Nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the humeral head

The humeral head is the second most common site for nontraumatic osteonecrosis after the femoral head, yet it has attracted relatively little attention. Osteonecrosis is associated with many conditions, such as corticosteroid use, sickle-cell disease, alcoholism, dysbarism (or caisson disease), Gaucher's disease, and other systemic conditions. The diagnosis is a clinical and radiographic one, the latter forming the basis for its staging. Treatment depends on the chronicity and severity of symptoms, as well as the degree of clinical and radiographic progression. Surgical treatment includes arthroscopic debridement and core decompression for early osteonecrosis and hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty for more advanced disease. This report reviews osteonecrosis of the humeral head, with an emphasis on current treatment options.     

Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus

The purpose of this multicenter study was to analyze the results of shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of proximal humerus fractures and establish an updated classification system and treatment guidelines for these complex situations. Seventy-one sequelae of proximal humerus fractures were treated with shoulder replacement with the use of the same nonconstrained, modular, and adaptable prosthesis: the Aequalis prosthesis (Tornier Inc, St Ismier, France). The average time between initial fracture and shoulder arthroplasty was 5 years and 5 months. On the basis of anatomic classification schemes, sequelae were divided into 4 types: type 1, humeral head collapse or necrosis with minimal tuberosity malunion (40 cases); type 2, locked dislocations or fracture-dislocations (9 cases); type 3, nonunions of the surgical neck (6 cases); and type 4, severe malunions of the tuberosities (16 cases). The mean postoperative follow-up was 19 months (range, 12 to 48 months). Overall, the postoperative Constant score was excellent in 11 cases (16%), good in 19 cases (26%), fair in 18 cases (25%), and poor in 23 cases (33%). There were 18 complications (27%). Fifty-nine of 70 patients (81%) stated that they were satisfied with the result. The most significant factor affecting functional outcome was greater tuberosity osteotomy (P <.005). Regarding both surgical treatment and postoperative prognosis, we identify 2 categories of proximal humerus fracture sequelae: category 1, intracapsular/impacted fractures sequelae (associated with both cephalic collapse or necrosis [type 1] and chronic dislocation or fracture-dislocation [type 2]), in which an articulating joint can be reconstructed without a greater tuberosity osteotomy; and category 2, extracapsular/disimpacted fractures sequelae (associated with both surgical neck nonunions [type 3] and severe tuberosity malunions [type 4]) where the proximal humerus cannot be reconstructed without a greater tuberosity osteotomy. All of the excellent and good postoperative Constant scores were obtained in type 1 and 2, in which osteotomy of the greater tuberosity was not required. All patients in type 3 and 4, who underwent a greater tuberosity osteotomy, had either fair or poor results and did not regain active elevation above 90 degrees. We conclude that a greater tuberosity osteotomy is the most likely reason for poor and unpredictable results after shoulder replacement arthroplasty for the treatment of the complex sequelae of proximal humerus fractures. Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus should be performed without an osteotomy of the greater tuberosity when possible. If prosthetic replacement is possible without an osteotomy, surgeons should accept the distorted anatomy of the proximal humerus and adapt the prosthesis and their technique to the modified anatomy. A modular and adaptable prosthesis with both adjustable offsets and inclination may allow surgeons to adapt to a large number of malunions and may help to avoid the troublesome greater tuberosity osteotomy in a higher proportion of cases.     

Efficacy and safety profile of a novel technique,ThuLEP (Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate) for the treatment of benign prostate hypertrophy. Our experience on 148 patients

Background

Over the past years laser technology has played a predominant role in prostate surgery, for the treatment of benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH). Various laser devices have been introduced in clinical practice, showing good results in terms of complications and urodynamic outcomes efficacy compared with TURP and Open Prostatectomy.

In this study we describe the efficacy and the safety profile of a novel laser technique, ThuLEP (Thulium Laser Enucleation of Prostate) that permits a complete anatomical endoscopic enucleation of prostatic adenoma independently to prostate size.

Methods

148 patients with a mean age of 68.2 years were enrolled between September 2009 and March 2012 (36 months), and treated for BPH with ThuLEP. Every patient was evaluated at base line according to: Digital Rectal Examination (DRE), prostate volume, Post-Voided volume (PVR), International Prostate Symptoms Score (I-PSS), International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), Quality of Life (QoL), PSA values, urine analysis and urine culture, uroflowmetry. The same evaluation was conducted after a 12 month follow-up. ThuLEP was performed by 2 expert surgeons.

Results

Our data showed a better post-operative outcome in terms of catheter removal, blood loss, TURP syndrome, clot retention and residual tissue compared to large series of TURP and OP. Only 1.3% of patients had bladder wall injury during morcellation. I-PSS, Qmax, Prostate Volume, QoL and PVR showed a highly significant improvement at 12 month follow-up in comparison to preoperative assessment.

Conclusion

ThuLEP represent an innovative option in patients with BPH. It is a size independent surgical endoscopic technique and it can be considered the real alternative, at this time, to TURP and even more to Open Prostatectomy for large prostate, with a complete removal of adenoma and with a low complication rate.

