The sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) is a pivotal articulation in the linked system of the upper limb girdle, providing load-bearing in compression while resisting displacement in tension or distraction at the manubrium sterni. The SCJ and acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) both have a small surface area of contact protected by an intra-articular fibrocartilaginous disc and are supported by strong extrinsic and intrinsic capsular ligaments. The function of load-sharing in the upper limb by bulky periscapular and thoracobrachial muscles is extremely important to the longevity of both joints. Ligamentous and capsular laxity changes with age, exposing both joints to greater strain, which may explain the rising incidence of arthritis in both with age. The incidence of arthritis in the SCJ is less than that in the ACJ, suggesting that the extrinsic ligaments of the SCJ provide greater stability than the coracoclavicular ligaments of the ACJ.

Instability of the SCJ is rare and can be difficult to distinguish from medial clavicular physeal or metaphyseal fracture-separation: cross-sectional imaging is often required. The distinction is important because the treatment options and outcomes of treatment are dissimilar, whereas the treatment and outcomes of ACJ separation and fracture of the lateral clavicle can be similar. Proper recognition and treatment of traumatic instability is vital as these injuries may be life-threatening. Instability of the SCJ does not always require surgical intervention. An accurate diagnosis is required before surgery can be considered, and we recommend the use of the Stanmore instability triangle. Most poor outcomes result from a failure to recognise the underlying pathology.

There is a natural reluctance for orthopaedic surgeons to operate in this area owing to unfamiliarity with, and the close proximity of, the related vascular structures, but the interposed sternohyoid and sternothyroid muscles are rarely injured and provide a clear boundary to the medial retroclavicular space, as well as an anatomical barrier to unsafe intervention.

This review presents current concepts of instability of the SCJ, describes the relevant surgical anatomy, provides a framework for diagnosis and management, including physiotherapy, and discusses the technical challenges of operative intervention.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:721–31.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is indicated for many patients with pain and/or instability of the lumbar spine. We performed 36 PLIF procedures using the patient’s lumbar spinous process and laminae, which were inserted as a bone graft between two vertebral bodies without using a cage. The mean lumbar lordosis and mean disc height to vertebral body ratio were restored and preserved after surgery. There were no serious complications.

These results suggest that this procedure is safe and effective.

Surgical decision-making in lumbar spinal stenosis involves assessment of clinical parameters and the severity of the radiological stenosis. We suspected that surgeons based surgical decisions more on dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) than on the morphology of the dural sac. We carried out a survey among members of three European spine societies. The axial T2-weighted MR images from ten patients with varying degrees of DSCA and morphological grades according to the recently described morphological classification of lumbar spinal stenosis, with DSCA values disclosed in half the assessed images, were used for evaluation. We provided a clinical scenario to accompany the images, which were shown to 142 responding physicians, mainly orthopaedic surgeons but also some neurosurgeons and others directly involved in treating patients with spinal disorders. As the primary outcome we used the number of respondents who would proceed to surgery for a given DSCA or morphological grade. Substantial agreement among the respondents was observed, with severe or extreme stenosis as defined by the morphological grade leading to surgery. This decision was not dependent on the number of years in practice, medical density or specialty. Disclosing the DSCA did not alter operative decision-making. In all, 40 respondents (29%) had prior knowledge of the morphological grading system, but their responses showed no difference from those who had not. This study suggests that the participants were less influenced by DSCA than by the morphological appearance of the dural sac.

Classifying lumbar spinal stenosis according to morphology rather than surface measurements appears to be consistent with current clinical practice.

There are many causes of paraspinal muscle weakness which give rise to the dropped-head syndrome. In the upper cervical spine the central portion of the spinal cord innervates the cervical paraspinal muscles. Dropped-head syndrome resulting from injury to the central spinal cord at this level has not previously been described. We report two patients who were treated acutely for this condition. Both presented with weakness in the upper limbs and paraspinal cervical musculature after a fracture of C2. Despite improvement in the strength of the upper limbs, the paraspinal muscle weakness persisted in both patients. One ultimately underwent cervicothoracic fusion to treat her dropped-head syndrome.

While the cause of the dropped-head syndrome cannot be definitively ascribed to the injuries to the spinal cord, this pattern is consistent with the known patho-anatomical mechanisms of both injury to the central spinal cord and dropped-head syndrome.

Traumatic unilateral facet dislocation of the lumbosacral junction without fracture or with non-displaced fractures of adjacent vertebrae is extremely rare. We describe a case of a young male who sustained a unilateral facet dislocation of the lumbosacral junction in a motor vehicle accident. The unusual features of this case include an unremarkable physical and neurological examination on presentation and absence of other substantial vertebral or extra-vertebral injuries.

We evaluated the maturation of grafted bone in cases of successful fusion after a one- or two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using interbody carbon cages. We carried out a five-year prospective longitudinal radiological evaluation of patients using plain radiographs and CT scans. One year after surgery, 117 patients with an early successful fusion were selected for inclusion in the study. Radiological evaluation of interbody bone fusion was graded on a 4-point scale. The mean grades of all radiological and CT assessments increased in the five years after surgery, and differences compared to the previous time interval were statistically significant for three or four years after surgery. Because the grafted bone continues to mature for three years after surgery, the success of a fusion should not be assessed until at least three years have elapsed. There were no significant differences in the longitudinal patterns of grafted bone maturity between iliac bone and local bone. However, iliac bone grafting may remodel faster than local bone.

