Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie最新文献

Clavicle fractures are one of the most common injuries of the shoulder girdle. In addition to the targeted clinical examination, the appropriate imaging must be initiated to formulate the correct diagnosis and subsequently apply an appropriate therapeutic method. Indirect force impact in recreational and sports accidents, such as falling on the outstretched or adducted arm, is the most common accident mechanism. The prevalence shows a bipartite clustering. On the one hand, there are young male patients and, on the other hand, female patients from the age of 65. Thus, a heterogeneous patient population with different complication profiles and different functional demands presents itself.The demand for a stable and, as far as possible, anatomical restoration after clavicle fracture results from its function as the sole connection between the shoulder joint and the sternum. Conservative therapy was the standard procedure for a long time, but due to further development of surgical therapy is now frequently used. Pediatric clavicle fracture remains the domain of conservative therapy. Early functional exercise of the shoulder girdle is essential for outcome in both surgical and conservative therapy.

The treatment of patients with ISJ dysfunction is difficult due to the multifactorial causes of pain and various problems in clarification. Treatment includes physical therapy, corticosteroids, prolotherapy, radiofrequency denervation and sacroiliac joint fusion. A new option for the surgical treatment of ISG dysfunction is the Torpedo implant system. For a safe fusion, only 2 implants are needed, which are available in lengths of 30-50 mm. The new implant system has been tested in pilot studies for efficacy and biocompatibility with good results. For further documentation for the Torpedo implant system, a comparative study against the iFuse system was carried out.Two different implants were used: Group 1: Deltacor Torpedo, Group 2: iFuse implants (Si-Bone). The data generated during admission and subsequent check-ups (VAS, ODI, opioid use) were entered into an evaluation file set up for this purpose. Follow-up appointments were set at 1 month, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively.The data of 65 patients were evaluated comparatively. In all comparisons, only very small effect sizes were found with regard to the differences in the decrease in pain intensities, so that equivalent effectiveness of the two methods could initially be postulated from a clinical point of view. Most patients in both groups reported taking opioids to treat pain before surgery. According to the decrease in pain intensity, opioid treatment could be discontinued in some patients after the operation. After 12 months, the number of patients treated with opioids decreases to 23% in group 1 and to 17% in group 2. The success of the fusions with the two methods can also be proven by image documentation, from which the position of the implants can also be clearly recognised. In no case was there any loosening.Overall, the evaluation of this study allows the conclusion that both implant systems can be successfully used for the treatment of patients with ISJ syndrome. The present results should be confirmed in further comparative studies with the proposed evaluation methods.

Based on a systematic review, the present work analyses factors associated with the rerupture rate or non-healing after superior capsular reconstruction with autologous long biceps tendon in the reconstruction of the rotator cuff of the shoulder.A systematic review of the U.S. National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health (PubMed) database and the Cochrane Library was conducted in September 2021 using the PRISMA checklist. Articles were identified and analysed that contained data on the rerupture rate after superior capsular reconstruction with autologous long biceps tendon in reconstruction of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. The aim was to identify factors associated with rerupture or non-healing. The risk of bias was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.Primarily 86 hits could be generated. Seven articles from 2020 and 2021 met the inclusion criteria and were further analysed in terms of content. The evidence level was III to IV. Follow-up was between 12 (minimum) and 24 to 48 months. The risk of bias was not low. Factors that may be associated with rerupture or non-healing are diabetes mellitus and high-grade fatty degeneration of the subscapularis, infraspinatus, or teres minor as preoperative factors. Age, percent footprint coverage, tear size, symptom duration, number of bundles, acromioplasty performed, and tear configuration were not significant factors. Gender, degree of fatty degeneration of the supraspinatus and lesions of the subscapularis tendon were rated differently.According to the literature, but still currently with short-term observation periods, superior capsular reconstruction with an autologous long biceps tendon is another treatment option in the case of massive tears and elderly patients, if there is no high-grade fatty degeneration of the subscapularis, infraspinatus or teres minor. Diabetes mellitus has an unfavorable prognosis. Additional acromioplasty has so far not been associated with better outcomes.

Up to 80% of patients after amputation are affected by phantom limb pain. This may be due to various mechanisms of cortical reorganisation. Non-surgical treatment of the neuropathic phantom limb pain involves mirror therapy. Thereby, the use of a mirror should induce the illusion that the extremity has been preserved. This illusion should initiate processes to restore the original organisation of the somatosensory and motor cortex and thus to reduce pain. Evidence of mirror therapy to treat lower extremity phantom limb pain is rare. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to qualitatively analyse the efficacy of mirror therapy for treatment of phantom limb pain in adult patients after unilateral amputations of the lower extremity.The databases Medline (PubMed), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Library (Central), and OPENGREY were systematically searched until 26th November 2020, followed by continued searches in these databases to provide a review of updated literature. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation (Risk of Bias Tool [RoB]) of included studies were conducted by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcomes were pain frequency, pain duration, activities of daily life (ADL), and quality of life. The methodology of this review follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.The search revealed 234 articles. Four articles were included in the analysis. A reduction in pain intensity due to mirror therapy was reported in all studies, however, in only 2 studies there were significant differences between mirror therapy and the comparison after 4 weeks of treatment (p < 0.001; p < 0.05). This significant difference was maintained after 3 and 6 months follow-up in one of those studies (p < 0.001). The outcomes pain frequency, pain duration, and ADL were decreased after 4 and 10 weeks of mirror therapy compared to comparison, but with no statistical significance (p > 0.05). After 6 months, there was a significant improvement in the duration of pain and in ADL after mirror therapy compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Differences in the results quality of life between the intervention group and comparison were observed in 2 studies.Mirror therapy of high frequency and duration is an effective intervention to reduce phantom limb pain in patients after unilateral lower extremity amputation. The superiority of mirror therapy to other interventions cannot be concluded, as the evidence was of low quality.

