First Web Space Soft Tissue Release: A New Sequential Approach

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 184-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod K Panchbhavi ◽  
Saul G Trevino
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 2525-2531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Boettner ◽  
Lisa Renner ◽  
Danik Arana Narbarte ◽  
Claus Egidy ◽  
Martin Faschingbauer

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Ames ◽  
Justin S. Smith ◽  
Justin K. Scheer ◽  
Christopher I. Shaffrey ◽  
Virginie Lafage ◽  
...  

Object Cervical spine osteotomies are powerful techniques to correct rigid cervical spine deformity. Many variations exist, however, and there is no current standardized system with which to describe and classify cervical osteotomies. This complicates the ability to compare outcomes across procedures and studies. The authors' objective was to establish a universal nomenclature for cervical spine osteotomies to provide a common language among spine surgeons. Methods A proposed nomenclature with 7 anatomical grades of increasing extent of bone/soft tissue resection and destabilization was designed. The highest grade of resection is termed the major osteotomy, and an approach modifier is used to denote the surgical approach(es), including anterior (A), posterior (P), anterior-posterior (AP), posterior-anterior (PA), anterior-posterior-anterior (APA), and posterior-anterior-posterior (PAP). For cases in which multiple grades of osteotomies were performed, the highest grade is termed the major osteotomy, and lower-grade osteotomies are termed minor osteotomies. The nomenclature was evaluated by 11 reviewers through 25 different radiographic clinical cases. The review was performed twice, separated by a minimum 1-week interval. Reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa coefficients. Results The average intrarater reliability was classified as “almost perfect agreement” for the major osteotomy (0.89 [range 0.60–1.00]) and approach modifier (0.99 [0.95–1.00]); it was classified as “moderate agreement” for the minor osteotomy (0.73 [range 0.41–1.00]). The average interrater reliability for the 2 readings was the following: major osteotomy, 0.87 (“almost perfect agreement”); approach modifier, 0.99 (“almost perfect agreement”); and minor osteotomy, 0.55 (“moderate agreement”). Analysis of only major osteotomy plus approach modifier yielded a classification that was “almost perfect” with an average intrarater reliability of 0.90 (0.63–1.00) and an interrater reliability of 0.88 and 0.86 for the two reviews. Conclusions The proposed cervical spine osteotomy nomenclature provides the surgeon with a simple, standard description of the various cervical osteotomies. The reliability analysis demonstrated that this system is consistent and directly applicable. Future work will evaluate the relationship between this system and health-related quality of life metrics.


2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 250-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-J??rg Trnka ◽  
Stefan Gerhard Hofstaetter

Author(s):  
Mohammadreza Minator Sajjadi ◽  
Mohammad Ali Okhovatpour ◽  
Yaser Safaei ◽  
Behrooz Faramarzi ◽  
Reza Zandi

AbstractThe aim of this study was to assess the predictive value of the femoral intermechanical-anatomical angle (IMA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA), femorotibial or varus angle (VA), and joint line convergence angle (CA) in predicting the stage of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) of varus knee. We evaluated 229 patients with osteoarthritic varus knee who underwent primary TKA, prospectively. They were categorized in three groups based on the extent of medial soft tissue release that performed during TKA Group 1, osteophytes removal and release of the deep MCL and posteromedial capsule (stage 1); Group 2, the release of the semimembranosus (stage 2); and Group 3, release of the superficial MCL (stage 3) and/or the pes anserinus (stage 4). We evaluated the preoperative standing coronal hip-knee-ankle alignment view to assessing the possible correlations between the knee angles and extent of soft tissue release. A significant difference was observed between the three groups in terms of preoperative VA, CA, and MPTA by using the Kruskal–Wallis test. The extent of medial release increased with increasing VA and CA as well as decreasing MPTA in preoperative long-leg standing radiographs. Finally, a patient with a preoperative VA larger than 19, CA larger than 6, or MPTA smaller than 81 would need a stage 3 or 4 of MCL release. The overall results showed that the VA and MPTA could be useful in predicting the extent of medial soft tissue release during TKA of varus knee.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1165-1172
Author(s):  
Philippe Van Overschelde ◽  
Vera Pinskerova ◽  
Peter P. Koch ◽  
Christophe Fornasieri ◽  
Sandro Fucentese

Background: To date, there is still no consensus on what soft tissues must be preserved and what structures can be safely released during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a medially stabilized implant. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of a progressive selective release of the medial and lateral soft tissues in a knee implanted with a medially stabilized prosthesis. Method: Six cadaveric fresh-frozen full leg specimens were tested. In each case, kinematic pattern and mediolateral laxity were measured in three stages: firstly, prior to implantation; secondly, after the implantation of the trial components, but before any soft tissue release; and thirdly, progressively as soft tissue was released with the trial implant in place. The incremental impact of each selective release on knee balance was then analyzed. Results: In all cases sagittal stability was not affected by the progressive release of the lateral soft tissue envelope. It was possible to perform progressive lateral release provided the anterior one-third of the iliotibial band (ITB) remained intact. Progressive medial release could be performed on the medial side provided the anterior fibers of the superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) remained intact. Conclusion: The medially conforming implant remains stable provided the anterior fibers of sMCL and the anterior fibers of the ITB remain intact. The implant’s sagittal stability is mainly dependent on its medial ball-in-socket design.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document