Materials and Methods: This study was conducted between Oct 2010 to Dec 2015. One-hundred-fifty fracture shafts of the humerus were treated with the anteromedial plating through the anterolateral approach.
Results: One-hundred-fifty patients with a fracture shaft of the humerus were treated with anteromedial plating. Twenty were female (mean ±SD,28 years±4.5) and 130 were male (mean ± SD, 38 years±5.6). One hundred and forty-eight out of 150 (98.6%) patients achieved union at 12 months. Two of three patients developed a superficial infection, both of which were treated successfully by antibiotics and one developed a deep infection, which was treated by wound debridement, prolonged antibiotics with the removal of the plate and subsequently by delayed plating and bone grafting.
Conclusion: In the present study, we applied plate on the anteromedial flat surface of humerus using the anterolateral approach. It is an easier and quicker fixation as compared to anterolateral plating because later involved much more dissection than a medial application of the plate and this application of plate on a medial flat surface, does not required Radial nerve exposure and palsy post-operatively. The significant improvement in elbow flexion without brachialis dissection is also a potential benefit of this approach. Based on our results, we recommend the application of an anteromedial plate for treatment of midshaft fractures humerus.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the proximal thoracic (PT) flexibility and its compensatory ability above the "potential UIV."
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Shoulder and neck imbalance can be caused by overcorrection of the main thoracic (MT) curve due to inability of PT segment to compensate.
METHODS: Cervical supine side bending (CSB) radiographs of 100 Lenke 1 and 2 patients were studied. We further stratified Lenke 1 curves into Lenke 1-ve: PT side bending (PTSB) 80.0% of cases of the PT segment were unable to compensate at T3-T6. In Lenke 1+ve curves, 78.4% were unable to compensate at T6, followed by T5 (75.7%), T4 (73.0%), T3 (59.5%), T2 (27.0%), and T1 (21.6%). In Lenke 1-ve curves, 36.4% of cases were unable to compensate at T6, followed by T5 (45.5%), T4 (45.5%), T3 (30.3%), T2 (21.2%), and T1 (15.2%). A significant difference between Lenke 1-ve and Lenke 1+ve was observed from T3 to T6. The difference between Lenke 1+ve and Lenke 2 curves was significant only at T2.
CONCLUSION: The compensation ability and the flexibility of the PT segments of Lenke 1-ve and Lenke 1+ve curves were different. Lenke 1+ve curves demonstrated similar characteristics to Lenke 2 curves.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether knee sleeves can significantly improve the biomechanical variables for knee problems.
METHOD: Systematic literature search was conducted on four online databases - PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Springer Link - to find peer-reviewed and relevant scientific papers on knee sleeves published from January 2005 to January 2015. Study quality was assessed using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES).
RESULTS: Twenty studies on knee sleeves usage identified from the search were included in the review because of their heterogeneous scope of coverage. Twelve studies found significant improvement in gait parameters (3) and functional parameters (9), while eight studies did not find any significant effects of knee sleeves usage.
CONCLUSION: Most improvements were observed in: proprioception for healthy knees, gait and balance for osteoarthritic knees, and functional improvement of injured knees. This review suggests that knee sleeves can effect functional improvements to knee problems. However, further work is needed to confirm this hypothesis, due to the lack of homogeneity and rigor of existing studies.
METHODS: Six porcine lumbar spines (L2-L5) were separated into 12 functional spine units. Bilateral total facetectomies and interlaminar decompression were performed for all specimens. Non-destructive loading to assess stiffness in lateral bending, flexion and extension as well as axial rotation was performed using a universal material testing machine.
RESULTS: PS and CS constructs were significantly stiffer than the intact spine except in axial rotation. Using the normalized ratio to the intact spine, there is no significant difference between the stiffness of PS and CS: flexion (1.41 ± 0.27, 1.55 ± 0.32), extension (1.98 ± 0.49, 2.25 ± 0.44), right lateral flexion (1.93 ± 0.57, 1.55 ± 0.30), left lateral flexion (2.00 ± 0.73, 2.16 ± 0.20), right axial rotation (0.99 ± 0.21, 0.83 ± 0.26) and left axial rotation (0.96 ± 0.22, 0.92 ± 0.25).
CONCLUSION: The CS-rod TLIF construct provided comparable construct stiffness to a traditional PS-rod TLIF construct in a 'standardized' porcine lumbar spine model.