Posts

Surgical Treatment of Retro-calcaneal Bursitis (Haglund’s Disease): Anatomy, Evaluation, Surgical Options, Complications, and Outcome

Vol 32| Issue 2 | July – Dec 2019 | page: 06-13 | Raju Karuppal, Anwar Marthya


Authors: Raju Karuppal [1], Anwar Marthya [2]

[1] Department Of Orthopaedics, Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India.
[2] Department Of Orthopaedics, IQRAA International Hospital Calicut, Kerala, India.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Raju Karuppal,
Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India.
E-mail: drrajuortho@rediffmail.com


Abstract

Retrocalcaneal bursitis (RCB) is one of the common causes of heel pain. Symptoms will often respond well to conventional methods of treatment. Those patients who do not respond to conventional treatment may get benefit from surgical interventions. An awareness of appropriate diagnostic and evaluation techniques are is necessary to diagnose and plan the surgical treatment. Initial treatments of Haglund’s disease include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, footwear modification, and various physiotherapeutic modalities. Bony hump excision is the main surgical treatment option, which can be performed by various surgical approaches, such as open procedures or by endoscopic techniques. Factors such as local skin condition, and medical co-morbidities which may retard tissue healing, possibilities of Achilles tendon damage, and post-operative pain must be considered while selecting the best surgical option. This article examines patient evaluation, surgical options, complications, and outcome of Haglund’s disease.
Keywords: Retrocalcaneal bursitis, Haglund’s disease, Calcaneal osteotomy, Endoscopic surgery, Complications.


