Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5181_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
89 Мб
Скачать
9 The Shoulder
223
Examination
The hallmark of GIRD is decreased shoulder inter­nal rotation in the throwing side compared to the contralateral shoulder. As mentioned earlier, the throwing side almost always has an increase in external rotation and a decrease in internal rotation when compared to the opposite side; however, the total arc of motion should remain the same. In GIRD, the total arc of rotation is reduced due to the pathologic loss of internal rotation. Cross-body adduction may also be limited. Shoulder rotation should be measured with the arm in 90° of abduc­tion. Pain may be elicited with forced shoulder abduction and external rotation. Scapular mechan­ics should be carefully visualized to identify any winging or dyskinesia. The Jerk and posterior load-and-shift tests are useful for identifying any posterior labral pathology.
Dierential Diagnosis
Labral pathology and rotator cuff impingement should be considered. Patients with increased range of motion should be evaluated for multidi­rectional instability. Physeal injuries should be ruled out in younger throwing athletes.
Imaging
A standard shoulder X-ray series should be used to evaluate for physeal injury in adolescent throwers, often seen as widening of the physis. A Bennett lesion, or posteroinferior extra-articular ossication, may be seen on the axillary radio­graph. The axillary may also reveal glenoid retro­version. An MRI or MRA is useful to evaluate for advanced labral pathology, and specically an MRI with the arm in the abduction external rota­tion (ABER) position may be useful to evaluate for internal impingement.
Treatment
Most patients will be successfully treated nonop­eratively with a focus on physical therapy. Strengthening the lower extremities, core, scapu­lar stabilizers, and rotator cuff is crucial to improve the transfer of energy for throwing and to take stress off the shoulder. Surgical interven­tion is generally reserved for patients with more advanced pathology.
Superior Labrum andBiceps Tendon Pathology
The long head of the biceps tendon is intimately associated with the superior labrum, as it inserts into the superior labrum and supraglenoid tuber­cle. Conditions associated with this complex can range from biceps tendinitis to acute or chronic SLAP tear. Injuries generally occur in athletes with repetitive overhead activities such as throw­ers, volleyball players, and swimmers. Alternatively, acute SLAP tears may occur after single traumatic events that involve traction or compression to the shoulder. Classication of SLAP tears is based on the amount of labral or biceps tendon involvement and the displacement of the injured structure.
History
Patients may complain of pain associated with loss of throwing velocity and stamina. The pain is localized deep in the shoulder joint and may radi­ate along the proximal biceps tendon. The patient may notice painful shoulder crepitus with throwing and shoulder rotation. The onset and degree of pain will depend on the nature of the injury, but even patients sustaining traumatic SLAP tears may present with chronic symptoms associated with activity.
Examination
Pain may be elicited with palpation of the long head of the biceps tendon. In overhead throwers, the range of motion testing often shows increased external rotation and decreased internal rotation as seen in GIRD. Special tests include Speed’s and Yergason’s tests, which are commonly posi­tive for weakness or pain in the setting of biceps tendinitis. The O’Brien’s active-compression test is sensitive for SLAP tears. Strength testing is generally intact.
Dierential Diagnosis
Chronic SLAP tears should be distinguished from GIRD and internal impingement, with one theory suggesting that these are different points in the same pathology spectrum. Rotator cuff ten­donitis should be considered in the setting of
224
E. Michaelson and B. Wiesel
overuse injury. The differential diagnosis in the setting of a traumatic event includes fracture, dis­location, and rotator cuff injury.
Imaging
A standard shoulder series will rule out fracture about the shoulder girdle. An MRI in acute inju­ries or MRA in chronic complaints will demon­strate the presence and morphology of a SLAP tear. Discontinuity of and uid under the superior labrum, tearing of the long head of the biceps ten­don, and displacement of the superior labrum or biceps tendon inferiorly are signs of SLAP tear. MRI is also useful to rule out associated diagno­ses including Bankart or rotator cuff injuries. MRI will show uid in the bicipital groove in the setting of biceps tendinitis. MRI should be evalu­ated with consideration of the history and physi­cal exam, as SLAP tears have been commonly identied on MRI in patients over the age of 30 with asymptomatic shoulders. SLAP tears found on MRI are often not the source of symptoms, and the imaging studies should always be corre­lated with the complaints of the patient.
Treatment
Initial treatment is nonoperative in the form of rest, anti-inammatory medications, and physi­cal therapy. Physical therapy will specically involve strengthening of the rotator cuff and scapular stabilizing musculature, along with pos­terior capsular stretching. Any motion or core decits should be addressed. In overhead athletes with attritional pathology, nonoperative manage­ment and physical therapy should be trialed for at least 3 months prior to surgical intervention. Surgical treatment is indicated if there is a failure of nonoperative measures, and the type of surgi­cal intervention depends on the patient demo­graphics and type of tear. Surgery is generally arthroscopic, with options including SLAP debridement, repair of the labrum and biceps anchor for any unstable lesions, or biceps tenode­sis in patients older than 30–40years. Any other instability lesions can be addressed at the time of arthroscopy. The surgeon should be cautious when repairing the superior labrum of overhead athletes, as many of these patients will demon-
strate posterosuperior labral instability on arthroscopy related to the physiologic adaptation of the “peel-back” phenomenon. Overhead ath­letes should be educated that a SLAP repair will likely limit their external rotation capacity after recovery and return to sport, especially at high levels, is unpredictable.

