-
JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques 2022Proximal medial gastrocnemius release (PMGR) is a technique that is performed to relieve tension in the Achilles-calcaneus-plantar system when a biomechanical overload...
UNLABELLED
Proximal medial gastrocnemius release (PMGR) is a technique that is performed to relieve tension in the Achilles-calcaneus-plantar system when a biomechanical overload is present. One of the main indications for this technique is recalcitrant plantar fasciitis. This procedure may also be useful in second-rocker metatarsalgia or midportion Achilles tendinitis. It is considered to be an easy and safe method for achieving good results.
DESCRIPTION
PMGR is performed with the patient in the prone position. A thigh tourniquet is not utilized. We prefer to use spinal anesthesia, but local anesthesia could be applied along with sedation. A posteromedial incision is made on or just below the posterior knee crease. The crural fascia is divided, and the proximal insertion of the medial gastrocnemius is identified. Performing the "hook maneuver" with a curved dissector is helpful at this step. Only the white fibers are sectioned in order to allow for a lengthening of the muscular fibers that is completed with forceful ankle dorsiflexion. After proper hemostasis has been achieved, the subcutaneous layer and skin are closed, leaving the fascia open.
ALTERNATIVES
Nonoperative treatment should be the first option, including analgesics, insoles, heel cups, calf-stretching, injections, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy. Some authors have also suggested that application of a walking cast for 3 to 6 weeks should be attempted. Once all of these treatment options have failed, operative treatment is appropriate. Historically, open plantar fasciotomy was offered to patients with recalcitrant plantar fasciitis, and this treatment continues to be a surgical option. Other procedure, like the Strayer, Vulpius, or Baumann techniques, involve the calf system and are called "gastrocnemius recession." However, these techniques act in the more distal aspect of the calf system compared with PMGR.
RATIONALE
PMGR offers patients with recalcitrant plantar fasciitis rapid recovery and good results. This procedure obviates the complications associated with plantar fasciotomy, in which the medial aspect of the proximal plantar fascia is divided to relieve the overload. A plantar fasciotomy (either open or endoscopic) risks lateral column overload or a painful flatfoot if >50% of the fascia is divided. A long recovery period following plantar fasciotomy has also been described. On the other hand, other procedures have been utilized to lengthen the Achilles-calcaneus-plantar system to an even greater extent. Techniques like the Silfverskiöld (i.e., medial and lateral proximal gastrocnemius release) or Strayer (i.e., division of the distal aspect of the gastrocnemius fascia) technique present a higher rate of complications (up to 38%), specifically nerve injuries. We consider these procedures (classified as gastrocnemius recession procedures) more properly indicated for patients with neurological diseases or with an equinus contracture. The medial gastrocnemius is the more powerful of the 2 bellies. Releasing the medial head alone offers a robust decrease in tension and is safer than approaching the lateral head of the gastrocnemius. At the same time, this technique provides a quick recovery for the patient. PMGR can also help those patients with other clinical signs related to gastrocnemius tightness, such as calf cramps and pain or repeated muscle injuries. Moreover, it can be effective in patients with second-rocker metatarsalgia or midportion Achilles tendinitis.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
PMGR has a reported rate of satisfaction of >80%. Most patients undergoing this procedure experience substantial pain relief within the first 2 to 3 months. PMGR is an outpatient procedure with a short operative time and a rapid return to recreational and labor activities. The complication rate is low, and the most common complications are calf hematomas and delayed wound healing. The present article demonstrates a reduction in pain and good functional results. An improvement in the perception of health-related quality of life, especially in the physical and pain domains of the Short Form-36 questionnaire, was also observed.
IMPORTANT TIPS
The prone position allows for direct access to the proximal medial head of the gastrocnemius. Preferably, perform PMGR without a tourniquet in order to assure proper hemostasis. Keep the ankle joint free at the end of operating table because ankle dorsiflexion is a helpful maneuver at some stages in this procedure. Digital (index finger) dissection should be performed among the medial head of the gastrocnemius, the hamstrings, and the posterior aspect of the proximal tibia. The hook maneuver, performed with use of a blunt dissector, is helpful to identify all of the white fibers. Only white fibers should be divided. The surgeon must also make sure to cut the more anterior part of the aponeurosis that is hidden by red fibers. After cutting the white fibers, forceful ankle dorsiflexion is required to obtain full lengthening of the muscle. Proper hemostasis should be achieved to prevent formation of a calf hematoma. Advise the patient to do calf-stretches as soon as pain permits in order to prevent a contracting muscle scar.
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
PMGR = proximal medial gastrocnemius releaseESWT = extracorporeal shock wave therapySD = standard deviation.
