1-2, 3-4, midcarpal radial, midcarpal ulnar, 4-5, 6-radial and 6-ulnar. The neurovascular structures of twenty-one fresh frozen human cadaveric upper limbs were exposed, while the aforementioned portals were established with needles through portal sites. The minimum distance between portals and: dorsal carpal branch of radial artery, superficial branch of radial nerve, posterior interosseous nerve and dorsal branch of ulnar nerve, were measured accordingly with a digital caliper, followed by statistical analysis of the data. The median and interquartile range for each portal to structures at risk were determined and a safe zone around each portal was established. Free of any neurovascular structure safe zones surrounding 1-2, 3-4, midcarpal radial, midcarpal ulnar, 4-5, 6-radial and 6-ulnar portals were found at 0.46mm, 2.33mm, 10.73mm, 11.01mm, 10.38mm, 5.95mm and 0.64mm respectively. Results of statistical analysis from comparisons between 1-2, 3-4 and midcarpal radial portals, indicated that 1-2 was the least safe. The same analysis among 3-4, midcarpal radial, midcarpal ulnar and 4-5 portals indicated that midcarpal portals were safer, while 3-4 was the least safe. Results among midcarpal ulnar, 4-5, 6-radial and 6-ulnar portals indicated that 6-radial and specifically 6-ulnar were the least safe. This study provides a safe approach to the dorsal aspect of the wrist, enhancing established measurements and further examining safety of the posterior interosseous nerve.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/90.1.11149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The standard dorsal portals are the most commonly used in wrist arthroscopy. This cadaveric study aims to determine safe zones, by quantitatively describing the neurovascular relationships of the dorsal wrist arthroscopy portals: 1-2, 3-4, midcarpal radial, midcarpal ulnar, 4-5, 6-radial and 6-ulnar. The neurovascular structures of twenty-one fresh frozen human cadaveric upper limbs were exposed, while the aforementioned portals were established with needles through portal sites. The minimum distance between portals and: dorsal carpal branch of radial artery, superficial branch of radial nerve, posterior interosseous nerve and dorsal branch of ulnar nerve, were measured accordingly with a digital caliper, followed by statistical analysis of the data. The median and interquartile range for each portal to structures at risk were determined and a safe zone around each portal was established. Free of any neurovascular structure safe zones surrounding 1-2, 3-4, midcarpal radial, midcarpal ulnar, 4-5, 6-radial and 6-ulnar portals were found at 0.46mm, 2.33mm, 10.73mm, 11.01mm, 10.38mm, 5.95mm and 0.64mm respectively. Results of statistical analysis from comparisons between 1-2, 3-4 and midcarpal radial portals, indicated that 1-2 was the least safe. The same analysis among 3-4, midcarpal radial, midcarpal ulnar and 4-5 portals indicated that midcarpal portals were safer, while 3-4 was the least safe. Results among midcarpal ulnar, 4-5, 6-radial and 6-ulnar portals indicated that 6-radial and specifically 6-ulnar were the least safe. This study provides a safe approach to the dorsal aspect of the wrist, enhancing established measurements and further examining safety of the posterior interosseous nerve.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腕关节镜背侧切口的安全区:尸体研究。
标准背侧切口是腕关节镜手术中最常用的切口。这项尸体研究旨在通过定量描述腕关节镜背侧切口的神经血管关系来确定安全区:1-2、3-4、桡骨中段、尺骨中段、4-5、6-桡骨和 6-尺骨。暴露 21 具新鲜冷冻人体尸体上肢的神经血管结构,并用针穿过门户部位建立上述门户。用数字卡尺测量门户与桡动脉腕背支、桡神经浅支、骨间神经后支和尺神经背支之间的最小距离,然后对数据进行统计分析。确定每个入口到危险结构的中位数和四分位间范围,并确定每个入口周围的安全区。1-2、3-4、桡骨中段、尺骨中段、4-5、6-桡骨和 6-尺骨门户周围无任何神经血管结构的安全区分别为 0.46mm、2.33mm、10.73mm、11.01mm、10.38mm、5.95mm 和 0.64mm。对 1-2、3-4 和中桡骨切迹进行比较的统计分析结果表明,1-2 最不安全。对 3-4、桡侧腕骨中段、尺侧腕骨中段和 4-5 端口进行的同样分析表明,桡侧腕骨中段端口更安全,而 3-4 端口最不安全。桡骨中段、尺骨中段、4-5、6-桡侧和 6-桡侧入路的结果表明,6-桡侧,特别是 6-桡侧入路最不安全。这项研究提供了一种安全的腕背侧入路,增强了已有的测量方法,并进一步检验了后骨间神经的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta orthopaedica Belgica
Acta orthopaedica Belgica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Clavicular tunnel widening after acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: comparison between single and double clavicular tunnel techniques. Patients' perspective of fast-track total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Advanced osteoarthritis of the hip as reason for extensive asymmetric leg edema: a rare case report and review of the literature. Patient with knee osteoarthritis demonstrates improved knee adduction moment after knee joint distraction: a case report. Cubital tunnel release with Wide Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT) technique in an outpatient setting is safe and effective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1