Multidirectional Instability

Shoulder instability is a complex problem with a spectrum of pathology ranging from atraumatic multidirectional shoulder instability to traumatic, unidirectional shoulder dislocations. Multidirectional instability (MDI) generally refers to shoulder pain and disability caused by excessive laxity of the static shoulder stabilizers (capsule and glenohumeral ligaments).
History
In the overhead athlete (pitchers, swimmers, and volleyball players), MDI can present with activity- related pain, scapular winging, and occa­sionally neurologic symptoms down the arm. Other patients may present with shoulder sublux­ations and dislocations that may easily reduce on their own but are a signicant source of disability and distress to the patient. Patients with general­ized laxity or collagen disorders such as Ehlers­Danlos Syndrome may present with multidirectional instability. In these patients, symptoms often develop bilaterally.
Examination
Scapular winging may be noticeable on inspec­tion during range of motion and strength testing. The active and passive ranges of motion are often excessive compared to the average shoulder. Additionally, the patient may exhibit generalized ligamentous laxity at other joints, as measured with the Beighton score. The sulcus sign (hollow­ing of the subacromial region with downward traction on the arm) may be noticeable and indic­ative of shoulder laxity. Provocative shoulder testing such as the apprehension or posterior apprehension tests may produce pain rather than apprehension. Other patients may have true
9 The Shoulder
225
apprehension. Load-and-shift testing often reveals subluxation or dislocation in multiple directions.
Dierential Diagnosis
The differential diagnosis includes rotator cuff disease, labral pathology, and peripheral nerve injury in the setting of scapular winging.
Imaging
The standard radiographs are typically unremark­able although bony abnormalities such as glenoid hypoplasia can be identied. An MRI arthrogram often does not demonstrate specic structural injuries but can be useful to exclude labral injury (Bankart lesion) and document a patulous capsule.
Treatment
The mainstay of treatment for MDI is rehabilita­tion. Physical therapy is focused on strengthen­ing the dynamic stabilizers of the shoulder girdle, including the rotator cuff and scapular stabilizers. More specialized therapy can be prescribed for athletes and is based on their specic sport and needs. Patients who fail rehabilitation may be candidates for surgical treatment. In most cases, rehabilitation should be continued for at least 6–12 months. Surgical treatment involves decreasing the volume of the shoulder joint by surgically altering the capsule (capsulorrhaphy). Surgery may be performed by arthroscopic or open methods. Arthroscopic methods tend to pre-
serve motion better and may be preferable in ath­letes who would not tolerate minor losses of motion. Open surgical treatments historically have had lower rates of recurrent instability. Criticisms of open procedures such as the infe­rior capsular shift include loss of motion and potential subscapularis deciency.

