The Stiff Elbow

Elbow motion is essential for upper extremity function to position the hand in space. Unfortunately, the elbow joint is prone to stiffness following a multitude of traumatic and atraumatic etiologies. Elbow stiffness can be diagnosed with a complete history and physical exam, supplemented with appropriate imaging studies. The stiff elbow is challenging to treat, and thus, its prevention is of paramount importance. When this approach fails, non-operative followed by operative treatment modalities should be pursued. Upon initial presentation in those who have minimal contractures of 6-month duration or less, static and dynamic splinting, serial casting, continuous passive motion, occupational/physical therapy, and manipulation are non-operative treatment modalities that may be attempted. A stiff elbow that is refractory to non-operative management can be treated surgically, either arthroscopically or open, to eliminate soft tissue or bony blocks to motion. In the future, efforts to prevent and treat elbow stiffness may target the basic science mechanisms involved. Our purpose was to review the etiologies, classification, evaluation, prevention, operative, and non-operative treatment of the stiff elbow.     

Delayed wound healing in Mac-1–deficient mice is associated with normal monocyte recruitment

The Mac-1 integrin is an important mediator of migration and inflammatory activation of neutrophils and monocytes. However, the role of Mac-1 in modulating macrophage emigration and activation and its subsequent impact on cutaneous wound healing have not been fully elucidated. To examine the significance of Mac-1 to murine wound healing, we measured epithelialization and granulation tissue formation in partial-thickness ear wounds and full-thickness head wounds, respectively, in Mac-1-deficient mice. Wounds were histologically analyzed at postwounding days 3, 5, and 7. The gap measured between the leading edges of inward-migrating granulation tissue was significantly increased in knockout mice compared with control animals at day 5 (3.8+/-0.3 vs. 2.6+/-0.5 mm; p<0.001) and day 7 (2.2+/-0.4 vs. 0.96+/-0.73 mm; p=0.005). Epithelial gap measurements were also increased in knockout mice vs. wild-type controls at days 3 (0.62+/-0.02 vs. 0.54+/-0.07 mm; p<0.05) and 5 (0.58+/-0.06 vs. 0.39+/-0.08 mm; p<0.001). Immunohistochemistry showed equal numbers of macrophages in knockout and control wounds. These findings show that Mac-1 is required for normal wound healing but that the attenuation in the deposition of granulation tissue and wound epithelialization in Mac-1 knockout mice is not associated with decreased monocyte migration into the wound.     

Comparison between true and partial hemifacial hypertrophy.

Hemifacial hypertrophy (HFH) is rare and characterized by unilateral enlargement of the head and teeth. Hemifacial hypertrophy is classified as true HFH (THFH) with unilateral enlargement of the viscerocranium, and partial HFH (PHFH) in which not all structures are enlarged. We present a case of THFH and compare and contrast it with a case of PHFH. Hemifacial hypertrophy may cover a wide spectrum of defects or may involve only muscle or bone. Myohyperplasia, reported previously as a separate syndrome, may actually represent a forme fruste of PHFH or THFH. The PHFH patient lead a healthy, normal life without significant psychosocial problems and was reluctant to accept his deformity. Contrastingly, the THFH patient had significant social stigma and compromised health together with major aesthetic morbidity. Treatment planning in THFH is arduous and involves multiple modalities. Therefore, it is imperative to differentiate THFH and PHFH for better understanding and management of the condition.     

Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in nonmyelopathic patients--a review of 1,039 cases.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring has been shown to reduce the incidence of new postoperative neurological deficits in scoliosis surgery. However, its usefulness during cervical spine surgery remains a subject of debate. PURPOSE: To determine the utility of intraoperative SSEP monitoring in a specific patient population (those with cervical radiculopathy in the absence of myelopathy) who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,039 nonmyelopathic patients who underwent single or multilevel ACDF surgery. The control group (462 patients) did not have intraoperative SSEP monitoring, whereas the monitored group (577 patients) had continuous intraoperative SSEP monitoring performed. OUTCOME MEASURE: A new postoperative neurological deficit. METHODS: SSEP tracings were reviewed for all 577 patients in the monitored group and all significant signal changes were noted. Medical records were reviewed for all 1,039 patients to determine if any new neurological deficits developed in the immediate postoperative period. RESULTS: None of the patients in the control group had any new postoperative neurological deficits. In the monitored group there were six instances of transient SSEP changes (1 due to suspected carotid artery compression; 5 thought to be due to transient hypotension) which resolved with the appropriate intraoperative intervention (repositioning of retractors; raising the arterial blood pressure). Upon waking up from anesthesia, one patient in the monitored group had a new neurological deficit (partial central cord syndrome) despite normal intraoperative SSEP signals. CONCLUSIONS: ACDF appears to be a safe surgical procedure with a low incidence of iatrogenic neurological injury. Transient SSEP signal changes, which improved with intraoperative interventions, were not associated with new postoperative neurological deficits. An intraoperative neurological deficit is possible despite normal SSEP signals.