References

1. Maffulli N, Saxena A, Wagner E, Torre G. Achilles insertional tendinopathy: State of the art. J ISAKOS 2018;???:1-10.
2. Sharma SC, Singh R, Piplani H, Sharma A. Radiological evaluation and role of surgery in retrocalcaneal bursitis. Hong Kong J Orthop Surg 2005;9:8-15.
3. White CS. Retrocalcaneal bursitis. N Y Med J 1983;98:263.
4. Haglund P. Beitragzurklinik der Achilles sehne. Z OrthopChir 1928;49:49-58.
5. Schepsis AA, Wagner C, Leach RE. Surgical management of Achilles tendon overuse injuries. A long-term follow-up study.Am J Sports Med1994;22:611-9.
6. McGarvey WC, Palumbo RC, Baxter DE, Leibman BD. Insertional Achilles tendinosis: Surgical treatment through a central tendon splitting approach.Foot Ankle Int2002;23:19-25.
7. TaylorGJ. Prominence of the calcaneus: Is operation justified?J Bone Joint Surg Br1986;68:467-70.
8. AndersonJA, SueroE, O’LoughlinPF, KennedyJG. Surgery for retrocalcaneal bursitis: A tendon-splitting versus a lateral approach.ClinOrthopRelat Res2008;466:1678-82.
9. Brunner J, Anderson J, O’Malley M, Bohne W, Deland J, Kennedy J.Physician and patient based outcomes following surgical resection of Haglund’s deformity.ActaOrthopBelg2005;71:718-23.
10. Leitze Z, Sella EJ, Aversa JM. Endoscopic decompression of the retrocalcaneal space.J Bone Joint Surg Am2003;85:1488-96.
11. Takao M. Posterior Ankle and Hindfoot Arthroscopy. In: Dragoo J, editor. Modern Arthroscopy. Croatia: InTech; 2011. p. 287-303.
12. Wiegerinck JI, Kok AC, van Dijk CN. Surgical treatment of chronic retrocalcaneal bursitis.Arthroscopy2012;28:283-93.
13. ScholtenPE, vanDijk CN. Endoscopic calcaneoplasty.Foot Ankle Clin2006;11:439-46, 8.
14. PerlmanMD. Enlargement of the entire posterior aspect of the calcaneus: Treatment with the Keck and Kelly calcaneal osteotomy.J Foot Surg1992;31:424-33.
15. vanDijk CN, ScholtenPE, KripsR. A 2-portal endoscopic approach for diagnosis and treatment of posterior ankle pathology.Arthroscopy2000;16:871-6.
16. vanDijk CN, van Dyk GE, Scholten PE, Kort NP. Endoscopic calcaneoplasty. Am J Sports Med 2001;29:185-9.
17. ApaydinN, BozkurtM, LoukasM, VefaliH, TubbsRS, EsmerAF. Relationships of the sural nerve with the calcaneal tendon: An anatomical study with surgical and clinical implications.Surg RadiolAnat2009;31:775-80.
18. KachlikD, BacaV, CepelikM, HajekP, MandysV, MusilV, et al. Clinical anatomy of the retrocalcaneal bursa.Surg RadiolAnat2008;30:347-53.
19. Williams PL, Warwick R, editors. Gray’s Anatomy. 36thed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1980. p. 608.
20. Astrom M. On the Nature and Etiology of Chronic Achilles Tendinopathy, PhD Thesis. Sweden: Lund University; 1997.
21. Christman RA. Radiographic anatomy of the foot and ankle-part 2: The greater tarsus. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2014;104:493-503.
22. CanosoJJ, LiuN, TraillMR, RungeVM. Physiology of the retrocalcaneal bursa.Ann Rheum Dis1988;47:910-2.
23. MovinT, Kristoffersen-WibergM, ShalabiA, GadA, AspelinP, RolfC. Intratendinous alterations as imaged by ultrasound and contrast medium-enhanced magnetic resonance in chronic achillodynia.Foot Ankle Int1998;19:311-7.
24. SomaCA, MandelbaumBR. Achilles tendon disorders.Clin Sports Med1994;13:811-23.
25. RuchJA. Haglund’s disease.J Am Podiatry Assoc1974;64:1000-3.
26. BerkebileDE. Chronic Achilles tendonitis.S D J Med1991;44:311-2.
27. StephensMM. Haglund’s deformity and retrocalcaneal bursitis.OrthopClin North Am1994;25:41-6.
28. PavlovH, HeneghanMA, HershA, GoldmanAB, VigoritaV. The Haglund syndrome: Initial and differential diagnosis.Radiology1982;144:83-8.
29. FowlerA, PhillipJF. Abnormaliry of the calcaneus as a cause of painful heef its diagnosis and operative treatment.Brit J Surg1941;32:494-8.
30. ChristmanRA. Radiographic anatomy of the calcaneus. Part II: Posterior surface.J Am Podiatr Med Assoc1987;77:581-5.
31. GrossmanAB, CohenR, HernandezA. Modified calcaneal axial view.J Am Podiatr Med Assoc1993;83:295.
32. FreyC, RosenbergZ, ShereffMJ, KimH. The retrocalcaneal bursa: Anatomy and bursography.Foot Ankle1992;13:203-7.
33. OlivieriI, BarozziL, PadulaA, DeMatteis M, PierroA, CantiniF, et al. Retrocalcaneal bursitis in spondyloarthropathy: Assessment by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.J Rheumatol1998;25:1352-7.
34. SofkaCM, AdlerRS, PositanoR, PavlovH, LuchsJS. Haglund’s syndrome: Diagnosis and treatment using sonography.HSS J2006;2:27-9.
35. RichardsPJ, BraidJC, CarmontMR, MaffulliN. Achilles tendon ossification: Pathology, imaging and aetiology.DisabilRehabil2008;30:1651-65.
36. ThomasJL, ChristensenJC, KravitzSR, MendicinoRW, SchuberthJM, VanoreJV, et al. The diagnosis and treatment of heel pain: A clinical practice guideline-revision 2010.J Foot Ankle Surg2010;49:S1-19.
37. FuriaJP. High-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy as a treatment for insertional Achilles tendinopathy.Am J Sports Med2006;34:733-40.
38. SellaEJ, CaminearDS, McLarneyEA. Haglund’s syndrome.J Foot Ankle Surg1998;37:110-4.
39. WatsonAD, AndersonRB, DavisWH. Comparison of results of retrocalcaneal decompression for retrocalcaneal bursitis and insertional Achilles tendinosis with calcific spur.Foot Ankle Int2000;21:638-42.
40. KolodziejP, GlissonRR, NunleyJA. Risk of avulsion of the Achilles tendon after partial excision for treatment of insertional tendonitis and Haglund’s deformity: A biomechanical study.Foot Ankle Int1999;20:433-7.
41. PhisitkulP. Endoscopic surgery of the Achilles tendon.Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2012;5:156-63.
42. ReinherzRP, SmithBA, HenningKE. Understanding the pathologic Haglund’s deformity.J Foot Surg1990;29:432-5.
43. MaquirriainJ. Endoscopic Achilles tenodesis: A surgical alternative for chronic insertional tendinopathy.Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc2007;15:940-3.
44. SammarcoGJ, TaylorAL. Operative management of Haglund’s deformity in the nonathlete: A retrospective study.Foot Ankle Int1998;19:724-9.
45. LohrerH, ArentzS. Impingement lesion of the distal anterior Achilles tendon in sub-Achilles bursitis and Haglund-pseudoexostosis-a therapeutic challenge.SportverletzSportschaden2003;17:181-8.
46. RothKE, MuellerR, SchwandE, MaierGS, SchmidtmannI, SariyarM, et al. Open versus endoscopic bone resection of the dorsolateral calcaneal edge: A cadaveric analysis comparing three dimensional CT scans.J Foot Ankle Res2014;7:56.
47. KondreddiV, GopalRK, YalamanchiliRK. Outcome of endoscopic decompression of retrocalcaneal bursitis.Indian J Orthop2012;46:659-63.
48. WuZ, HuaY, LiY, ChenS. Endoscopic treatment of Haglund’s syndrome with a three portal technique.Int Orthop2012;36:1623-7.
49. KeckSW, KellyPJ. Bursitis of the posterior part of the heel; evaluation of surgical treatment of eighteen patients.J Bone Joint Surg Am1965;47:267-73.
50. AngermannP. Chronic retrocalcaneal bursitis treated by resection of the calcaneus.Foot Ankle1990;10:285-7.