Summary

The shoulder is a complex structure that provides tremendous versatility and power to the upper extremity. The majority of painful shoulder girdle conditions are readily diagnosed with a thorough history and physical examination. Successful treatment of shoulder girdle problems is often accomplished by following a relatively simple algorithm of rest, activity modication, nonsteroi­dal anti-inammatory drug therapy, and physical therapy. More invasive treatment options, such as arthroscopic and open surgery, are highly effec­tive in appropriately selected patients.

Further Reading

Nicholson G, editor. Orthopaedic knowledge update:
shoulder and elbow. 5th ed. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2020.
Iannotti JP, Williams GR Jr, Miniaci A, Zuckerman
JD. Disorders of the shoulder: diagnosis & manage­ment. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.

The Spine

JosephL.Ferguson andDouglassC.Johnson
10

Introduction

In this chapter, we will separate pathology into the cervical and lumbar regions. In the cervical region, the spinal cord is present, and conditions such as myelopathy and cord compression can occur. These occur less frequently in the lumbar spine due to the spinal cord ending at approxi­mately L1–L2in adults and becoming the cauda equina, a collection of nerve roots traveling dis­tally to their respective foramina. Additionally, the lumbar spine experiences all of the forces of the trunk and torso and is responsible for trans­mitting these forces to the lower extremities. As a result of these forces, disc herniations, degenera­tive disc disease, and spondylolisthesis are more common in the lumbar spine. The thoracic spine, due to the morphology of the facet joints and rib articulations, is relatively immobile when com­pared to the cervical and lumbar regions. Conditions addressed in this chapter occur less frequently in the thoracic region, and as a result will not be discussed. It should be noted that this chapter focuses solely on degenerative issues related to the cervical and lumbar spine. Back
Illustrations by Anna Beaufort.
J. L. Ferguson · D. C. Johnson (*) Department of Orthopedics, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: Joseph.Ferguson@gunet.georgetown.edu;
Douglass.C.Johnson@medstar.net
and neck pain in the setting of recent trauma requires much different evaluation and manage­ment, and as such will not be discussed here.

Cervical Spine

Disorders of the neck are ubiquitous. Signicant problems can arise from various types of arthritis as well as trauma. In each instance, recovery or improvement is the usual outcome, but can some­times be disastrous, even resulting in quadriplegia. Every physician should be familiar with the signs and symptoms of the various diagnostic entities that occur in the cervical spine and be able to iden­tify the serious problems that require immediate attention, such as an unrecognized myelopathy.

History

The location of the pain is the major point to obtain from a patient’s history. The majority of patients complain of localized symptoms in the neck, with and without referral of pain between the scapulae or shoulders. The pain is described as vague, diffuse, axial, non-dermatomal, and poorly localized. The pathogenesis of this type of complaint is attributed to structures innervated by the sinuvertebral nerve or the nerves innervating the paravertebral soft tissues and is generally a localized injury.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 W. F. Postma et al. (eds.), Essentials of Orthopedic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66215-7_10
227
228
J. L. Ferguson and D. C. Johnson
Another group of patients will complain of neck pain with the addition of arm involvement. This arm pain is secondary to nerve root irritation and is termed radicular pain. The degree of nerve root involvement can vary from a monoradiculopathy to multiple levels of involve­ment. It is described as a deep aching, burning, or shooting arm pain, often with associated paresthe­sias. The pathogenesis of radicular pain can derive from soft tissue (herniated disc), bone (spondylo­sis/osteophyte), or a combination of the two— typically referred to as a disc- osteophyte complex.
Finally, a third group of patients will com­plain of symptoms secondary to cervical myelop­athy, which is compression of the spinal cord and usually secondary to degenerative changes, although can be acute secondary to a severe soft disc herniation. The clinical complaints vary considerably. The onset of symptoms usually begins after 50years of age, and males are more often affected. Onset is usually insidious, although there is occasionally a history of trauma. The natural history is that of initial neu­rologic deterioration followed by a plateau period lasting several months. This is referred to as a “stepwise deterioration” in neurologic func­tion. The resulting clinical picture is often one of an incomplete spinal lesion with a patchy distri­bution of decits. Disability varies with the number of vertebrae involved and with the degree of changes at each level.
Common presenting symptoms of cervical myelopathy include numbness and paresthesias in the hands, clumsiness of the ngers, weakness (greatest in the lower extremities), and gait dis­turbances. Patients will often report difculty buttoning shirts, loss of ne motor skills, and worsening handwriting. Abnormalities of mictu­rition are seen in about one-third of cases and indicate more severe cord involvement. Symptoms of radiculopathy can coexist with myelopathy and confuse the clinical picture. Sensory disturbances may show a patchy distri­bution. Spinothalamic tract (pain and tempera­ture) decits may be seen in the upper extremities, the thorax, or the lumbar region and may be in a stocking or glove distribution. Posterior column decits (vibration and proprioception) are more
commonly seen in the feet than in the hands. Usually there is no gross sensory impairment, but a diminished sense of appreciation of light touch and pinprick. A characteristic broad-based, shuf­ing gait may be seen, signaling the onset of functionally signicant deterioration.
It should be noted that compressive neuro­logic pathologies are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, some patients may present with both radicular and myelopathic symptoms, known as cervical myeloradiculopathy. These should be evaluated and treated as a combined pathology, taking care not to exclude either in the process.

