| Literature DB >> 22607705 |
Bhavuk Garg1, Tarun Goyal, Prakash P Kotwal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transscaphoid perilunate fracture dislocation is a rare injury and can be easily missed at the initial treatment. Once ignored, late reduction is not possible and needs extensive dissection. An alternative treatment such as proximal row carpectomy may be required for neglected injuries, but surgical outcome is not as good as that of an early reduction. We aim to present an alternative technique of staged reduction and fixation in patients of neglected transscaphoid perilunate dislocations and study its outcome. MATERIAL &Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22607705 PMCID: PMC3489547 DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-7-19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Figure 1Preoperative radiograph showing a neglected transscaphoid perilunate dislocation; (A) Anteroposterior and (B) Lateral views.
Figure 2(A & B): First stage of reconstruction with a spanning external fixator. Carpal bones are gradually distracted to restore length and alignment using the fixator.
Figure 3Intraoperative image showing placement of K wires to hold the fracture- dislocation and placement of suture anchors. Placement of headless screw and suture anchors can be seen on intraoperarive radiograph.
Figure 4(A)Follow up radiographs showing adequate reduction using Herbert screws and suture anchors. (B & C) Reduction is maintained on radiographs obtained in dorsifexion and plamer flexion.
Mechanism of injury and presenting signs and symptoms
| RTA | 12 |
| Fall from height | 3 |
| Sports injuries | 1 |
| | |
| Pain | 14 |
| Swelling | 12 |
| Stiffness | 16 |
| Median nerve symptoms | 4 |
Functional outcome of patients at follow up
| | |
| No pain | 9 |
| Mild occasional | 5 |
| Moderate tolerable | 2 |
| | |
| Return to regular employment | |
| Restricted employment | |
| | |
| 75- 99% | 15 |
| 50-75% | 1 |
| | |
| 75- 99% | 18 |
| 50-75% | 0 |
Comparison of functional outcomes of patients treated with internal fixation for acute fracture dislocations, for neglected injuries and salvage procedure for neglected injuries
| Trumble [ | - | 77 | |
| Knoll [ | - | 80 | |
| Souer [ | 71-66 | 76-67 | |
| Sotereanos [ | 65.5 | 77 | |
| Hildebrand [ | 66 | 73 | |
| Herzberg [ | 79 | 79 | |
| Inoue [ | 62.5%- fair | 63 | Proximal row carpectomy |
| | 37.5%-poor | | |
| Rettig [ | - | 34 (kg) | Proximal row carpectomy |
| Siegert et al [ | 6/16 (37.5%) satisfactory results | - | Mean interval between injury and surgery- 17 weeks |
| Inoue [ | 3 good, 1 fair and 2 poor | | Mean interval between injury and surgery- 16 weeks |
| Kailu L et al [ | four good, one fair, and one poor | - | Mean interval between injury and surgery- 17 weeks |
| Komurcu M et al [ | 72.5 | 26.33 (kg) | Mean interval between injury and surgery- 26 days |
| 75 | 88 | ||