Search

Soft tissue defects after TKA are a potentially devastating complication. Medial gastrocnemius flaps occasionally are used to provide soft tissue coverage, most commonly with a periprosthetic joint infection. We asked: (1) What were the rates of persistent or recurrent infection, implant survivorship, flap-related complications, and reoperation for patients who underwent medial gastrocnemius flap reconstruction for soft tissue coverage after TKA? (2) What were the Knee Society clinical and functional scores for patients who underwent medial gastrocnemius flap reconstruction for soft tissue defects after TKA? (3) What were the risk factors for failure of medial gastrocnemius flap reconstruction after TKA, with failure defined as recurrent or new periprosthetic joint infection or inability to reimplant the TKA prosthesis? Between 2003 and 2011, four surgeons at one institution performed 31 medial gastrocnemius flaps for soft tissue coverage over an infected TKA. Of those, 27 (87%) were available for followup at a minimum of 2 years (mean, 4 years; range, 2–6 years), although patients experiencing complications or treatment failures before two years were included. The study group consisted of 15 men and 12 women with a mean age of 61 years at the time of surgery (range, 36–86 years). The general indication for using a gastrocnemius flap in this setting was full-thickness soft tissue deficiency over the anterior knee during the course of treatment for concomitant deep infection. Six flaps were performed at prosthetic explantation and antibiotic spacer placement, eight at a spacer exchange, eight at second-stage TKA prosthesis reimplantation, and five at debridement with polyethylene exchange. The decision regarding when during staged treatment to place the flap was based solely on when the soft tissues were deemed insufficient, and not based on a belief that placement at one stage versus another was advantageous. Failure was defined as inability to undergo reimplantation of a TKA prosthesis or recurrence of periprosthetic joint infection. Patient and procedural characteristics were tested for association with failure. Survivorship was calculated by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Outcomes scores were drawn from a longitudinal institutional registry. Fourteen of 27 (52%) patients had a persistent or recurrent infection; survivorship of the TKA prosthesis at 4 years was 48% (95% CI, 31%–66%). Although there were no flap-related complications, 12 patients had a total of 19 reoperations during the study period. Overall, the mean (± SD) Knee Society knee (38 ± 18 vs 65 ± 20; p < 0.001) and function (20 ± 22 vs 37 ± 25; p = 0.002) scores were improved at most recent followup. No factors were identified as associated with failure when a Bonferroni correction was applied. Gastrocnemius flaps were used to address difficult soft tissue defects in this series, in the presence of deep infections; the high proportion of patients experiencing persistent or recurrent infections reflects the case complexity and not necessarily a problem with the flaps. However, this series highlights the need to continue to explore alternative approaches to managing this difficult clinical problem. Future studies should aim to establish an evidence-based reconstructive algorithm, focusing on host, wound, and timing characteristics that may maximize outcomes. Level IV, therapeutic study.

Context: Lateral meniscus tears are a common entity seen in sports medicine. Although lateral-side knee pain is often the result of a meniscus injury, several extra-articular pathologies share signs and symptoms with a meniscus tear. It is critical for the clinician to be able to identify and understand extra-articular pathologies that can present similar to a lateral meniscus tear. Evidence Acquisition: Data were collected through a thorough review of the literature conducted through a MEDLINE search for all relevant articles between 1980 and February 2010. Study Type: Clinical review. Results: Common extra-articular pathologies that can mimic lateral meniscal tears include iliotibial band syndrome, proximal tibiofibular joint instability, snapping biceps femoris or popliteus tendons, and peroneal nerve compression syndrome or neuritis. The patient history, physical examination features, and radiographic findings can be used to separate these entities from the more common intra-articular knee pathologies. Conclusions: In treating patients who present with lateral-sided knee pain, clinicians should be able to recognize and treat extra-articular pathologies that can present in a similar fashion as lateral meniscus tears.

Background Our objective was to determine surgeon- and patient-based perceptions concerning proximal ulna fixation, including rates of implant removal and overall satisfaction. Methods Orthopedic surgeons were surveyed about surgical experience managing proximal ulna fractures and their perception regarding implant removal/revision. A retrospective chart review identified all patients who underwent fixation for proximal ulna fractures and osteotomies between January 2004 and December 2008. Results In total, 583 surgeons responded to the survey (80%). Of these, 67% believed that their implant removal rate was the same as other surgeons whereas 31% believed that their rate was lower. Seventy-one percent believed that patients required hardware removal less than 30% of the time. Ninety-eight percent believed that they were the same surgeons to remove the implant. In total, 138 consecutive patients were surveyed about their proximal ulna implant. Plating was performed in 80 (58%), and tension banding was performed in 55 (40%). The overall rate of implant removal was 64.5% (89 of 138) at 18.8 months. A second surgeon performed the removal in 68 patients (76%). Of the 49 patients without implant removal, 11 (22%) reported satisfaction with the implant and 19 (39%) reported a functional impairment because of the implant. If guaranteed a safe surgery, 36 (73%) would have the implant removed. Conclusion Surgeons underestimate the rates of proximal ulna implant removal and patient dissatisfaction. Because 76% of the implant removals were performed by a second surgeon, in sharp contrast to the surgeon-perceived rate of 2%, we challenge surgeons to become more aware of this problem in their practices.