Tag Archive | immobilization
July 13, 2018  

Immobilization after Fixation of Distal Radial Fractures

short arm castOrthoBuzz occasionally receives posts from guest bloggers. This guest post comes from Matthew Herring, MD, in response to a recent study in JBJS.

Postoperative immobilization after internal fixation of fractures is common practice. However, immobilization after locked volar plate fixation of distal radial fractures may actually thwart our patients’ rehabilitation—at least in the short term. So suggest the findings from Watson et al. in the July 5, 2018 issue of JBJS.

The authors randomized 133 patients who underwent locked volar plate fixation of distal radial fractures to 1, 3, or 6 weeks of postoperative immobilization. All patients were placed into volar splints postoperatively. After 1 week, splints were removed entirely or converted to short-arm circumferential casts based on the patient’s allocation. All patients started physical therapy within 3 days of definitive splint or cast removal.

Outcomes were evaluated at 6, 12, and 26 weeks and included patient-reported measures (PRWE, VAS pain scores, and DASH), active wrist range of motion, and postoperative complications. Six weeks following surgery, the results favored 1 or 3 weeks of immobilization over 6 weeks of casting in terms of improved patient-reported outcomes and objective wrist range of motion. However, those between-group differences disappeared at 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up. No significant differences were found in complication rates between the 3 groups.

For me, the primary message of this article is that early mobilization after distal radial fracture fixation offers improved short-term outcomes with little or no risk of adverse effects. For most patients, a major goal of fracture treatment is to restore normal function as quickly as possible. With early mobilization, patients reported less pain and less disability, and they demonstrated greater range of motion at 6 weeks.

However, the quick restoration of function must be done safely and without complications. In this cohort, 6 patients lost fracture reduction—5 in the 1-week immobilization group and 1 in the 6-week group. While that difference was not statistically significant, the study was not sufficiently powered to detect that difference. A quick power analysis, assuming an anticipated 11% loss-of-reduction rate as seen in the 1-week group and a 2% rate as seen in the 6-week group, estimates that 234 patients would be needed to confidently avoid a type II error when analyzing loss of reduction.

Translating findings like these into practice constitutes the art of medicine. It is probably safe, and perhaps even beneficial, to allow early mobilization of distal radial fractures treated with volar locking plates. However, there is probably a subset of patients who are at risk for losing reduction, and therefore it may be prudent to have a low threshold for keeping certain patients casted for a longer duration. The orthopaedist who extends cast immobilization beyond 3 weeks can take comfort in the findings that reported outcomes and range of motion in the 6-week-immobilization group quickly caught up with the results of the early-mobilization cohorts by 12 weeks after surgery.

Matthew Herring, MD is a fellow in orthopaedic trauma at the University of California, San Francisco and a member of the JBJS Social Media Advisory Board.

November 8, 2017  

Nov. 15 Webinar—Treating Clavicle Fractures

Capture_Clavicle FX for OBuzzOn November 15, 2017 at 7 PM EDT, JBJS will join with JSES (Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery) to present a webinar looking at the current paradigm for treating  clavicle fractures. Co-moderated by Drs. William Mallon, editor-in-chief of JSES, and Andrew Green, deputy editor of JBJS, the webinar will focus on two recent clavicle-fracture papers:

  • Dr. Philip Ahrens will discuss his recent JBJS paper, “The Clavicle Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Operative with Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.”
  • Dr. Brian Feeley will discuss his 2016 JSES paper, “Plate Fixation of Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Hardware-Related Complications.”

After each author presentation, expert commentary will be provided. Discussing Dr. Ahrens’ paper will be Dr. Michael McKee, recently named chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Arizona. Dr. Gus Mazzocca, chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Connecticut, will comment on Dr. Feeley’s paper. The webinar will then be open to addressing viewer-submitted questions for the authors and the commentators.

Seats are limited, so register now!

October 24, 2017  

Webinar—Patient-Centered Treatment of Clavicle Fractures

pic of Nov speakers to use

Clavicle fractures are among the most common injuries treated by orthopaedists. Until 2005, no matter the amount of displacement, standard treatment was immobilization for a few weeks, followed by gradually increased activity until the fracture healed. In 2007, Dr. Mike McKee published a landmark article in JBJS that concluded that clavicle fractures with displacement greater than 100% had better outcomes if treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Since that time, numerous studies have re-examined this question, some supporting Dr. McKee’s 2007 findings, and some disputing them.

