Burnier, Marion

Abstract Introduction The costo-osteochondral autograft, vascularized medial femoral trochlear osteochondral autograft, and proximal hamate autograft have been used for the reconstruction of unsalvageable proximal pole scaphoid nonunions. Our hypothesis is that there is no difference in carpal kinematics after the proximal pole of the scaphoid is reconstructed with these three graft options. Methods Wireless sensors were mounted to the carpus that was loaded through cyclical motion. Each specimen was tested under a series of the three reconstructed conditions and their kinematics compared. Results No significant differences were found in scapholunate and lunocapitate joint motion during wrist flexion-extension and wrist radioulnar deviation between the three reconstructed conditions (p > 0.05). Discussion and Conclusion There are minimal differences in carpal kinematics when comparing reconstruction of the proximal pole of the scaphoid with the costoosteochondral, medial femoral trochlear, and proximal hamate grafts.

Background: The objective of this study was to determine whether reconstruction of the proximal pole of the scaphoid with a proximal hamate graft restores native carpal kinematics. Methods: A cadaveric study was designed assessing wrist kinematic after proximal hamate graft for proximal pole of the scaphoid nonunion. Wireless sensors were mounted to the carpus using a custom pin and suture anchor system to 8 cadavers. A wrist simulator was used to move the wrist through a cyclical motion about the flexion/extension and radial/ulnar deviation axes. Each specimen was tested under a series of 3 conditions: (1) a native state, “Intact”; (2) fractured scaphoid proximal pole, “Fracture”; and (3) post-reconstruction of the proximal pole of the scaphoid using a proximal hamate graft, “Graft.” Results: The fracture condition resulted in a statistically significant change in scapholunate kinematics across the entire arc of motion relative to the intact condition. Reconstruction with proximal hamate grafts restored scapholunate kinematics close to the intact state in both flexion/extension and radial/ulnar deviation axes. The lunocapitate flexion during wrist flexion was significantly different after the hamate graft reconstruction. Conclusions: Proximal hamate to scaphoid transfer resulted in restoration of near normal carpal kinematics to the intact state.

Background: When revision elbow arthroplasty is required in the presence of structural proximal ulnar bone loss and triceps insufficiency, structural ulnar bone-grafting and triceps reconstruction are both required to reconstruct the skeleton and to restore active extension. We have developed a technique utilizing a structural proximal ulnar allograft with its attached triceps as an allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) to provide reconstruction of the proximal ulnar bone and deficient extensor mechanism with the same allograft. Methods: Between 2010 and 2017, the senior author performed 10 revision elbow arthroplasties using a proximal ulnar allograft with its intact triceps tendon allograft. The allograft ulna was combined with an ulnar component in an APC fashion, whereas the remaining triceps was repaired to the triceps allograft. Indications for a revision surgical procedure included aseptic loosening in 4 elbows, periprosthetic ulnar fracture with component loosening in 2 elbows, and the second stage of a 2-stage reimplantation in 4 elbows. Two elbows also required humeral APCs due to associated structural humeral bone loss. Postoperatively, all elbows were immobilized in extension for 6 weeks. The mean follow-up time was 45 months (range, 24 to 76 months). Results: Revision elbow arthroplasty resulted in pain improvement in all elbows in a 10-point visual analog scale. The mean flexion-extension arc was 95°, the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 76 points (range, 45 to 95 points), and the mean triceps strength score was 4. There were 6 reoperations: 3 for humeral loosening, 1 for deep infection, 1 for fracture of the ulnar allograft, and 1 for wound debridement and closure. For the 8 elbows with an intact ulnar reconstruction, no ulnar components were radiographically loose, and the ulnar graft was considered radiographically intact and healed in 8 elbows. Conclusions: Reconstruction of the proximal part of the ulna and triceps in failed elbow arthroplasties with structural ulnar bone loss can be effectively accomplished using a structural proximal ulnar allograft as an APC with the preserved triceps tendon for the extensor mechanism reconstruction, but the procedure is associated with an expected high reoperation rate, as is the case in complex revision elbow arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

➤ The term functionally irreparable rotator cuff tear (FIRCT) is intended to capture patients who would experience failure of an attempted primary rotator cuff repair because of the extent of cuff muscle and tendon damage and other patient-related factors. ➤ Debridement, biceps tenodesis, and/or partial repair of the torn rotator cuff may reduce pain and improve function for selected patients with a FIRCT. ➤ Static soft-tissue restraints to abnormal glenohumeral head translation, such as implantation of an absorbable balloon in the subacromial space or superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), appear to reduce pain and improve function, although some have reported a relatively high structural failure rate with SCR. ➤ When improvement of strength is the primary goal of treatment, tendon transfers provide a viable treatment alternative; most tendon transfers for management of a FIRCT are currently performed with arthroscopically assisted techniques. ➤ Transfer of the lower portion of the trapezius has emerged as a successful alternative to transfer of the latissimus dorsi, whereas transfer of the latissimus dorsi to the lesser tuberosity is being explored as an alternative to transfer of the pectoralis major for functionally irreparable subscapularis tears.