Search

BACKGROUND A rotator cuff tear (RCT) is a common shoulder diagnosis and its etiology may be acute, traumatic, or chronic degenerative. Differentiation between the 2 etiologies may be important for multiple reasons, but remains difficult based on imaging. Further knowledge about radiographic and magnetic resonance findings to distinguish traumatic from degenerative RCT is needed. METHODS We analyzed magnetic resonance arthrograms (MRAs) of 96 patients with traumatic or degenerative superior RCT, which were matched according their age and the affected rotator cuff muscle into the 2 groups. Patients older than 66 years of age were excluded from the study to avoid including cases with pre-existing degeneration. In the case of traumatic RCT, the time between the trauma and MRA had to be less than 3 months. Various parameters of the supraspinatus (SSP) muscle-tendon unit were assessed (tendon thickness, presence of a remaining tendon stump at the greater tubercle, magnitude of retraction, layer appearance). The retraction of the 2 SSP layers were individually measured to determine the difference of retraction. Additionally, edema of the tendon and muscle, the tangent- and kinking-sign as well as the newly introduced Cobra-sign (bulging of the distal part of the ruptured tendon with slim configuration of the medial part of the tendon) were analyzed. RESULTS Edema within the SSP muscle (sensitivity 13%, specificity 100%, P = .011) or the tendon (sensitivity 86%, specificity 36%, P = .014) are more frequent in traumatic RCT. The same association was found for the kinking-sign (sensitivity 53%, specificity 71%, P = .018) and the Cobra sign (sensitivity 47%, specificity 84%, P = .001). Even though not statistically significant, tendencies were observed toward thicker tendon stumps in traumatic RCT, and greater difference in retraction between the 2 SSP layers in the degenerative group. The cohorts had no difference in the presence of a tendon stump at the greater tuberosity. C

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Hyperextension orthoses (HOs) for non-operative treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) are widely prescribed. However, the compliance, how much an HO is worn after it has been prescribed, is widely unknown. PURPOSE This study was performed to assess the wearing time of HOs for OVFs in a prospective blinded, sensor-controlled manner. STUDY DESIGN / SETTING A prospective, single blinded observational study was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE This study prospectively included 18 patients who were treated non-operatively with an HO for OVFs. OUTCOME MEASURES The true wearing time was measured using a hidden temperature-based sensor. The patients were invited to return for regular follow-up every 2 weeks for 6 weeks, at which time clinical evaluation (including a visual analog scale for pain and the Oswestry disability questionnaire) and radiographs of the spine were performed. METHODS Full compliance was defined as a wearing time of 15 hours per day. Correlation between compliance and demographic differences, patient reported outcomes and radiographic changes of the vertebral structures were calculated. RESULTS The mean HO wearing time was 5.5±3.3 hours (37%±22% compliance). Female patients used the HO significantly longer per day than did male patients (6.5±3.2 vs 2.9±2.0 hours, p=.039). Age and body mass index had no influence on wearing behavior. CONCLUSIONS Overall, compliance with wearing HOs is poor and shows great variability with significant gender-dependency but not associated with BMI, age, or pain-level. Further studies are required to confirm our results that the wearing time does not have an influence on kyphotic progression of the osteoporotic fractured segment, nor on clinical outcome at short term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I.

CASE We report the case of a 35-year-old patient who presented with a septic residual synovial cavity infection 8 weeks after a through-the-knee amputation because of a parosteal sarcoma. An endoscopic evacuation of the turbid fluid and synovial debridement through parapatellar portals as in a standard knee arthroscopy was performed, in conjunction with appropriate antibiotic therapy. One year postoperatively, there were no signs of residual infection. CONCLUSION Endoscopic treatment of a septic stump infection of the residual synovial cavity after through-the-knee amputation is feasible. In our case, this approach resulted in rapid wound healing and early prosthesis mobility.

PURPOSE The present study compared patients developing ASD after L4/5 spinal fusion with a control group using a patient-specific statistical shape model (SSM) to find alignment-differences between the groups. METHODS This study included patients who had undergone spinal fusion at L4/5 and either remained asymptomatic (control group; n = 25, follow-up of > 4 years) or required revision surgery for epifusional ASD (n = 22). Landmarks on preoperative and postoperative lateral radiographs were annotated, and the optimal spinal sagittal alignment was calculated for each patient. The two-dimensional distance from the SSM-calculated optimum to the actual positions before and after fusion surgery was compared. RESULTS Postoperatively, the additive mean distance from the SSM-calculated optimum was 86.8 mm in the ASD group and 67.7 mm in the control group (p = 0.119). Greater differences were observed between the groups with a larger distance to the ideal in patients with ASD at more cranial levels. Significant difference between the groups was seen postoperatively in the vertical distance of the operated segment L4. The patients with ASD (5.69 ± 3.0 mm) had a significant greater distance from the SSM as the control group (3.58 ± 3.5 mm, p = 0.034). CONCLUSION Patients with ASD requiring revision after lumbar spinal fusion have greater differences from the optimal spinal sagittal alignment as an asymptomatic control group calculated by patient-specific statistical shape modeling. Further research might help to understand the value of SSM, in conjunction with already established indexes, for preoperative planning with the aim of reducing the risk of ASD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.