Urch Ekaterina Y, Model Zina, Wolfe Scott W, Lee Steve K
Division of Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY.
Division of Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY.
J Hand Surg Am. 2015 Jul;40(7):1416-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.03.009. Epub 2015 Apr 18.
To provide a cadaveric analysis of 3 surgical approaches (anterior, anterolateral, posterior) used for decompression of the posterior interosseous nerve within the radial tunnel. The aim of the study was to determine whether the number of compression sites visualized and safely released differed between approaches. We hypothesized that no single approach is adequate for visualization of all key compression sites.
Thirty fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens were used to perform 10 anterior, 10 anterolateral, and 10 posterior approaches to the radial tunnel. For each approach, key anatomical structures and the 5 documented anatomical sites of nerve compression that were clearly visualized within the surgical exposure were recorded. The portion of the supinator that was directly visualized in each approach was released. A second window was then created to expose the remaining uncut portion of the supinator. Measurements were taken from each specimen.
Statistical analysis demonstrated that the anterior and anterolateral approaches were best for visualizing the fibrous bands of the radial head, the leash of Henry, the origin of the extensor carpi radialis brevis, and the arcade of Frohse. The posterior approach was best for visualizing the distal border of the supinator. The relative uncut supinator distance varied with approach. The anterior approach left a larger relative uncut portion than the posterior approach.
No single approach was adequate for complete visualization and release of all compression points of the radial tunnel. In cases of radial tunnel release, complete visualization of the posterior interosseous nerve compression sites is best achieved through multiple windows.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
对用于桡管内骨间后神经减压的3种手术入路(前路、前外侧路、后路)进行尸体分析。本研究的目的是确定不同入路在可视化并安全松解的压迫部位数量上是否存在差异。我们假设没有一种单一的入路足以可视化所有关键压迫部位。
使用30个新鲜冷冻尸体标本,对桡管分别进行10次前路、10次前外侧路和10次后路手术。对于每种入路,记录手术暴露范围内清晰可见的关键解剖结构以及5个已记录的神经压迫解剖部位。在每种入路中直接可见的旋后肌部分被松解。然后创建第二个窗口以暴露旋后肌未切断的其余部分。对每个标本进行测量。
统计分析表明,前路和前外侧路最适合可视化桡骨头的纤维带、亨利束、桡侧腕短伸肌起点和弗罗瑟弓。后路最适合可视化旋后肌的远端边界。相对未切断的旋后肌距离因入路而异。前路留下的相对未切断部分比后路大。
没有一种单一的入路足以完全可视化并松解桡管内的所有压迫点。在桡管松解的病例中,通过多个窗口可最好地实现对骨间后神经压迫部位的完全可视化。
研究类型/证据水平:治疗性IV级。