Numerous surgical techniques have been proposed and described in the treatment of Kienbock's disease. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the current evidence and trends in the management of Lichtman Stages IIIA and IIIB.

We performed a literature search using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies evaluating treatment outcomes in Stages IIIA and IIIB of Lichtman's Classification. We included studies between 2008 and 2018, and studies with Sackett levels one to four inclusively. We excluded studies that included skeletally immature patients, non-English papers, other hand diseases, and those without evidence of significance testing. We evaluated the quality of each included study using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES) and our outcomes of interest included Pain, ROM, Grip Strength, and Functionality.

We identified 1489 titles from the various databases. 83 papers remained after the subtraction of duplicates and abstract review. Following full-text review of the remaining 83 papers, 43 more studies were excluded and 40 papers met the criteria for SEQES assessment. There were six low-quality papers and 34 moderate-quality papers. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the variability in how outcomes were reported. A variety of surgical options were presented including decompressions, joint-levelling procedures, revascularization techniques, fusions, arthroplasty and novel combinations of these techniques. These were mainly retrospective and/or cohort studies. Most of these papers had small sample sizes and required further studies. Nonetheless, all of these treatment modalities were shown to offer pain relief and some degree of return of function ranging from minimal improvement to return to normal daily functions.

This systematic review has revealed a significant weakness in the literature and a lack of strong evidence in the treatment of Stages IIIA and IIIB of Kienbock's disease. The unknown etiology of this disease and its rarity make it very difficult to produce randomized controlled trials and appropriately-sized studies. As such, there is currently insufficient data to determine a superior treatment modality from another. Furthermore, the fact that most, if not all, surgical interventions produced positive results may also be a consequence of publication bias.

Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) usage is increasing owing to expanded surgical indications, better implant designs, and improved long-term survival. Correct humeral implant positioning has been shown to diminish stem loading in vitro, and radiographic loosening in in the long-term. Replication of the native elbow centre of rotation is thought to restore normal muscle moment arms and has been suggested to improve elbow strength and function. While much of the focus has been on humeral component positioning, little is known about the effect of positioning of the ulnar stem on post-operative range of motion and clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of the sagittal alignment and positioning of the humeral and ulnar components on the functional outcomes after TEA.

Between 2003 and 2016, 173 semi-constrained TEAs (Wright-Tornier Latitude/Latitude EV, Memphis, TN, USA) were performed at our institution, and our preliminary analysis includes 46 elbows in 41 patients (39 female, 7 male). Patients were excluded if they had severe elbow deformity precluding reliable measurement, experienced a major complication related to an ipsilateral upper limb procedure, or underwent revision TEA. For each elbow, saggital alignment was compared pre- and post-operatively. A best fit circle of the trochlea and capitellum was drawn, with its centre representing the rotation axis. Ninety degree tangent lines from the intramedullary axes of the ulna and humerus, and from the olecranon tip to the centre of rotation were drawn and measured relative to the rotation axis, representing the ulna posterior offset, humerus offset, and ulna proximal offset, respectively. In addition, we measured the ulna stem angle (angle subtended by the implant and the intramedullary axis of the ulna), as well as radial neck offset (the length of a 90o tangent line from the intramedullary axis of the radial neck and the centre of rotation) in patients with retained or replaced radial heads. Our primary outcome measure was the quickDASH score recorded at the latest follow-up for each patient. Our secondary outcome measures were postoperative flexion, extension, pronation and supination measured at the same timepoints. Each variable was tested for linear correlation with the primary and secondary outcome measures using the Pearson two-tailed test.

At an average follow-up of 6.8 years (range 2–14 years), there was a strong positive correlation between anterior radial neck offset and the quickDASH (r=0.60, p=0.001). There was also a weak negative correlation between the posterior offset of the ulnar component and the qDASH (r=0.39, p=0.031), and a moderate positive correlation between the change in humeral offset and elbow supination (r=0.41, p=0.044). The ulna proximal offset and ulna stem angle were not correlated with either the primary, or secondary outcome measures.

When performing primary TEA with radial head retention, or replacement, care should be taken to ensure that the ulnar component is correctly positioned such that intramedullary axis of the radial neck lines up with the centre of elbow rotation, as this strongly correlates with better function and less pain after surgery.

Glenoid replacement is a manual bone removal procedure that can be difficult for surgeons to perform. Surgical robotics have been utilized successfully in hip and knee orthopaedic procedures but there are no systems currently available in the shoulder. These robots tend to have low adoption rates by surgeons due to high costs, disruption of surgical workflow and added complexity. As well, these systems typically use optical tracking which needs a constant line-of-sight which is not conducive to a crowded operating room. The purpose of this work was developing and testing a surgical robotic system for glenoid replacement.

The new surgical system utilizes flexible components that tether a Stewart Platform robot to the patient through a patient specific 3D printed mount. As the robot moves relative to the bone, reaction loads from the flexible components bending are measured by a load cell allowing the robot to “feel” its way around. As well, a small bone burring tool was attached to the robot to facilitate the necessary bone removal. The surgical system was tested against a fellowship-trained surgeon performing standard surgical techniques. Both the robot and the surgeon performed glenoid replacement on two different scapula analogs: standard anatomy and posterior glenoid edge wear referred to as a Walch B2. Six of each scapula model was tested by the robot and the surgeon. The surgeon created a pre-operative plan for both scapula analogs as a target for both methodologies. CT scans of the post-operative cemented implants were compared to the pre-operative target and implant position and orientation errors were measured.

For the standard shoulder analogs the net implant position and orientation errors were 1.47 ± 0.48 mm and 2.57 ± 2.30° for the robot and 1.61 ± 0.29 mm and 5.04 ± 1.92° for the surgeon respectively. For the B2 shoulders, the net implant position and orientation errors were 2.16 ± 0.36 mm and 2.89 ± 0.88° for the robot and 3.01 ± 0.42 mm and 4.54 ± 1.49° for the surgeon respectively.

The new tracking system was shown to be able to match or outperform the surgeon in most metrics. The surgeon tended to have difficulty gauging the depth needed as well as the face rotation of the implant. This was not surprising as the reaming tool used by the surgeon obscures the view of the anatomy and the spherical cutter hinders the ability to index the tool. The robot utilized only one surgical tool, the bone burr, precluding the need for multiple instruments used by the surgeon to prepare the glenoid bone bed. The force-space navigation method can be generalized to other joints, however, further work is needed to validate the system using cadaveric specimens.

Purpose

Conservative treatment of minimally displaced distal radius fractures (DFR) remains controversial. Circumferential casting (CC) in the acute setting is believed to supply superior support compared to splinting, but is generally cautioned due to the limited capacity of a cast to accommodate ongoing limb swelling possibly leading to complications. However, there is no conclusive data on which to base these beliefs. Moreover, the appropriate management of cast complications while minimizing risk to fracture integrity remains unclear.

This retrospective study of distal radius fractures treated conservatively with circumferential cast in the acute setting aims to: A. Determine demographic, fracture dependant or management risk factors for CC complications. B. Determine the natural history for both patients with CC and those with CC necessitating cast modification.