How to Cite this Article: Karuppal R, Marthya | A Surgical Treatment of Retro-calcaneal Bursitis (Haglund’s Disease): Anatomy, Evaluation, Surgical Options, Complications, and Outcome | Kerala Journal of Orthopaedics | July – Dec 2019 ; 32(2): 06-13 .

(Abstract)      (Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)


 

 

 

 

 

PFNA-II for unstable intertrochanteric fractures – A prospective study on short term functional outcome

Vol 32| Issue 1 | Jan – June 2019 | page: 11-16 | Ranjith Parakkal Krishnan, Biju J Jacob, Dennis P Jose, Lazar J Chandy


Authors: Ranjith Parakkal Krishnan [¹], Biju J Jacob [¹], Dennis P Jose [¹], Lazar J Chandy [¹]

[1] Department Of Orthopaedics, V.P.S Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Cochin, Kerala,
India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ranjith Parakkal Krishnan,
V.P.S Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Cochin, Kerala, India.
E-mail: ranjikrishna@gmail.com


Abstract

Background: This study was carried out to study the short term functional outcome of proximal femoral nail
antirotation-II (PFNA-II) in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
Materials and Methods: This prospective study includes 20 cases of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in the age group between 55-94 years. The patients included in the study underwent fixation of intertrochanteric fractures using PFNA-II. The study was conducted in the department of Orthopaedics in an advanced trauma centre in Kerala between August 2018 and June 2019. Patients were followed up and assessed clinically and radiologically at regular intervals at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Functional score was assessed using Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score.
Results: 20 patients were followed up for a period of 6 months. The minimum and maximum age was 55 and 95 years respectively. Majority of the fractures were fell into AO A2.2( 45.0%). The average OT time was 58.75 minutes with standard deviation 21.82. The average blood loss was minimal ( 124.5 ml). 85% cases could achieve good reduction. Good results were achieved in 75% (n=15) and Excellent results in 20% (n=4) cases according to Harris hip score. There was a significant relationship between Oxford hip score and fracture reduction (p-value is less than 0.05). There was a significant progress in Oxford hip score and Harris hip score 3 month and 6 months. No cases of cut out or breakage of the implant were noted during the study period. There was no major complication or mortality noted during the follow up period.
Conclusion: PFNA-II is ideal implant for fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients with less operative time, low complication rate and with a good clinical outcome. However it is important to follow proper
operative technique in order to attain fracture stability and to avoid major complications.
Keywords: Intertrochanteric fracture, Hip fracture, Intramedullary nail, PFNA-II, Complications, Harris hip score,
Oxford Hip Score, unstable.