Physical Examination

The physical examination should begin with obser­vation of the cervical spine and upper torso unen­cumbered by clothing. The physical ndings are of two different types. One set can be categorized as nonspecic and found in most patients with neck pain, but will not help to localize the type or level of the pathological process. A decreased range of motion is the most frequent nonspecic nding. It can be secondary to pain or, structurally, to dis­torted bony or soft tissue elements in the cervical spine. Pain will often lead to muscle guarding, or spasm, in an attempt to “brace” the neck and pre­vent further movement. Hyperextension and exces­sive lateral rotation, however, will usually cause pain—even in a normal individual.
Tenderness is another nonspecic nding that can be quite helpful. There are two types of ten­derness that must be considered. One is diffuse, elicited by inammation of the paravertebral muscles, and is found over a wide area of the pos­terolateral muscle masses. The second type of tenderness is more specic and may help localize the level of the pathology. It can be localized by palpation over each intervertebral foramen and spinous process.
The next goal of the physical exam is to isolate the level or levels in the cervical spine responsible for the symptomatology. The exam is also impor­tant to rule out other sources of pain, which include compression neuropathies, thoracic outlet syndrome, and chest or shoulder pathology.
10 The Spine
229
The major focus of the exam is directed at nd­ing a neurologic decit (Table10.1). A dermatomal or myotomal decit, such as decreased strength, sensory decit (often decreased sensation to light touch), or diminished deep tendon reex is most likely an objective nding in a patient with a radiculopathy. Although less reproducible, man­ual tests and maneuvers that increase or decrease radicular symptoms may be helpful. In the Spurling’s test, the patient’s head is extended, tilted laterally, and slightly rotated toward the symptomatic side, and then compressed to elicit reproduction or aggravation of the radicular symptoms. The axial manual traction test is per­formed in the presence of radicular symptoms in the supine position. With 20–25lb of axial trac­tion, a positive test is the decrease or disappear­ance of radicular symptoms. All these tests are highly specic (low false-positive rate) for the diagnosis of root compression, but the sensitivity (false-negative rate) is less than 50%. L’hermitte’s sign is a feeling of electric shock extending dis­tally down the axial spine with exion at the neck, which can indicate spinal cord compression. It is worth noting that a C5 nerve root palsy is the most common palsy in the cervical spine. This can be seen preoperatively but is more commonly seen post- operatively after cervical decompression. Patients present with acute weakness of the del­toid and biceps as well as radicular pain in the C5 distribution. Patients should be counseled that in most cases this will likely resolve spontaneously within 6 months. The exact etiology of the C5 palsy is not known, but one proposed theory is that decompression and posterior translation of the spinal cord results in traction on the C5 nerve root, resulting in a palsy.
