RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate the proximity of the ulnar neurovascular structures to the endoscopic blade during endoscopic carpal tunnel release (CTR). METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen cadaver hands were used to perform endoscopic CTR using devices from two manufacturers. The skin was excised from the palm, and the endoscopic carpal tunnel blade was deployed at the distal edge of the transverse carpal ligament (TCL). The blade's proximity to the ulnar neurovascular bundle, deep ulnar motor branch, superficial palmar arch, and median nerve was recorded. Following release of the TCL, the device was turned ulnar to the maximal extent to determine if direct injury to the ulnar neurovascular bundle was possible. RESULTS: The average longitudinal distance from the end of the TCL to the superficial palmar arch was 13.3 mm (range, 8.4-20.9) and to the ulnar motor branch was 10.8 mm (range, 4.0-15.0). The average transverse distance from the end of the TCL to the ulnar neurovascular bundle was 5.9 mm (range, 3.1-7.8) and to the median nerve was 3.3 mm (range, 0-6.5). In two of our specimens, the median nerve subluxated volarly over the cutting device. When placing the blade at the distal edge of the TCL, injury to the deep motor branch of the ulnar nerve, ulnar neurovascular bundle, or superficial palmar arch was not possible in any specimens using the tested devices, even when turning the blade directly toward these structures. CONCLUSIONS: There is a low likelihood of direct injury to the ulnar neurovascular bundle during endoscopic CTR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results suggest that injury to the ulnar neurovascular bundle is unlikely during endoscopic CTR if the distal aspect of the transverse carpal ligament can be clearly identified prior to release. Control of the median nerve is also important to prevent subluxation over the cutting device.
RESUMEN
Purpose: The indications for prophylactic antibiotics in hand surgery remain undefined. Current literature has focused solely on readmission and reoperation for surgical site infection, while neglecting minor infectious complications treated at outpatient follow-up in addition to complications from antibiotic therapy observed after surgery. This study sought to analyze major and minor infection rates, as well as adverse effects of preoperative antibiotics after clean hand surgery. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted over a 6-month period. The cohorts included patients who received preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and those that did not. Patient details and operative data were obtained during the first postoperative visit following the index surgery. Primary outcomes assessed were as follows: (1) major infection, defined as admission or reoperation for infection; (2) minor infection, defined as use of postoperative oral antibiotics; and (3) complications of antibiotic therapy. Results: A total of 377 consecutive patients underwent operations of the upper extremity. Complications from preoperative antibiotic therapy were seen in 6.9% of patients. Overall, there were no major postoperative infections and the minor postoperative infection rate was 5.6%. The minor infection rate was 6.9% (9/131) among patients who did not receive preoperative antibiotics and 4.9% (12/246) among patients who received preoperative antibiotics (P = .57). Conclusions: A 5.6% minor infection rate was identified following clean hand surgery, with no cases of major infection. Preoperative antibiotics did not demonstrate benefit in terms of reduction of minor infections, but they did yield a 6.9% adverse reaction rate, including one case of Clostridium difficile infection warranting hospitalization. Caution is recommended while prescribing prophylactic antibiotics for clean hand surgeries, given the lack of clear benefits and the potential for adverse effects. Type of Study/level of evidence: Prognostic II.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes following fixation of peri-implant distal radius fractures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of peri-implant distal radius fractures treated surgically at a large academic practice over 18 years. Patients were included if they had previously undergone open reduction and internal fixation of a distal radius fracture; subsequently sustained a fracture at, or adjacent to, the existing hardware; and then undergone revision fixation with the removal of hardware. Fractures were categorized into 3 groups: type A (distal to the implant), type B (at the level of the implant), and type C (proximal to the implant). Outcomes, including range of motion, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire scores, and radiographic alignment, were recorded at the latest follow-up visit. RESULTS: Twelve peri-implant distal radius fractures that had undergone revision surgical fixation were identified. At the time of injury, the average patient age was 63 years. Ten occurred around a volar plate, 1 occurred around an intramedullary device, and 1 occurred around a dorsal plate. One fracture occurred proximal to previous hardware (type C), 9 fractures occurred at the level of previous hardware (type B), and 2 fractures occurred distal to previous hardware (type A). The median time from initial fixation to peri-implant fracture was 2.7 years. At a mean follow-up of 6 months after the removal of the hardware and revision fixation, radiographic alignment was within acceptable parameters for all injuries. At the final follow-up, the average wrist motion for flexion, extension, supination, and pronation were 66°, 66°, 83°, and 86°, respectively. The average DASH score was 6.7. Three patients experienced complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although peri-implant fractures are infrequent complications following distal radius fracture internal fixation, outcomes of surgically treated peri-implant distal radius fractures are satisfactory with respect to radiographic alignment, range of motion, and function. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.