References

1. Dimon JH, Hughston JC. Unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1967; 49(3):440–50.
2. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A, et al. Incidence and economic burden of
osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 2007;229(3):465–75.
3. Koval KJ, Aharonoff GB, Rokito AS, Lyon T, Zuckerman JD.Patients with femoral neck and intertrochanteric fractures. Are they the same? Clinical orthopedics and related research. 1996; (330):166-72.
4. Chong CP, Savige JA, Lim WK. Medical problems in hip f r a c t u r e p a t i e n t s . A r c h O r t h o p Tr a u m a S u r g . 2010;130:1355–61.
5. Kaufer H, Mathews LS, Sonstegard D. Stable Fixation of Intertrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg. 1974; 5
6A:899-907.
6. Monte-Secades R, Peña-Zemsch M, Rabuñal-Rey R, Bal- Alvaredo M, Pazos-Ferro A, Mateos-Colino A. Risk factors for the development of medical complications in patients with hip fracture. Rev CalidAsist. 2011; 26:76–82.
7. Kuzyk PR, Lobo J, Whelan D, zdero R, McKee MD, Schemitsch EH, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of
extramedullary versus intramedullary fixation for reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures. J Orthop Trauma
2009;23 (1):31–8. 8Ma KL, Wang X, Luan FJ, Xu HT, Fang Y, Min J, Luan HX, Yang F, Zheng H, He SJ. Proximal femoral nails antirotation, Gamma nails, and dynamic hip screws for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of femur: a metaanalysis. Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2014 Dec 1;100(8):859-66.
9. Al-Yassari G, Langstaff RJ, Jones JW, Al-Lami M.The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture.Injury. 2002 Jun 1;33(5):395-9.
10. Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, Malik H, Donnachie N. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 2009; 40(4): 428-32.
11. Hwang JH, Oh JK, Han SH, et al. Mismatch between PFNA and medullary canal causing difficulty in nailing of the pertrochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.
2008;128:1443–1446.
12. Tyagi V, Yang JH, Oh KJ. A computed tomography-based analysis of proximal femoral geometr y for lateral
impingement with two types of proximal femoral nail a n t i r o t a t i o n i n s u b t r o c h a n t e r i c f r a c t u r e s
Injury.2010;41:857–861.
13. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. JBJS. 1995 Jul 1;77(7):1058-64.
14. Johnson LJ, Cope MR, Shahrokhi S, Tamblyn P. Measuring tip–apex distance using a picture archiv ing and
communication system (PACS). Injur y. 2008 Jul 1;39(7):786-90.
15. Banaszkiewicz PA. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold
arthroplasty: an end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. In Classic Papers in Orthopedics 2014 (pp. 13- 17).Springer, London.
16. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J.The use of the Oxford hip and knee
scores.The Journal of bone and joint surgery.British volume. 2007 Aug;89(8):1010-4.
17. Tyagi V, Yang JH, Oh KJ. A computed tomography-based analysis of proximal femoral geometr y for lateral
impingement with two types of proximal femoral nail a n t i r o t a t i o n i n s u b t r o c h a n t e r i c f r a c t u r e s
Injury.2010;41:857–861.
18. Rubio-Avila J, Madden K, Simunovic N, Bhandari M. Tip to apex distance in femoral intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review. Journal of Orthopedic Science. 2013 Jul 1;18(4):592-8.
19. Geller JA, Saifi C, Morrison TA, Macaulay W. Tip-apex distance of intramedullary devices as a predictor of cut-out failure in the treatment of peritrochanteric elderly hip fractures. International orthopedics. 2010 Jun 1;34(5):719- 22.
20. Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y, Guangming Z, Xianbin W. Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury. 2010 Dec 1;41(12):1234-8.


How to Cite this Article: Krishnan R P, Jacob B J, Jose D P, Chandy L J. “PFNA-II for unstable intertrochanteric fractures – A prospective study on short term functional outcome’’. Kerala Journal of Orthopaedics Jan-June 2019; 32(1): 11-16
.

(Abstract)      (Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)