Myelopathic physical ndings should also be specically checked. These patients can have a gait disturbance, so they should be observed walking. Patients with myelopathy will have a characteristic broad-based shufing gait that is due to their loss of balance and proprioception. The extent of motor disability can vary from mild to severe. Pyramidal tract weakness and atrophy are more commonly seen in the lower extremities and are the most com­mon abnormal signs. The usual clinical ndings in the lower extremities are spasticity and weakness.
Weakness and wasting of the upper extremities and hands may also be due to combined spondy­lotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. In this situa­tion, the patient usually complains of hand clumsiness. A diminished or absent upper extrem­ity deep tendon reex can indicate compressive radiculopathy superimposed on spondylotic myelopathy. Hoffman’s test is a sensitive but not specic abnormal reex exam that can indicate myelopathy. The test is performed by securing the middle phalanx of the long nger and icking the distal phalanx into an extended position. Resulting involuntary contraction of the thumb and/or index nger IP joint is a positive test, indicative of upper motor neuron pathology. The inverted supinator test (inverted brachioradialis reex) is another sensitive but nonspecic exam maneuver that can indicate upper motor neuron pathology. The test is performed by tapping the brachioradialis at the level of the radial styloid. Absence of contraction of the brachioradialis and an abnormal response of nger exion indicates a positive test. The Romberg test should additionally be performed to assess for ataxia. In this exam, patients are asked to stand with their feet side by side while closing their eyes and attempt to maintain their balance.
Table 10.1
neurologic exam
Features of the cervical
Disk level
C2–C3 C3 Pinna of ear, mastoid
C3–C4 C4 Upper trapezius None None C4–C5 C5 Deltoid, anterior arm Deltoid, Biceps Biceps C5–C6 C6 Thumb and index nger Biceps, elbow
C6–C7 C7 Index and middle nger Triceps Triceps C7–T1 C8 Ring and small nger Intrinsics None
Nerve root Sensory Motor Reex
None None
process
Biceps exion, wrist extension
230
J. L. Ferguson and D. C. Johnson
Inability to maintain balance and posture indi­cates issues with proprioception that can be caused by myelopathy. Gait patterns should also be assessed in patients with concern for myelopa­thy. Myelopathic patients will have difculty per­forming a tandem toe-to-heel walk and may have the characteristic wide-based, slow, shufing gait.
Sensory decits in spinothalamic (pain and temperature) and posterior column (vibration and proprioception) function should be documented. Usually there is no gross impairment of sensa­tion; rather, a patchy decrease in light touch and pin-prick is seen. Hyperreexia, clonus, and pos­itive Babinski’s signs are seen in the lower extremities. Hoffman’s sign and hyperreexia may be observed in the upper extremities.
In addition to a complete cervical exam, a detailed lumbar exam may also be indicated in cases of myelopathy to determine the extent of involvement and detect any neurologic decits. Oftentimes with cord compression, there are dis­tinct lower extremity issues related to upper motor neuron compression (Fig.10.1).

