The results of this study should encourage surgeons to use these soft tissue allografts interchangeably, which is important as the number of ligament reconstructions performed with allografts continues to rise.
Background:Multiple rib fractures cause significant pain and potential for chest wall instability. Despite an emerging trend of surgical management of flail chest injuries, there are no studies examining the effect of rib fracture fixation on respiratory function.Objectives:Using a novel full thorax human cadaveric breathing model, we sought to explore the effect of flail chest injury and subsequent rib fracture fixation on respiratory outcomes.Patients and Methods:We used five fresh human cadavers to generate negative breathing models in the left thorax to mimic physiologic respiration. Inspiratory volumes and peak flows were measured using a flow meter for all three chest wall states: intact chest, left-sided flail chest (segmental fractures of ribs 3 - 7), and post-fracture open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the chest wall with a pre-contoured rib specific plate fixation system.Results:A wide variation in the mean inspiratory volumes and peak flows were measured between specimens; however, the effect of a flail chest wall and the subsequent internal fixation of the unstable rib fractures was consistent across all samples. Compared to the intact chest wall, the inspiratory volume decreased by 40 ± 19% in the flail chest model (P = 0.04). Open reduction and internal fixation of the flail chest returned the inspiratory volume to 130 ± 71% of the intact chest volumes (P = 0.68). A similar 35 ± 19% decrease in peak flows was seen in the flail chest (P = 0.007) and this returned to 125 ± 71% of the intact chest following ORIF (P = 0.62).Conclusions:Negative pressure inspiration is significantly impaired by an unstable chest wall. Restoring mechanical stability of the fractured ribs improves respiratory outcomes similar to baseline values.
During arthroscopic Bankart repair, penetration of suture anchors through the far cortex can compromise the initial biomechanical characteristics of anchor stability and repair integrity. This study compared the placement of suture anchors through a low anterior-inferior rotator interval portal (AI) vs a trans-subscapularis portal to evaluate the rate of anchor perforation as well as biomechanical strength. Ten matched pairs of cadaveric shoulders were randomized to an AI or a trans-subscapularis portal for placement of suture anchors at the 3 o'clock and 5:30 positions. The following measurements were obtained: (1) distance from the portal to the cephalic vein; (2) presence and length of anchor penetration through the inferior glenoid; and (3) ultimate failure strength of the anchors. The distance from the portal to the cephalic vein was significantly greater with the AI vs the trans-subscapularis portal across all specimens (29.9 vs 11.2 mm, P<.05). The rate of anchor penetration was significantly increased in the AI group vs the trans-subscapularis group at the 5:30 position (60% vs 10%, P=.014) but not at the 3 o'clock position (P=.33). Mean pullout strength of the anchors at the 5:30 position trended higher in the trans-subscapularis group, but the difference was not significant (132.8 vs 112.6 N, P=.18). The cephalic vein is closer to the trans-subscapularis portal than to the AI, but is at a safe distance. Both the rate and the degree of glenoid suture anchor penetration were lower with the trans-subscapularis portal compared with the AI at the 5:30 position. Placing anchors through the trans-subscapularis portal provides a safe alternative method, with improved positioning of the inferiormost anchor compared with the traditional AI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.