Search

Patellar sleeve fractures, though relatively rare, present unique challenges in diagnosis and management. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of patellar sleeve fractures, focusing on their epidemiology, clinical presentation, imaging, and management strategies. Epidemiologically, these fractures are uncommon, representing approximately 1% of all fractures in pediatric patients, yet they account for 50% of all patella fractures in this population. They predominantly affect adolescents, with a peak incidence around 12.7 years of age, and are more common in boys, occurring at a ratio of 3 to 5:1. Understanding these demographic patterns is crucial for early recognition and appropriate management. Clinically, patellar sleeve fractures typically present with the sudden onset of severe pain, often associated with explosive activities such as jumping. However, diagnosis can be challenging, particularly in cases with minimal displacement or where alternative muscle groups compensate for the injury. Differential diagnosis is essential, and clinicians should be vigilant for signs such as palpable gaps at the lower pole of the patella and patella alta. Imaging modalities play a vital role in diagnosis, with plain X-rays often revealing no bony damage. Ultrasonography may offer a cost-effective alternative, especially in cases where radiographic findings are inconclusive. Advanced imaging techniques such as MRI can assist in characterizing the extent of the injury and assessing for associated complications. Management strategies encompass a spectrum of approaches, ranging from conservative measures such as immobilization and physical therapy to surgical interventions, including open reduction and internal fixation or arthroscopic surgery. The choice of treatment depends on various factors, including the fracture pattern, displacement, patient age, activity level, and associated injuries. Despite advancements in diagnosis and treatment, the optimal management of patellar sleeve fractures remains a clinical challenge. Further research is warranted to elucidate optimal algorithms for diagnosis and treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes and reducing the risk of long-term complications associated with this rare but clinically significant knee injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Augmented reality (AR) and 3D printing (3DP) are novel technologies in the orthopedic field. Over the past decade, enthusiasm for these new digital applications has driven new perspectives in improving diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity in the field of traumatology. Currently, however, it is still difficult to quantify their value and impact in the medical–scientific field, especially in the improvement of diagnostics in complex fractures. Acetabular fractures have always been a challenge in orthopedics, due to their volumetric complexity and low diagnostic reliability. Background/Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine whether these methods could improve the learning aspect and diagnostic accuracy of complex acetabular fractures compared to gold-standard CT (computed tomography). Methods: Orthopedic residents of our department were selected and divided into Junior (JUN) and Senior (SEN) groups. Associated fractures of acetabulum were included in the study, and details of these were provided as CT scans, 3DP models, and AR models displayed on a tablet screen. In a double-blind questionnaire, each resident classified every fracture. Diagnostic accuracy (DA), response time (RT), agreement (R), and confidence (C) were measured. Results: Twenty residents (JUN = 10, SEN = 10) classified five fractures. Overall DA was 26% (CT), 18% (3DP), and 29% (AR). AR-DA was superior to 3DP-DA (p = 0.048). DA means (JUN vs. SEN, respectively): CT-DA was 20% vs. 32% (p < 0.05), 3DP-DA was 12% vs. 24% (p = 0.08), and AR-DA was 28% vs. 30% (p = 0.80). Overall RT was 61.2 s (±24.6) for CT, 35.8 s (±20.1) for 3DP, and 46.7 s (±20.8) for AR. R was fairly poor between methods and groups. Overall, 3DPs had superior C (65%). Conclusions: AR had the same overall DA as CT, independent of experience, 3DP had minor differences in DA and R, but it was the fastest method and the one in which there was the most confidence. Intra- and inter-observer R between methods remained very poor in residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Corticosteroid injections have demonstrated short-term benefits for shoulder pain. This symptomatic treatment method is used in various inflammatory conditions that affect the shoulder joint. Corticosteroid joint injections are not without risks and complications. Adverse effects have been documented, including damage to the articular cartilage, tendon rupture, and attenuation of the subject's immune response. The aim of this study was to examine the timing of preoperative corticosteroid injections on infectious outcomes of shoulder arthroscopies and shoulder arthroplasty. Materials and Methods: In accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), the PubMed, Cochrane, and Science Direct databases were systematically reviewed by two independent authors in January 2024. After full-text reading and checking the reference lists, 11 article were included. Results: Patients who received a shoulder injection within three months prior to undergoing shoulder arthroplasty exhibited a markedly elevated incidence of infection. In addition, a significantly increased risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) at 90 days postoperatively in patients who received CSIs (corticosteroid injections) within 1 month prior to shoulder arthroplasty was found. Different authors consider CSI injections within the 2 weeks prior to shoulder arthroscopy surgery principally associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection. Discussion: There is still no consensus on the correct timing of preoperative CSIs in both arthroscopic and arthroplasty procedures. The literature does not identify whether the number of preoperative injections could increase the risk of periprosthetic infection. Obesity, sex, and smoking did not have a significant effect on PJIs; alcohol abuse could be considered as a risk factor for PJIs with CSIs. Both in prosthetic surgeries and in arthroscopy procedures, modifiable and unmodifiable factors play secondary roles. The risk of postoperative infection is greater within 3 months, although it is almost comparable at one- and two-year follow-ups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]