Carlson Strother, Courtney R

Abstract Background Ultrasound (US)‐guided hydrodissection is a minimally invasive treatment for cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) with promising early results. However, data on patient‐perceived outcomes, durability of relief, and impact on surgical need remain limited. Objective To assess the effectiveness of US‐guided cubital tunnel hydrodissection in improving CuTS symptoms via patient‐centered outcomes. Design Retrospective chart review with cross‐sectional telephone follow‐up. Setting Quaternary medical center multidisciplinary outpatient hand clinic. Participants Seventeen patients (19 arms) with clinical CuTS who received US‐guided hydrodissection from one physician. Interventions Patients were contacted by telephone for cross‐sectional outcome assessment. Main Outcome Measures Patient‐reported improvements in weakness, paresthesias, and/or pain, percent pain relief, symptom improvement duration, adverse events, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores. Results At mean 7 ± 5 month follow‐up, improvement in weakness, paresthesia, and pain was reported in 12 (63%) extremities (95% confidence interval [CI] 41%–85%; p < .001) . Pain relief ≥50% occurred in 12 (63%) and ≥75% in 8 (42%) extremities, with mean duration 4 months. PGIC scores showed 14 (74%; 95% CI 54%–94%; p < .001) at least “minimally improved” and 8 (42%) (95% CI 20%–64%; p < .001) “much improved.” No adverse events occurred. Two patients without improvement underwent surgical decompression with anterior transposition at 1 and 3 months after hydrodissection, achieving 90%–100% pain relief and “much or very much improved” PGIC scores. Of 19 extremities, 7 (37%) were McGowan Grade I and 12 (63%) Grade II; none were Grade III. Grade II extremities showed significantly greater overall symptom relief ( p = .004) and pain relief ≥50% ( p = .004). PGIC scores did not differ significantly between grades (both p > .062). Conclusion US‐guided cubital tunnel hydrodissection was associated with meaningful symptom improvement and no adverse events. Limitations include small sample size, no control group, single operator, and potentially time‐limited relief. The procedure appears safe and a potential nonoperative treatment option.

Case: An upper trunk brachial plexus injury patient underwent ulnar motor fascicular to biceps motor nerve transfer. At 6 months postoperative, the patient had trace biceps firing but was diagnosed with an unrecognized rupture of the distal biceps tendon, requiring reconstruction. Another patient with C5-T1 injury was noted to have distal biceps tendon rupture at the time of gracilis muscle transfer. Both patients had gravity-assisted elbow flexion at 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: Biceps rupture is an uncommon concomitant injury with brachial plexus trauma and challenging to diagnose in the context of a paretic limb. Thorough history and intraoperative biceps tendon palpation will ensure these injuries are identified.

Abstract Background Surgical management of the painful, arthritic distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) remains challenging, particularly in young, active patients. Description of Technique Following exposure of the DRUJ through a dorsal longitudinal incision over the DRUJ, suture anchors are evenly placed around the sigmoid notch. The sutures are threaded through the dermal allograft to secure the graft into the sigmoid notch. The volar edges of the allograft are passed from radial to ulnar underneath the distal ulna and secured to the remaining allograft dorsally, reducing the DRUJ and creating a stable interposition arthroplasty. Patients, Methods, and Results We present a case report of a young, manual laborer who had significant improvement in pain, range of motion, and grip strength 6 months following interposition arthroplasty at the DRUJ. He was able to return to work after completing his rehabilitation following surgery. Conclusions Dermal allograft interposition arthroplasty may provide reliable pain relief while maintaining pronosupination and stability of the DRUJ in the appropriately selected patient, without the need for lifting restrictions.

Background: The loss of extensor mechanism continuity that occurs with patellar and quadriceps tendon rupture has devastating consequences on patient function. Purpose: To describe a treatment strategy for extensor mechanism disruption and evaluate the outcomes of 3 techniques: primary repair, repair with semitendinosus tendon autograft augmentation, and reconstruction with Achilles tendon allograft. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The authors reviewed surgeries for extensor mechanism disruption performed by a single surgeon between 1999 and 2019. Patient characteristics, imaging studies, surgical techniques, and outcomes were recorded. Primary ruptures with robust tissue quality were repaired primarily, and first-time ruptures with significant tendinosis or moderate tissue loss were repaired using quadrupled semitendinosus tendon autograft augmentation. Patients with failed previous extensor mechanism repair or reconstruction and poor tissue quality underwent reconstruction with Achilles tendon allograft. The primary outcome was extensor mechanism integrity at a minimum 1-year follow-up, with extensor mechanism lag defined as >5° loss of terminal, active knee extension. Secondary outcomes included postoperative knee range of motion, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner activity scores, and the radiographic Caton-Deschamps Index. Results: Included were 22 patellar tendon and 21 quadriceps tendon surgeries (patients: 82.5% male; mean age, 48.1 years; body mass index, 31). Seventeen (39.5%) cases underwent primary tendon repair, 13 (30.2%) had repair using semitendinosus tendon autograft augmentation, and 13 (30.2%) underwent reconstruction using an Achilles tendon allograft. Seventeen (39.5%) cases had at least 1 prior failed extensor mechanism surgery performed at an outside facility. At the last follow-up, 4 (9.3%) cases had an extensor mechanism lag, no cases required additional extensor mechanism surgery, and all cases were able to achieve >90° of knee flexion. Postoperative IKDC scores were significantly improved with all methods of extensor mechanism surgery, and postoperative Tegner activity scores were significantly improved in patients who underwent primary repair and Achilles tendon allograft reconstruction ( P < .05 for all). Conclusion: Primary repair alone, repair using quadrupled semitendinosus tendon autograft augmentation, and reconstruction using Achilles tendon allograft were all effective methods to restore extensor mechanism and knee function with the proper indications. Persistent knee extensor lag was more common in chronic extensor mechanism injuries after failed surgery, although patients still reported significantly improved postoperative functional outcomes.

Abstract Although anterior shoulder instability is most commonly treated with arthroscopic fixation, open labral repair with capsular shift may be best for select patients and in cases of revision stabilization without significant bone loss. The technique described in this article uses the deltopectoral interval; it involves careful dissection of the subscapularis from the anterior capsule, repair of the Bankart lesion, and a lateral and superior capsular shift using all‐suture anchors in the humeral head. Advantages of this technique include meticulous control of anchor placement and the ability to provide additional stability via a lateral and superiorly directed capsular shift. This operation can be performed in a reliable, efficient, and reproducible manner. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.