Recurrent patellar dislocation is associated with an increased prevalence of patella alta, increased TT-TG distance, rotational deformity, and trochlear dysplasia compared with patients with no histories of patellar dislocation. Multiple anatomic factors were identified in the majority of patients with recurrent dislocation. Further research may identify which factors play a greater role in patellar stability and may allow physicians to predict which first-time dislocation patients are more likely to sustain recurrence.

No abstract

Plate fixation of displaced clavicle fractures has proven to be reliable and reproducible, leading to high union rates and a low rate of associated complications. However, the decision of whether to place the plate superiorly or anteroinferiorly on the clavicle has remained controversial. The authors performed a retrospective review on a consecutive series of patients who underwent plate fixation for a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture at a Level I urban trauma center. A review of surgical records identified 138 patients with a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture requiring operative stabilization. A total of 105 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Both superior and anteroinferior techniques resulted in a similar time to radiographic union (12.6±4.8 vs 11.3±5.2 weeks, respectively) and identical union rates (95%). At final follow-up, patient-reported implant prominence was nearly double in patients with a retained superior plate (54% vs 29%, respectively; P=.04). No significant difference existed in mean visual analog scale score at a mean of 2.77 years postoperatively, although a significant difference existed in the Oxford Shoulder Score questionnaire, with a mean score of 41.4 in the superior group and 44.4 in the anteroinferior group (P=.008). Implant removal occurred more frequently after superior plating but was not significant. Both superior and anteroinferior clavicle plating are safe treatment methods for displaced clavicle fractures. Superior plating leads to an increased rate of patient-reported implant prominence and may prompt more requests for implant removal.

Background:Hamstring autograft size <8 mm has been shown to be a predictor for failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The ability to predict graft size preoperatively is helpful in counseling patients about the possible need for graft augmentation.Purpose:To determine whether preoperative ultrasound (US) measurements of hamstring tendons can predict intraoperative graft diameter during ACL reconstruction.Study Design:Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.Methods:Twenty patients undergoing unilateral isolated ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled in the study (10 males, 10 females; mean ± SD age, 22.8 ± 6.6 years; height, 175.1 ± 7.1 cm; weight, 81.4 ± 14.2 kg; body mass index, 26.5 ± 4.1 kg/m2). Hamstrings were assessed by US, and double-looped semitendinosus-gracilis hamstring size was independently calculated with a freehand selection method on a nonmagnified US image by 2 orthopaedic surgeons. Intraoperative autograft size was determined with a standard graft-sizing tool. Intra- and interrater reliability was measured with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of the measure (SEM). A receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated to assess the ability of the US measurement to predict intraoperative measurements.Results:The mean autograft diameter by US was 8.9 ± 0.98 mm, while the mean intraoperative hamstring graft size was 8.1 ± 0.89 mm. There was excellent intrarater (ICC2,1 = 0.95, SEM = 0.32 mm) and interrater (ICC2,1 = 0.88, SEM = 0.55 mm) reliability for US measurements. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that US did not consistently quantify graft size. Graft size did not significantly correlate with height, weight, or body mass index in our sample (P > .05).Conclusion:These results suggest that preoperative US imaging of the hamstring tendons is unreliable in predicting intraoperative graft diameter.

No abstract