The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion (presacral ALIF) is not widely reported, particularly with regard to the mid-term outcome. This prospective study describes the clinical outcomes, complications and rates of fusion at a follow-up of two years for 26 patients who underwent this minimally invasive technique along with further stabilisation using pedicle screws. The fusion was single-level at the L5-S1 spinal segment in 17 patients and two-level at L4–5 and L5-S1 in the other nine. The visual analogue scale for pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores were recorded pre-operatively and during the 24-month study period. The evaluation of fusion was by thin-cut CT scans at six and 12 months, and flexion-extension plain radiographs at six, 12 and 24 months. Significant reductions in pain and disability occurred as early as three weeks postoperatively and were maintained. Fusion was achieved in 22 of 24 patients (92%) at 12 months and in 23 patients (96%) at 24 months. One patient (4%) with a pseudarthrosis underwent successful revision by augmentation of the posterolateral fusion mass through a standard open midline approach.

There were no severe adverse events associated with presacral ALIF, which in this series demonstrated clinical outcomes and fusion rates comparable with those of reports of other methods of interbody fusion.

We evaluated the efficacy of anterior fusion alone compared with combined anterior and posterior fusion for the treatment of degenerative cervical kyphosis. Anterior fusion alone was undertaken in 15 patients (group A) and combined anterior and posterior fusion was carried out in a further 15 (group B). The degree and maintenance of the angle of correction, the incidence of graft subsidence, degeneration at adjacent levels and the rate of fusion were assessed radiologically and clinically and the rate of complications recorded. The mean angle of correction in group B was significantly higher than in group A (p = 0.0009). The mean visual analogue scale and the neck disability index in group B was better than in group A (p = 0.043, 0.0006). The mean operation time and the blood loss in B were greater than in group A (p < 0.0001, 0.037). Pseudarthrosis, subsidence of the cage, and problems related to the hardware were more prevalent in group A than in group B (p = 0.034, 0.025, 0.013).

Although the combined procedure resulted in a longer operating time and greater blood loss than with anterior fusion alone, our results suggest that for the treatment of degenerative cervical kyphosis the combined approach leads to better maintenance of sagittal alignment, a higher rate of fusion, a lower incidence of complications and a better clinical outcome.

We describe a modified technique of micro-decompression of the lumbar spine involving the use of an operating microscope, a malleable retractor and a high-speed burr, which allows decompression to be performed on both sides of the spine through a unilateral, hemi-laminectomy approach. The first 100 patients to be treated with this technique have been evaluated prospectively using a visual analogue score for sciatica and back pain, the MacNab criteria for patient satisfaction, and functional assessment with the Oswestry Disability Index.

After a period of follow-up from 12 months to six years and four months, sciatica had improved in 90 patients and back pain in 84 patients. Their result was graded as good or excellent by 82 patients according to the MacNab criteria, and 75 patients had subjective improvement in their walking distance. Late instability developed in four patients.

Lumbar micro-decompression has proved to be safe, with few complications. Postoperative instability requiring fusion was uncommon, and less than using traditional approaches in published series.

In a study on ten fresh human cadavers we examined the change in the height of the intervertebral disc space, the angle of lordosis and the geometry of the facet joints after insertion of intervertebral total disc replacements. SB III Charité prostheses were inserted at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1. The changes studied were measured using computer navigation sofware applied to CT scans before and after instrumentation.

After disc replacement the mean lumbar disc height was doubled (p < 0.001). The mean angle of lordosis and the facet joint space increased by a statistically significant extent (p < 0.005 and p = 0.006, respectively). By contrast, the mean facet joint overlap was significantly reduced (p < 0.001). Our study indicates that the increase in the intervertebral disc height after disc replacement changes the geometry at the facet joints. This may have clinical relevance.

This review discusses the causes, outcome and prevention of whiplash injury, which costs the economy of the United Kingdom approximately £3.64 billion per annum. Most cases occur as the result of rear-end vehicle collisions at speeds of less than 14 mph. Patients present with neck pain and stiffness, occipital headache, thoracolumbar back pain and upper-limb pain and paraesthesia. Over 66% make a full recovery and 2% are permanently disabled. The outcome can be predicted in 70% after three months.

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (sd 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (sd 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); ‘good’ global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52).

The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes.

Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons.

Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications.

A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left in situ.

Procedures performed at the incorrect anatomical site are commonly perceived as being relatively rare. However, they can be a devastating event for patients and doctors. Evidence from the United Kingdom and North America suggests that wrong-site, wrong-procedure and wrong-patient events occur more commonly than we think. Furthermore, their incidence may be increasing as NHS Trusts increase the volume and complexity of procedures undertaken in order to cope with increasing demands on the system. In previous studies from North America orthopaedic surgery has been found to be the worst-offending specialty.

In this paper we review the existing literature on wrong-site surgery and analyse data from the National Patient Safety Agency and NHS Litigation Authority on 292 cases of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales. Orthopaedic surgery accounted for 87 (29.8%) of these cases. In the year 2006 to 2007, the rate of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales was highest in orthopaedic surgery, in which the estimated rate was 1:105 712 cases.

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.