New fracture patterns distal epiphysis femur in youth: Update of current classification

INTRO

Distal growth core fractures of the femur are the third most common fracture in patients older than 10 years. These fractures result from high-energy trauma and have a high risk of evolving into growth disorders. The classification most used to describe these types of fractures is that described by Salter and Harris. Special clinical cases often occur in clinical practice that are not described in the classifications used. In our study, we analyzed and further focused on new fracture patterns related to pediatric epiphyseal detachments not easily described by the normal classifications currently used in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2020 to December 2022, we treated 2 male clinical cases with epiphyseal detachments of the distal femur that could not be classified according to the Salter and Harris classification. age of the patients was 10 and 11 years, respectively; for both patients, the traumatic mechanism was a direct trauma to the right knee at high speed using an electric scooter; Serious clinical and radiographic follow-ups were performed at month 1, month 3, month 6, month 12, and month 24 from the date of surgery.

DISCUSSION

Distal femur fractures represent a challenge for the orthopedics because they have a high incidence of complications. In our experience, there has been an increase in this type of injury caused using recently developed electric vehicles, which can reach considerable speeds. The Salter Harris classification is among the most widely used for fractures involving the growth physis. This classification proved to be rather limiting in the present case, so we decided to classify the fracture as 'Salter Harris III equivalent'.

CONCLUSIONS

The fracture examined is a very rare fracture of the distal femur and is not reflected in the classifications currently in use. The patient presented an excellent clinical and radiographic result after surgery with the presence of a shortening of the affected femur in relation to the contralateral one, which suggests that the growth deficit may continue and increase over time for which reason future studies until skeletal maturity will be necessary to quantify the damage to the growth physis.

Rhizarthrosis Bilateral – Trapeziectomy Versus Arthroplasty with Dual Mobility Prosthesis: Case Report

Background: The trapeziometacarpal joint is the second joint affected by osteoarthritis in the hand. The symptoms and clinical presentation are characterized by pain, limited range of motion, muscle weakness with loss of strength, bone deformities and disability. The symptomatology often is not related to the radiographic grade of osteoarthrosis. Therefore, in addition to the radiographic stage of the disease, the treatment is influenced by multiple variables such as age, functional requirement, symptoms and stability of the joint. Objective: There are several options of surgical treatments. Although trapeziectomy and its technical variation is the gold standard for treatment, prosthesis replacement can be used with good results. This case report discusses the case of a 70-year-old male who presents bilateral trapeziometacarpal osteoarthrosis treated with two different techniques with different timelines. Methods: The patient underwent a trapeziectomy on the right hand and arthroplasty with implant on the left. In both TMC the stage of the disease was grade III according to the Eaton Litter classification and the results were evaluated according to clinical and radiographic criteria. The NPRS pain scale and the Quick Dash functional scale were used in subsequent checks. The mean follow-up was 12 months. Conclusion: There were no significantly different results with respect to pain, activities of daily living, mobility or strength. No complications were observed. The patient is satisfied with the treatment having found a better and earlier resumption of daily activity of the left hand treated with prosthesis replacement.

Revision of a Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Cup Using a Dual Mobility Component: Is It a Reasonable Option?

Revision of large-diameter, monoblock acetabular components for both hip resurfacing arthroplasty and metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is correlated to a high amount of complications. For this reason, performing a limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component exchange has been proposed in order to limit these complications. Although DM bearing offers an easy solution avoiding the intraoperative and time-associated complications, concern about polyethylene wear and stability remains due to the difference regarding the design, the coverage angle and the clearance of the two implants. In order to evaluate the performance of this new solution with the new material to prevent the possibility of failure it is essential to conduct a review of the literature A qualitative systematic review of the literature has been conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus for English and French articles between January 2000 and October 2019 was performed, with the primary objective of finding articles about dual mobility bearing coupling with large metal-on-metal cup in the case of hip revision procedure. Various combinations of the key words were used in the search strategy. Thirteen articles with DM bearing mated with MoM cup were analyzed. Of the 130 hip revisions selected, with a follow-up from 6 to 53 months, there were a total of 14 with complications (10.77%): four true dislocations (3.08%); six intra-prosthetic dislocations (IPD, 4.6%), two of which presented plastic deformation and polyethylene wear; four other complications (3.08%), included a cup osteolysis, a clicking noise, a superficial infection and a periprosthetic fracture. All the mentioned true dislocations occurred during the first month while IPDs appeared during the first two years from the index revision. In conclusion, according to the literature analyzed, we can stress that the concerns and doubts about mating a DM bearing with large MoM cup cannot be dissolved. It has been pointed out that a DM bearing is not designed for a MoM cup; it is not mechanically tested on MoM cups, which presents different clearance and coverage angles. Predictable complications may occur, such as IPD, polyethylene wear and true dislocation. These complications have been reported at an even higher rate than they were in the eighties, when the first generation of DM implants were of a lower quality of polyethylene and the characteristic of the design was less optimal than modern ones.