On November 15, 2017 at 7 PM EDT, JBJS will join with JSES (Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery) to present a webinar looking at the current paradigm for treating  clavicle fractures. Moderated by Dr. William Mallon, editor-in-chief of JSES, the webinar will focus on two recent clavicle-fracture papers:

  • Dr. Philip Ahrens will discuss his recent JBJS paper, “The Clavicle Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Operative with Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.”
  • Dr. Brian Feeley will discuss his 2016 JSES paper, “Plate Fixation of Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Hardware-Related Complications.”

After each author presentation, expert commentary will be provided. Discussing Dr. Ahrens’ paper will be Dr. Michael McKee, recently named chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Arizona. Dr. Gus Mazzocca, chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Connecticut, will comment on Dr. Feeley’s paper. The webinar will then be open to addressing viewer-submitted questions for the authors and the commentators.

Seats are limited, so register now!

 

November 19, 2015  

What’s New in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery: Level I and II Studies

Every month, JBJS publishes a Specialty Update—a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Here is a summary of selected findings from Level I and II studies cited in the October 21, 2015 Specialty Update on shoulder and elbow surgery:

Shoulder

–A prospective evaluation of 224 subjects with asymptomatic rotator cuff tears followed annually for an average of five years found that the risk of tear enlargement and muscle degeneration was greater in full-thickness tears, and that pain and supraspinatus muscle degeneration were associated with tear enlargement.

–The authors of a randomized trial comparing physical therapy and primary surgical repair for initial management of degenerative rotator cuff tears concluded that the effects of surgery were not profound enough to justify surgical management for patients who present initially with painful degenerative cuff tears.

–A randomized trial comparing clinical outcomes in 58 patients with a rotator cuff tear and symptomatic acromioclavicular joint arthritis found no differences in function or pain scores between those who underwent cuff repair + distal clavicle resection and those who underwent cuff repair alone.1

–After two years of follow-up, no differences in functional outcomes or rate or quality of postoperative tendon healing were found in a randomized trial comparing patients who received platelet-rich plasma following surgical cuff repair and those who did not.2

–In a three-way randomized trial comparing physical therapy, acromioplasty + physical therapy, and cuff repair + acromioplasty + physical therapy for treating symptomatic, nontraumatic supraspinatus tendon tears in patients older than 55, there were no between-group differences in the mean Constant score one year after treatment.3

–A randomized trial comparing treatments for calcific tendinitis found that ultrasound-guided needling plus a subacromial corticosteroid injection resulted in better functional scores and larger decreases in calcium-deposit size than extracorporeal shock wave therapy.4

–A randomized trial of 196 patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability found no significant differences in WOSI and ASES scores or range of motion between groups that underwent open or arthroscopic stabilization procedures.

–A randomized study comparing the effectiveness of immobilization in abduction (15°) and external rotation (10°) versus adduction and internal rotation after primary anterior shoulder dislocation found that after two years, only 3.9% of patients in the abduction/external-rotation group had repeat instability, compared to 33.3% in the adduction/internal-rotation group.5 A separate randomized trial found no significant difference in instability recurrence after one year between a group immobilized in internal rotation (sling) and a group immobilized in adduction and external rotation (brace).6

–A randomized trial of 250 patients (mean age of 65 years) with displaced surgical neck fractures of the proximal humerus compared surgical treatment (internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty) with conservative treatment. Finding no statistically or clinically significant difference in outcomes, the authors concluded that these results do not support the recent trend toward surgical management for proximal humeral fractures.7

–A randomized trial comparing reverse shoulder arthroplasty with hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures found that after two years of follow-up, reverse arthroplasty yielded better functional scores, better active elevation, and fewer complications than hemiarthroplasty.8

–A randomized trial comparing the use of concentric and eccentric glenospheres in reverse shoulder arthroplasty revealed no differences in scapular notching rates or clinical outcomes at a minimum follow-up of two years.

–A systematic review comparing radiographic and clinical survivorship of all-polyethylene versus metal-backed glenoid components used in total shoulder arthroplasty found that all-poly glenoids had a higher rate of radiolucencies and radiographic loosening but a much lower rate of revision after a mean follow-up of 5.8 years.

–A retrospective review found that arthroscopic biopsy was much more accurate than fluoroscopically guided fluid aspiration in diagnosing periprosthetic shoulder infections caused by Propionibacterium acnes.