Different anatomical variants have been reported for the proximal and distal femur. Given this context, the goal of our study was to answer the following question: Can we also identify different anatomical variants of the proximal humerus?Two hundred anteroposterior (AP) radiographs of the proximal humerus with an equal gender distribution and equal laterality per gender were reviewed. The metaphyseal diameter of the proximal humerus at the level of the anatomical neck (X) and the intramedullary diameter at 10 cm from the apex of the greater tuberosity (Y) were measured. A new ratio was established, based on both measurements (Y/X). Radiographs showed different anatomical variants: type A: Y/X < 0.3, type B: Y/X = 0.3-0.4, type C: Y/X > 0.4. Two observers reviewed the AP radiographs independently and blindly in 2 different sessions.Three different anatomical groups (A, B and C) were identified based on the 25th and 75th percentiles. A higher percentage of type C was observed among females and a higher percentage of type A among males. A high inter-observer reliability was noted, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.97 (ICC 0.96-0.98). The intra-observer reliability for observer 1 had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.98.A novel radiological classification of the proximal humerus has been established based on 3 different anatomical types (A, B and C). Further studies are needed to establish whether the novel classification system can be used as an indicator for aseptic loosening of cemented or cementless total shoulder arthroplasty.

Megaendoprosthesis offer a viable treatment in complex revision arthroplasty cases with good functional outcome. In the context of a neoplastic indication, the diagnosis-related group (DRG) I95A is usually assigned with a relative weight of 4.906 (2021). In contrast, in revision arthroplasty, the appropriate DRG is assigned, depending on the joint replacement. The additional costs compared to the invoiced DRG are to be compensated by agreeing on hospital-specific individual fees. These complex revision arthroplasties set high technical and operative demands and are mainly performed in specialised departments. We conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the use of the megaendoprosthesis in revision cases in a specialised orthopaedic clinic, as a single centre study. The question we sought to answer was: Is cost recovery possible in the modified German DRG system (aG-DRG)?A retrospective single centre analysis of treatment costs was performed. From 2018 to 2020, 113 patients treated with a megaendoprosthesis reconstruction in a referral centre due to extensive bone loss after aseptic or septic revision of a hip or knee prosthesis were included in the study. Relevant case-related cost drivers of the aG-DRG matrix (including staff and material costs of the operating theatre area and the ward) were taken into account. The actual costs were determined according to the specifications of the calculation manual published by the German institute for the remuneration system in hospitals (InEK). For each case, the contribution margin was calculated by relating the hospital's internal costs to the corresponding cost pool of the aG-DRG matrix.According to the DRG system 2021, 17 different DRGs were used for billing - in 70% based on a patient clinical complexity level (PCCL) ≥ 4. Compared with the InEK calculation, there is a deficit of -2,901 € per case in the examined parameters. The costs of physicians show a shortfall in both the operating theatre and on the ward. Implant costs, which were supposed to be compensated by hospital-specific additional charges, show a hospital-specific shortage of -2,181 €. When analysing the risk factors for cost recovery, only these showed a significant difference.Implantation of the megaendoprosthesis in revision arthroplasty is often the last option to preserve limb function. At present, despite a high degree of specialisation and process optimisation, this treatment cannot be provided cost-effectively even in tertiary care. The politically desired specialised department structure requires sufficient reimbursement for complex cases. The economic outcome of each treatment case is often unpredictable, however the surgeon is confronted with these cases and is expected to treat them. The high standard deviation indicates large differences in the cost/revenue situation of each individual case. Our results show for the first time a realistic cost analysis for megaprosthesis in revision arthroplasty and underline the importance

Purpose: In order to prevent implant failure and secondary fracture dislocation, it is often recommended that patients perform partial weight-bearing after surgery of the lower extremity. Previous examinations showed that patients are often not able to follow these instructions. In this study, patients who had undergone surgery of the lower extremity were studied in order to analyze whether incorrect loading influenced the number and severity of complications.

Methods: Fifty-one patients were equipped with electronic shoe insoles, which measure loading and other parameters. The measurement period was 24 to 102 hours. Median duration of follow-up was 490 days. The primary outcome parameter was postoperative complications leading to revision surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and Fisher exact tests with significance set at a p < 0.05.

Results: Seven out of fifty-one patients had postoperative complications. Four wound complications, one implant failure, chronic instability after fracture of the tibia, and one implant loosening of a hip prosthesis were recorded. In total, 26 of 39 patients were not able to follow the postoperative instructions. Five of the twenty-six patients with difficulties in partial weight-bearing suffered a postoperative complication. In comparison, only 2 of the other 25 patients were affected. There was no statistically significant correlation between high weight-bearing and occurrence of complications (p = 0.29).

Conclusion: Most of the patients were unable to follow the surgeon's instructions for partial weight-bearing. Excessive loading did not seem to influence the number and severity of postoperative complications, especially regarding implant failure. Therefore, we should continue with measurements and reevaluate the "partial weight-bearing doctrine".