Search

Purpose To quantify cumulative radiation exposure in patients undergoing arthroscopic hip preservation surgery and occupational exposure to operating room (OR) personnel during such surgery; a secondary objective of this study was to identify factors affecting radiation exposure in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Methods Radiation exposure from all preoperative and intraoperative imaging studies was determined for 52 patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Cumulative and effective radiation doses were calculated and correlated with pathology and body mass index (BMI). Badge dosimeters were worn by OR personnel to measure cumulative occupational exposure. A highly sensitive portable ion chamber was used to evaluate the radiation scatter during surgery performed on a high-BMI patient and a low-BMI patient to reflect a “worst-case scenario” and “best-case scenario,” respectively. Results Forty-three patients underwent procedures for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and 9 underwent procedures for soft-tissue pathologies (ST). The median cumulative exposure was 8.6 mGy and 5.0 mGy for FAI patients and ST patients, respectively ( P = .01). The cumulative effective radiation dose was 490 mrem and 350 mrem for FAI patients and ST patients, respectively ( P = .47). BMI significantly correlated with cumulative exposure ( P = .0004) and trended toward significance with cumulative effective dose ( P = .073). OR staff cumulative occupational exposure was low (9 mrem for the surgeon). Ion chamber data showed that increasing patient BMI resulted in increased occupational exposure. Conclusions The median cumulative effective radiation dose to patients undergoing arthroscopic hip preservation surgery is 490 mrem and results in an excess lifetime risk of death from cancer of 0.025%. Greater BMI correlates with increased cumulative radiation exposure and may increase risk to OR personnel. Occupational exposure to the surgical team from hip arthroscopy ranges from 7 to 9 mrem per 50 hip arthroscopies (+0.0005% excess lifetime risk of death from cancer). Level of Evidence Level IV, diagnostic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs performed by a “tension slide technique” with a cortical button and interference screw (CB) are stronger than repairs by suture anchor (SA) techniques in biomechanical studies. However, clinical comparison of the 2 techniques is lacking in the literature. Methods Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired with either a CB or SA technique through a single incision were identified from 2008 to 2013 at a single institution. Patients more than a year out from surgery completed a Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. In addition, patients were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications. All assessments were performed by individuals blinded to the surgical technique. Strength and motion values from the operative extremity minus the nonoperative arm values yielded differential values that were averaged and used to compare treatment groups. Results The CB (n = 20) and SA (n = 17) groups had similar demographics, except for the time from the surgery to evaluation (18 ± 5 vs 32 ± 15 months, respectively; P = .007). Range of motion differed slightly between the groups. The CB group demonstrated better pronation (0° ± 5° vs −4° ± 10°; P < .05), and the SA group demonstrated better flexion (2° ± 0° vs −3° ± 5°; P < .05) and supination (−2° ± 5° vs −7° ± 12°; P < .05). Strength did not differ significantly between the groups. DASH scores did not significantly differ between the groups with univariate analysis, but multivariate analysis demonstrated slightly better DASH scores with the CB technique (4.5 ± 4.4 vs 10.3 ± 14.9; P < .0009). Complication rates were similar between groups (CB 30%, SA 35%; P > .05). Conclusion CB and SA techniques provide good clinical results with similar complication rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ulnar impaction is a common condition encountered by hand surgeons. Historically, treatment of this condition has been with wafer resection of the distal ulna, by either open or arthroscopic means, or diaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy; however, both of these have the potential for prolonged recovery or a need for additional procedures. Wafer procedures, whether done by open or arthroscopic techniques, can result in hemarthrosis, and diaphyseal osteotomies can require hardware removal. Recently, Slade and Gillon described a technique of ulnar shortening in the osteochondral region of the ulnar head, which offers advantages over previously used techniques. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe this technique, as well as pearls and pitfalls associated with the procedure. To more accurately describe the location of the osteotomy, we have changed the name of the procedure from Dr. Slade''s original description to distal metaphyseal ulnar-shortening osteotomy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]