Diagnostic Studies

In evaluating any pathologic process, one will usually have a choice of several diagnostic tests. The cervical spine is no exception. This section will deal with the most common ones that are routinely used. In general, all of these tests play a conrmatory role. In other words, the core of the information derived from a thorough history and physical examination should be the basis for a diagnosis; the additional tests are obtained to conrm this clinical impression. Trouble devel­ops when these tests are used for screening pur­poses since most of them are overly sensitive and relatively nonselective. Thus, the studies dis­cussed should never be interpreted in isolation from the overall clinical picture.
Plain Radiographs
Radiographic evaluation of the cervical spine is helpful in assessing patients with neck pain and the routine study should include standing antero­posterior and lateral views. Flexion-extension
X-rays are indicated in dening stability, whether in the setting of trauma or suspected spondylolis­thesis (Fig.10.2). The generally accepted radio­graphic signs of cervical disc disease are loss of height of the intervertebral disc space, osteophyte formation, secondary encroachment of the inter­vertebral foramina, and osteoarthritic changes in the apophyseal joints (Fig.10.3).
It should be stressed that the identication of some pathology on plain cervical X-rays does not, per se, indicate the cause of the patient’s symp­toms. In several series, large numbers of asymp­tomatic patients have shown radiographic evidence of advanced degenerative disc disease. At approxi­mately age 40, some degeneration (narrowing) can be expected, particularly at the C5–C6 and C6–C7 levels. This is considered to represent a normal aging process. By age 70, cervical spondylosis is almost ubiquitous, though usually asymptomatic. The difcult problem with regard to radiographic interpretation is not in the identication of these changes, but rather in determining how much sig­nicance should be attributed to them.
Radiographic abnormalities of alignment in the cervical spine may also be of clinical signi­cance, but they need to be correlated with the whole clinical picture; listhesis or slipping for­ward or backward (retrolisthesis) of one vertebra upon the vertebra below it is such a nding.
If instability is suspected, functional X-rays may be taken. These view the spine from the side, with the head exed (bent forward) or extended (arched back); the spine normally exes equally at each spinal level. If one vertebral level is unstable, that particular vertebra moves more or less and disrupts the symmetry of motion. Again, this nding must be correlated with the whole clinical picture as its mere presence may be asymptomatic.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides an image on lm that is obtained by measuring the differences in proton density between the various tissues evaluated. With the use of the computer, multiplanar images are obtainable. It is a safe test since it uses neither ionizing radiation nor inva­sive contrast agents.
L5
C6 C6
10 The Spine
231
Fig. 10.1 Dermatomal distribution chart
C5
C7
C8
T1
C2
C3
C4
C5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
T9 T10 T11 T12
L1 S2 S3
L2
L3
L4
S1 S2
S3 S4 S5
C5
T1
C8
C7
S1
The technical advances in recent years have made MRI both more accessible, cost-effective, and useful. With the advent of 1.5T and new 3.0T coils with stronger magnetic elds, higher quality images are generated in less time. The distinction between soft tissues and bone and the relationship of both to the neural foramen are excellent
L4
(Fig. 10.4). MRI can also accurately detect rare conditions such as infection, tumor, or intrinsic abnormalities of the spinal cord. An excellent test, MRI can be combined with plain lms to permit an accurate noninvasive evaluation of a cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. It is currently the diagnostic study of choice in the cervical spine.
L5
L4
S1S2
L5
232
J. L. Ferguson and D. C. Johnson
Fig. 10.2 Lateral and AP X-rays of a normal cervical spine
Review of MRI imaging should begin with axial and sagittal views of T2-weighted images compared side-by-side. These images alone can provide a comprehensive picture of bony struc­tures, intervertebral discs, neural foramina, the thecal sac, and associated pathology. The MRI should be used as a conrmatory test to sub­stantiate a clinical impression. It should not be used as a screening test since there are many false- positive as well as false-negative results. Thus, some normal people will have abnormal MRI ndings, whereas some abnormal people will be found to have normal MRIs. The patient’s symptoms and clinical exam MUST correlate to the MRI ndings when formulating a diagnosis.
Myelography
A myelogram is performed by injecting a water­soluble dye into the spinal sac so that the outline of the sac itself, as well as each nerve root sleeve, can be evaluated. However, with recent advances and the relative accessibility of current MRI tech-
niques, myelograms are becoming less frequent in practice and are generally used when patients have contra-indications that preclude them from MRI such as pacemaker, spinal cord stimulator, or other indwelling metal artifacts.
Computerized Tomography
Computerized tomography (CT) permits one to create cross-sectional imaging of the cervical spine at any desired level. The advantages of CT include excellent differentiation of bone and soft tissue (disc or ligament) lesions, direct demon­stration of spinal cord and spinal cord dimen­sions, assessment of foraminal encroachment. CT scans of the cervical spine are most com­monly indicated for trauma and to rule out ossi­cation of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL).
Unfortunately, CT involves radiation expo­sure. It does, however, provide very good infor­mation and is especially useful for patients who, for a variety of reasons, cannot undergo MRI investigation.
10 The Spine
233
Fig. 10.3 Lateral and AP radiographs demonstrating degenerative changes in the cervical spine
Fig. 10.4 Axial and
sagittal T-2 weighted images of the cervical spine demonstrating a disc-osteophyte complex at the C5–C6 level with foraminal stenosis and loss of cervical lordosis