–In a randomized trial of 76 workers’-comp patients with a displaced midshaft clavicular fracture, those receiving surgical management had faster time to union and return to work and better Constant scores than those managed conservatively.9

–Two studies compared plate fixation with intramedullary fixation for stabilizing clavicular fractures. One that randomized 59 patients found no differences in functional outcomes or time to healing. The other, which randomized 120 patients, found no between-group differences in DASH or Constant-Murley scores, but shoulder function improved more quickly in the plate-fixation group.

–A study that compared standard arthroscopic capsular release with capsular release extending to the posterior capsule for treating frozen shoulder found no difference in postoperative clinical or range-of-motion outcomes between the two groups.10

Elbow

–A randomized trial comparing regional analgesia to local anesthetic injections in patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy found no differences in pain, oral analgesic use, or patient satisfaction within 48 hours after surgery.11

–A randomized trial comparing eccentric and concentric resistance exercises for the treatment of chronic lateral epicondylitis found that the eccentric-exercise group had faster pain regression, lower pain scores at 12 months, and greater strength increases.12

References

  1. Park YB, Koh KH, Shon MS, Park YE, Yoo JC. Arthroscopic distal clavicle resection in symptomatic acromioclavicular joint arthritis combined with rotator cuff tear: a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Apr;43(4):985-90.Epub 2015 Jan 12.
  2. Malavolta EA, Gracitelli ME, Ferreira Neto AA, Assunção JH, Bordalo-RodriguesM, de Camargo OP. Platelet-rich plasma in rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized study. Am J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;42(10):2446-54. Epub 2014 Aug 1.
  3. Kukkonen J, Joukainen A, Lehtinen J, Mattila KT, Tuominen EK, Kauko T, Aärimaa V.Treatment of non-traumatic rotator cuff tears: a randomised controlled trial with one-year clinical results. Bone Joint J. 2014 Jan;96-B(1):75-81.
  4. Kim YS, Lee HJ, Kim YV, Kong CG. Which method is more effective in treatment of calcific tendinitis in the shoulder? Prospective randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided needling and extracorporeal shock wave therapy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Nov;23(11):1640-6. Epub 2014 Sep 12.
  5. Heidari K, Asadollahi S, Vafaee R, Barfehei A, Kamalifar H, Chaboksavar ZA,Sabbaghi M. Immobilization in external rotation combined with abduction reduces the risk of recurrence after primary anterior shoulder dislocation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jun;23(6):759-66. Epub 2014 Apr 13.
  6. Whelan DB, Litchfield R, Wambolt E, Dainty KN; Joint Orthopaedic Initiative for National Trials of the Shoulder (JOINTS).External rotation immobilization for primary shoulder dislocation: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Aug;472(8):2380-6.
  7. Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S, Jefferson L, Keding A, Martin BC, Goodchild L,Chuang LH, Hewitt C, Torgerson D; PROFHER Trial Collaborators. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015 Mar 10;313(10):1037-47.
  8. Sebastiá-Forcada E, Cebrián-Gómez R, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gil-Guillén V. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. A blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014Oct;23(10):1419-26. Epub 2014 Jul 30
  9. Melean PA, Zuniga A, Marsalli M, Fritis NA, Cook ER, Zilleruelo M, Alvarez C.Surgical treatment of displaced middle-third clavicular fractures: a prospective, randomized trial in a working compensation population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.2015 Apr;24(4):587-92. Epub 2015 Jan 22.
  10. Kim YS, Lee HJ, Park IJ. Clinical outcomes do not support arthroscopic posterior capsular release in addition to anterior release for shoulder stiffness: a randomized controlled study. Am J Sports Med. 2014 May;42(5):1143-9. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
  11. Wada T, Yamauchi M, Oki G, Sonoda T, Yamakage M, Yamashita T. Efficacy of axillary nerve block in elbow arthroscopic surgery: a randomized trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Mar;23(3):291-6. Epub 2014 Jan 15.
  12. Peterson M, Butler S, Eriksson M, Svärdsudd K.A randomized controlled trial of eccentric vs. concentric graded exercise in chronic tennis elbow (lateral elbow tendinopathy). Clin Rehabil. 2014 Sep;28(9):862-72. Epub 2014 Mar 14.
May 14, 2015  

JBJS Classics: The Role of Continuous Passive Motion in Orthopaedics

EachJBJS-Classics-logo month during the coming year, OrthoBuzz will bring you a current commentary on a “classic” article from The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. These articles have been selected by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors of The Journal because of their long-standing significance to the orthopaedic community and the many citations they receive in the literature. Our OrthoBuzz commentators will highlight the impact that these JBJS articles have had on the practice of orthopaedics. Please feel free to join the conversation about these classics by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” button in the box to the left.

