Detection of Intra-Articular Screw Penetration of Proximal Humerus Fractures: Is Postoperative Computed Tomography the Necessary Imaging Modality?

Accuracy of detecting burst of the lateral wall in intertrochanteric hip fractures with plain radiographs: Is postoperative CT necessary?

Background

Postoperative burst of the lateral femoral wall is thought to be the main predictor of reoperation for intertrochanteric fractures, which is routinely evaluated using plain radiographs. We retrospectively compared computed tomography (CT) scans and radiographs regarding the ability to detect burst of the lateral wall. We also investigated whether intramedullary nails may cause iatrogenic burst of the lateral wall.

Methods

From January 2010 to December 2021, patients aged 65 years and older who undergone intertrochanteric fractures treated with the proximal femoral nail antirotation 2 (PFNA-Ⅱ) were included. The incidence of burst of the lateral wall was evaluated with two different imaging modalities by two observers. Two rounds of evaluation were performed: (1) with plain radiographs alone; and (2) with CT scans combined with radiographs. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement (κ value) for evaluation of the lateral wall burst was assessed.

Results

A total of 1507 patients were included (362 males and 1145 females). Compared with radiographs alone (12.0 %, 181/1507 patients), a higher rate of lateral wall burst was found by CT scans combined with radiographs (72.9 %, 1098/1507 patients) for observer 1 at first reading (P < 0.001). Similar results were seen in other evaluations. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was substantial for radiographs alone (κ, 0.659-0.727) and almost perfect for CT scans combined with radiographs (κ, 0.847-0.926).

Conclusions

Computed tomography combined with radiographs is superior to radiographs alone for detecting burst of the lateral wall after intertrochanteric fracture fixation. Additionally, PFNA-Ⅱ could cause iatrogenic burst of the lateral wall for intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly.

Periarticular screws: what's in and what's out of the joint?

Periarticular hardware placement can be challenging and a source of angst for orthopaedic surgeons due to fear of penetrating the articular surface and causing undue harm to the joint. In recent years, many surgeons have turned to computed tomography (CT) and other intraoperative or postoperative modalities to determine whether hardware is truly extraarticular in areas of complex anatomy. Yet, these adjuncts are expensive, time consuming, and often unnecessary given the advancement in understanding of intraoperative fluoroscopy. We present a review article with the goal of empowering surgeons to leave the operating room, with fluoroscopy alone, assured that all hardware is beneath the articular surface that is being worked on. By understanding a simple concept, surgeons can extrapolate the information in this article to any joint and bony surface in the body. While targeted at both residents and surgeons who may not have completed a trauma fellowship, this review can benefit all orthopaedic surgeons alike.

[Research progress on intra-articular screw penetration in proximal humeral fracture treated with locking plate]

Objective

To review the research progress on intra-articular screw penetration in proximal humeral fracture treated with locking plate.

Methods

The domestic and foreign literature about the proximal humeral fracture treated with locking plate was extensively reviewed. The incidence of screw penetration and risk factors were summarized from both primary and secondary screw penetrations, and the reasons of the intra-articular screw penetration and the technical solutions to avoid the penetration were analyzed.

Results

The incidence of intra-articular screw penetration is about 11%-30%, which includes primary and secondary screw penetrations. The primary screw penetration is related to improper operation, inaccurate measurement, and "Steinmetz solid" effect, which results in inadequate fluoroscopy and blind zone. The secondary screw penetration is related to the loss of reduction and varus, collapse, and necrosis of the humeral head. The risk factors for intra-articular screw penetration include the bone mass density, the fracture type, the quality of fracture reduction, the applied location, number, and length of the plate and screws, and whether medial column buttress is restored. Improved fracture reduction, understanding the geometric distribution of screws, good intraoperative fluoroscopy, and reconstruction of medial column buttress stability are the key points for success.

Conclusion

The risk of the intra-articular screw penetration in the proximal humeral fractures treated with locking plates is still high. Follow-up studies need to further clarify the cause and mechanism of screw penetration, and the risk factors that lead to screw penetration, in order to effectively prevent the occurrence of this complication.