Slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE) is one
of the known causes of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).
The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of FAI cases
considered to be secondary to SUFE-like deformities. We performed a case–control study on 96 hips (75 patients: mean
age 38 years (15.4 to 63.5)) that had been surgically treated for
FAI between July 2005 and May 2011. Three independent observers
measured the lateral view head–neck index (LVHNI) to detect any
SUFE-like deformity on lateral hip radiographs taken in 45° flexion,
45° abduction and 30° external rotation. A control group of 108
healthy hips in 54 patients was included for comparison (mean age
36.5 years (24.3 to 53.9). The impingement group had a mean LVHNI of 7.6% (16.7% to -2%) Our results suggest that SUFE is one of the primary aetiological
factors for cam-type FAI. Cite this article:
The significance of weight in the indications
for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is unclear. Our hypothesis was
that weight does not affect the long-term rate of survival of UKRs. We undertook a retrospective study of 212 UKRs at a mean follow-up
of 12 years (7 to 22). The patients were distributed according to
body mass index (BMI; <
The ten-year rates of survival were similar in the two weight
subgroups (≥ 82 kg: 93.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66.5 to
96.3); <
82 kg: 92.5% (95% CI 82.5 to 94.1)) and also in the
two BMI subgroups (≥ 30 kg/m2: 92% (95% CI 82.5 to 95.3);
<
30 kg/m2: 94% (95% CI 78.4 to 95.9)). Multimodal
regression analysis revealed that weight plays a part in reducing
the risk of revision with a relative risk of 0.387, although this
did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.662). The results
relating weight and BMI to the clinical outcome were not statistically
significant. Thus, this study confirms that weight does not influence
the long-term rate of survival of UKR. Cite this article:
We retrospectively analysed the clinical results of 30 patients with injuries of the sternoclavicular joint at a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. A closed reduction was attempted in 14 cases. It was successful in only five of ten dislocations, and failed in all four epiphyseal disruptions. A total of 25 patients underwent surgical reduction, in 18 cases in conjunction with a stabilisation procedure. At a mean follow-up of 60 months, four patients were lost to follow-up. The functional results in the remainder were satisfactory, and 18 patients were able to resume their usual sports activity at the same level. There was no statistically significant difference between epiphyseal disruption and sternoclavicular dislocation (p >
0.05), but the functional scores (Simple Shoulder Test, Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand, and Constant scores) were better when an associated stabilisation procedure had been performed rather than reduction alone (p = 0.05, p = 0.04 and p = 0.07, respectively). We recommend meticulous pre-operative clinical assessment with CT scans. In sternoclavicular dislocation managed within the first 48 hours and with no sign of mediastinal complication, a closed reduction can be attempted, although this was unsuccessful in half of our cases. A control CT scan is mandatory. In all other cases, and particularly if epiphyseal disruption is suspected, we recommend open reduction with a stabilisation procedure by costaclavicular cerclage or tenodesis. The use of a Kirschner wire should be avoided.
We describe a 46-year-old woman who presented at intervals of seven years with osteonecrosis of the outer end of both clavicles. The clinical, radiological features and the appearances of the bone scans are described. Although the condition may be confused with osteolysis there is a clear histological distinction between the two conditions. If the symptoms fail to respond to conservative treatment, excision of the outer end of the clavicle is recommended.