Based in part on clinical observations of persistent stiffness, pain, and cartilage damage after prolonged immobilization, in a 1960 JBJS paper, Robert B. Salter described degenerative changes in cartilage of rabbit knee joints that had been immobilized. He suggested that this “obliterative degeneration” might be related to adherence of synovium to the articular surface, and he wondered elsewhere in the orthopaedic literature, “If intermittent motion is good for articular cartilage, would continuous motion be even better?”

This background led to the classic December 1980 JBJS publication in which Salter and his colleagues hypothesized that “continuous passive motion of a synovial joint in vivo would have a beneficial biological effect on the healing of full-thickness defects in articular cartilage.”

To test the hypothesis, Salter et al. made full-thickness cartilage defects at four sites in the knees of 147 rabbits. The rabbits were subjected postoperatively to either immobilization, intermittent active motion (normal cage activity), or continuous passive motion (CPM) created by a custom-made apparatus. Outcome measures included clinical observation of the animals, joint stiffness, and histology.

The extent of ultimate postoperative stiffness, adhesions, and cartilage healing all varied with the degree of immobilization, leading the authors to conclude that CPM

  • Was well tolerated by the animals without causing harm detectable by gross or histologic evaluation
  • Was associated with fewer adhesions than immobilization, and
  • Stimulated more rapid and complete cartilage restoration than either immobilization or intermittent active motion.

Subsequent work by Salter and co-workers evaluated the effect of CPM on other animal models of full-thickness cartilage defects, intra-articular fractures, acute septic arthritis, patellar tendon injury, ligament repair, autogenous and allogenic periosteal and osteoperiosteal grafts, and other conditions. Based in part on the favorable results of these pre-clinical studies as well as preliminary clinical trials, Salter suggested in CORR in1989 that CPM might be indicated after a host of other orthopaedic procedures, including open reduction and internal fixation of intra-articular or selected diaphyseal and metaphyseal fractures, capsulotomy and arthrolysis for post-traumatic arthritis, synovectomy for rheumatoid arthritis or hemophilic arthropathy, arthrotomy and drainage of septic arthritis, release of contractures or adhesions, metaphyseal osteotomy with internal fixation, and reconstruction of a medial collateral ligament.

A Google Scholar search in October 2014 indicated that the 1980 Salter at al. JBJS publication has been cited approximately 1,096 times. Many of the articles that cite the 1980 JBJS study appropriately focus on the effect of CPM on either the histology of cartilage repair, or the effect of CPM on adhesions and joint stiffness.

However, Salter’s observation of decreased stiffness in animals treated with CPM has been extrapolated to clinical applications that were not included in his original work, most notably total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Today the clinical use of CPM after arthroplasty is controversial. A 2010 Cochrane review, for example, identified 20 randomized controlled trials of 1,335 patients in which CPM had been evaluated after TKA. The review concluded that there is evidence that CPM increases knee flexion range of motion, but “the effects are too small to be clinically worthwhile.” A more recent 2014 Cochrane review of 11 randomized clinical trials involving 808 patients concluded that there is not enough evidence to conclude that CPM reduces venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty.

With respect to CPM after cartilage-repair procedures, many other investigators have confirmed the findings Salter reported in 1980 in animal models. Indeed, the basic-science support is strong enough that CPM has been commonly used in humans after cartilage repair, yet its actual efficacy in people remains controversial. For example, in a 2010 systematic review, Fazalare and co-workers reviewed 1,087 human clinical studies in which CPM had been used after cartilage repair procedures. In spite of that large number of studies, Fazalare was unable to find any randomized, controlled studies related to CPM, and heterogeneity among procedures and outcome measures in those articles precluded performing a meta-analysis.

Authors of today may be envious of the more than 6,900 words and 52 photographs, photomicrographs, and graphs (totaling 20 printed pages) that JBJS devoted to Salter et al. in 1980, and one can’t help but wonder what this classic JBJS paper would look like if modified to fit today’s standards. But the main message is this: in spite of high-quality basic science studies using animal models, there remains a need for well-controlled studies in humans to test the efficacy of CPM after cartilage repair and other procedures.

Thomas W. Bauer, MD, PhD

JBJS Deputy Editor for Research