     

Clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis

Purpose:

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are effective treatment options for biceps pathology, but outcomes of revision surgery are not known. This study examines the clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone a revision biceps tenodesis.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective review of all patients since 2004 (N = 21) who had undergone a revision biceps tenodesis with greater than 6-month follow-up was completed. A follow-up survey was carried out, and the visual analog scale (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were obtained, along with SF-12 Mental (MCS-12) and Physical Component Summaries (PCS-12).

Results:

Indications for revision surgery were continued pain (14) and ruptured biceps (7). Complete follow-up examinations were performed in 15 of 21 patients (71.4%). Average follow-up was 33.4 ± 23.5 months. The mean postoperative scores were 1.9 out of 10, VAS; 79 out of 100, SANE; 10.2 out of 12, SST; 83 out of 100, ASES; 29 out of 35, UCLA; 44, PCS- 12; and 47.1, MCS- 12. Five patients were considered failures with a UCLA score below 27. Seventeen of twenty-one patient underwent concomitant procedures. Complete preoperative and postoperative data were collected for 14 patients. All scores demonstrated highly significant improvement from preoperative levels (P < 0.005), except for the MCS-12. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of revision due to rupture and revision due to persistent pain.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis provides significant pain relief and improvement in functional outcomes at a mean follow-up of 33.4 months.

Level of Evidence:

Case Series, Level 4.     

Subpectoral biceps tenodesis

The long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tendon has long been recognized as a source of shoulder pain. Surgeons have debated the merits of tenotomy versus tenodesis, open versus arthroscopic approaches, and various fixation methods. This article reviews the clinical findings associated with LHB pathology, describes the operative technique of subpectoral biceps tenodesis, and reviews the current literature related to treatment of the symptomatic LHB tendon. The miniopen subpectoral approach is technically less demanding than purely arthroscopic techniques, and offers the potential for improved pain relief without cosmetic deformity by removing most of the LHB and its associated tenosynovium. As the literature on the topic continues to grow, subpectoral biceps tenodesis has emerged as an effective treatment for pathology of the LHB.     

Propofol-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl for outpatient laparoscopy: comparison of postoperative nausea,emesis, analgesia,and recovery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative nausea, emesis, analgesia, and recovery between propofol-ketamine and propofol-fentanyl in outpatient laparoscopic tubal ligations with general anesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded study. SETTING: Tertiary-care women's hospital. PATIENTS: 120 ASA physical status I and II ambulatory patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic tubal ligation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to two groups to receive either ketamine (1-1.5 mg/kg) or fentanyl (3-5 microg/kg). MEASUREMENTS: Measured variables included total dose of ketamine, fentanyl, propofol, and operating time. Vital signs, pain visual analog scale scores (VAS), nausea VAS, presence of emesis, treatment for nausea and vomiting, pruritus, sedation, and presence of dreaming were recorded on postanesthesia care unit (PACU) admission, PACU discharge, stepdown unit admission, and hospital discharge. Results are expressed as means +/- SD or medians and analyzed using t-test, Chi-square, or Mann-Whitney (p < 0.05). MAIN RESULTS: No differences were noted with respect to propofol dose, operating times, pain or nausea VAS scores, emesis, treatment for nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and sedation on PACU admission, PACU discharge, stepdown unit admission, and hospital discharge. The ketamine group had a higher heart rate, required more pain medication, and had a higher frequency of dreaming on PACU admission than the fentanyl group. These differences became insignificant on PACU discharge. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient laparoscopic tubal ligations with general anesthesia, propofol-ketamine does not improve postoperative nausea, emesis, analgesia or recovery compared with the propofol-fentanyl combination.     

Trends of lymphadenectomy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy

Introduction

To evaluate temporal trends in the delivery and extent of lymphadenectomy (LND) in radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) performed in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients.

Methods

We evaluated a multi institutional collaborative database composed by 1512 consecutive patients diagnosed with UTUC treated with RNU between 1990 and 2016. Year of surgery were grouped in five periods: 1990–1996, 1997–2002, 2003–2007, 2008–2012 and 2013–2016. Data about LND were available for all patients and numbers of nodes removed and positive were reported by dedicate uropathologists. The Mann–Whitney and Chi square tests were used to compare the statistical significance of differences in medians and proportions, respectively.

Results

Five hundred forty-five patients (36.0%) received a concomitant LND while 967 (64.0%) did not; 41.9% of open RNU patients received a concomitant LND compared to 24.4% of laparoscopic RNU patients. The rate of concomitant LND increased with time in the overall, laparoscopic and open RNU patients (all p?<?0.03). Patients treated with open RNU also had an increasing likelihood to receive an adequate concomitant LND (p?<?0.001) while those undergoing a laparoscopic approach did not (p?=?0.1). Patients treated with concomitant LND had a median longer operative time of 20 min (p?=?0.01). There were no differences in perioperative outcomes and complications between patients who received a concomitant LND and those who did not (p?>?0.1).

Conclusion

Although an increased trend was observed, most patients treated with RNU did not receive LND. Surgeons using a laparoscopic RNU were less likely to perform a concomitant LND, and when done, they remove less nodes.