|
|
Mark C. Gebhardt, MD |
|
Third Session
Moderator: Mark C. Gebhardt, MD
|
|
|
Khemarin R. Seng, MD |
David Lhowe, MD |
|
Knee Pain Following Tibial Nailing: Role of Nail Prominence
Khemarin R. Seng, MD
Advisor: Tim Bhattacharya, MD
Discussor: David Lhowe, MD
Intramedullary nailing of the tibia for treatment of tibia fractures is one
of the most common procedures done by Orthopaedic trauma surgeons
today. Many surgeons have noted that patients treated with this form of
fixation experience anterior knee pain post-operatively that, in some patients,
can be quite debilitating. Dr. Seng sought to determine if one factor, nail
prominence, was associated with the development of anterior knee pain in
this population. Utilizing the Partners Trauma Registry, Dr. Seng performed
a retrospective analysis of 70 patients with healed tibia fractures that had
been treated with an intramedullary nail. Patients were asked to provide
information about knee pain by filling out a visual analogue scale and a
Lysholm knee score assessment. Forty-nine percent of these patients had
anterior knee pain. Of the numerous factors explored, nail prominence was
found to be highly correlated with anterior knee pain. Dr. Seng suggests
that surgeons can decrease, but not eliminate, the severity of knee pain by
burying the tip of the nail greater than 25mm (as measured on the lateral
radiograph)
Dr. Lhowe congratulated Dr. Seng for addressing a topic that is very
important to trauma surgeons. He noted the bias that may be present in a
study based on a mailed survey with a 57% response rate. He suggested that
some of these patients have anterior knee pain from underlying osteoarthritis
or a meniscal injury (from original injury) and this data was not available for
this study. Despite some of the limitations, Dr. Lhowe applauded Dr. Seng for
providing a valuable adjunct to the knowledge base in this area as this study
provides useful information about how we as orthopaedic surgeons can act to
reduce the incidence of this negative outcome. Dr. Sengs manuscript with
Dr. Bhattacharyya has been accepted by Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research for future publication.
|
|
|
Neal C. Chen, MD |
Thomas Thornhill, MD |
|
Transfusion Predictors in Shoulder Arthroplasty
Neal C. Chen, MD
Advisor: Peter Millett, MD, Jon JP Warner, MD, and Thomas Holovacs, MD
Discussor: Thomas Thornhill, MD
One of the many difficult questions that Orthopaedic Surgeons face in
pre-operative planning with their patients who are undergoing total joint arthroplasty
is whether or not to have patients donate autologous units of blood
prior to surgery. Seeing that there were no previous studies that examined
predictive factors for blood transfusion after shoulder arthroplasty, Dr. Chen
sought to provide an understanding of which patients would be more likely to
receive a blood transfusion after surgery and provide guidance to orthopaedic
surgeons performing total shoulder arthroplasty as to which, if any patients,
should pre-donate blood. Dr. Chen performed a retrospective analysis of 119
patients who had undergone 124 shoulder arthroplasties over a four-year
period. He performed a logistic regression analysis to determine which clinic
variables were predictive of transfusion. Additionally he documented the use
and waste of pre-donated blood units in this population. Dr. Chen found that
the strongest predictor for blood transfusion after shoulder arthroplasty was
preoperative hemoglobin: patients with a preoperative hemoglobin <110g/l had an estimated risk of blood transfusion that was twenty times greater than those with a preoperative Hemoglobin>130g/L. Those between 110 g/L and
130g/L had a five times greater estimated risk of transfusion. Of note, gender,
BMI, preoperative diagnosis, comorbid conditions, use of anticoagulants or
aspirin, autologous pre-donation status, type of anesthesia, operative time
and decrease in hemoglobin or hematocrit were not predictors for blood
transfusion. Seventy-eight percent of the pre-donated blood units were not
utilized and were discarded. Those patients with pre-operative hemoglobin
levels greater than 130g/L had the highest percent of wasted units (90%).
Dr. Thornhill congratulated Dr. Chen for the publication of his thesis
in the June issue of the JBJS. He questioned whether operative technique
such as how a particular surgeon mobilizes the subscapularis is associated
with increased blood loss and ultimately need for transfusion. This
was not a variable analyzed by Dr. Chen as he felt the effect of this would be
captured by the blood loss variable.
|
|
|
Jennifer A. Graham, MD |
Richard De Asla, MD |
|
Results of a Proximal Metatarsal Oblique Closing Wedge Osteotomy for the Correction of Adult Hallux Valgus
Jennifer A. Graham, MD
Advisor: Michael Wilson, MD
Discussor: Richard De Asla, MD
The treatment of adult hallus valgus is controversial. Dr. Graham reviewed
the pathophysiology, classification and general treatment options of
this common orthopaedic problem. She noted that over 130 different surgical
procedures have been described for the treatment of this condition. Dr.
Graham presented her work in which she performed a retrospective review
of the first thirty patients of Dr. Wilsons that had undergone lateral closing
wedge osteomy, release of distal soft tissues and medial eminence resection
for the treatment of moderate to severe hallux valgus deformity. With an
average of 15.4 months follow-up, this technique resulted in an improvement
in the mean hallux valgus angle from 36 pre-operatively to 18 post-operatively
and in the first intermetatarsal angles of 16 pre-op for 7 post-operatively with
an average 1st metatarsal shortening of 0.98mm. Dr. Graham noted that the
advantages of this technique are that it is straightforward, creates minimal
shortening compared to other proximal osteotomies and the apex of correction
is at the apex of deformity and is therefore a useful technique for severe
hallux valgus deformities.
Dr. De Asla reflected on his experience with hallux valgus surgery by noting
that bunion surgery is underestimated it can be far more complicated
than it is acknowledged to be. He congratulated Dr. Graham on her thesis
and Dr. Wilson on his work, noting that it is important to develop an effective
technique that is applicable and reproducible given that most bunion surgery
is performed by general orthopaedists and podiatrists. As Dr. Graham noted,
one major advantage of this approach is that it is the same procedure every
time. Dr. Warren acknowledged the difficulty in osteotomies for hallux valgus
given the ease with which rotation can occur or violation of the joint. Dr.
Wilson shared that his development of this technique grew out of his frustration
with loss of fixation or malunion with previous techniques. He will continue
to evaluate the outcomes of his patients treated with this technique.
|
|
|
|