PubMed: 35692721
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.20.00039 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Shock wave therapy has seen widespread use since the 1990s to treat various musculoskeletal disorders including rotator cuff disease, but evidence of its efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Shock wave therapy has seen widespread use since the 1990s to treat various musculoskeletal disorders including rotator cuff disease, but evidence of its efficacy remains equivocal.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease, with or without calcification, and to establish its usefulness in the context of other available treatment options.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to November 2019, with no restrictions on language. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that used quasi-randomised methods to allocate participants, investigating participants with rotator cuff disease with or without calcific deposits. We included trials of comparisons of extracorporeal or radial shock wave therapy versus any other intervention. Major outcomes were pain relief greater than 30%, mean pain score, function, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, number of participants experiencing adverse events and number of withdrawals due to adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was shock wave therapy compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-two trials (2281 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Most trials (25) included participants with rotator cuff disease and calcific deposits, five trials included participants with rotator cuff disease and no calcific deposits, and two trials included a mixed population of participants with and without calcific deposits. Twelve trials compared shock wave therapy to placebo, 11 trials compared high-dose shock wave therapy (0.2 mJ/mm² to 0.4 mJ/mm² and above) to low-dose shock wave therapy. Single trials compared shock wave therapy to ultrasound-guided glucocorticoid needling, ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), no treatment or exercise; dual session shock wave therapy to single session therapy; and different delivery methods of shock wave therapy. Our main comparison was shock wave therapy versus placebo and results are reported for the 3 month follow up. All trials were susceptible to bias; including selection (74%), performance (62%), detection (62%), and selective reporting (45%) biases. No trial measured participant-reported pain relief of 30%. However, in one trial (74 participants), at 3 months follow up, 14/34 participants reported pain relief of 50% or greater with shock wave therapy compared with 15/40 with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.94); low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, higher scores indicate more pain) was 3.02 points in the placebo group and 0.78 points better (0.17 better to 1.4 better; clinically important change was 1.5 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 608 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Mean function (scale 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better function) was 66 points with placebo and 7.9 points better (1.6 better to 14 better, clinically important difference 10 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 612 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Participant-reported success was reported by 58/150 people in shock wave therapy group compared with 35/137 people in placebo group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.91; 6 trials, 287 participants), low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). None of the trials measured quality of life. Withdrawal rate or adverse event rates may not differ between extracorporeal shock wave therapy and placebo, but we are uncertain due to the small number of events. There were 11/34 withdrawals in the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group compared with 13/40 withdrawals in the placebo group (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.31; 7 trials, 581 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision); and 41/156 adverse events with extracorporeal shock wave therapy compared with 10/139 adverse events in the placebo group (RR 3.61, 95% CI 2.00 to 6.52; 5 trials, 295 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Subgroup analyses indicated that there were no between-group differences in pain and function outcomes in participants who did or did not have calcific deposits in the rotator cuff.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the currently available low- to moderate-certainty evidence, there were very few clinically important benefits of shock wave therapy, and uncertainty regarding its safety. Wide clinical diversity and varying treatment protocols means that we do not know whether or not some trials tested subtherapeutic doses, possibly underestimating any potential benefits. Further trials of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review. A standard dose and treatment protocol should be decided upon before further research is conducted. Development of a core set of outcomes for trials of rotator cuff disease and other shoulder disorders would also facilitate our ability to synthesise the evidence.
Topics: Calcinosis; Exercise Therapy; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Middle Aged; Muscular Diseases; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rotator Cuff; Shoulder Pain; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Viscosupplements
PubMed: 32128761
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008962.pub2 -
Insights Into Imaging Oct 2023Peripheral nerves of the lower limb may become entrapped at various points during their anatomical course. While clinical assessment and nerve conduction studies are the... (Review)
Review
Peripheral nerves of the lower limb may become entrapped at various points during their anatomical course. While clinical assessment and nerve conduction studies are the mainstay of diagnosis, there are multiple imaging options, specifically ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which offer important information about the potential cause and location of nerve entrapment that can help guide management. This article overviews the anatomical course of various lower limb nerves, including the sciatic nerve, tibial nerve, medial plantar nerve, lateral plantar nerve, digital nerves, common peroneal nerve, deep peroneal nerve, superficial peroneal nerve, sural nerve, obturator nerve, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve and femoral nerve. The common locations and causes of entrapments for each of the nerves are explained. Common ultrasound and MRI findings of nerve entrapments, direct and indirect, are described, and various examples of the more commonly observed cases of lower limb nerve entrapments are provided.Critical relevance statement This article describes the common sites of lower limb nerve entrapments and their imaging features. It equips radiologists with the knowledge needed to approach the assessment of entrapment neuropathies, which are a critically important cause of pain and functional impairment.Key points• Ultrasound and MRI are commonly used to investigate nerve entrapment syndromes.• Ultrasound findings include nerve hypo-echogenicity, calibre changes and the sonographic Tinel's sign.• MRI findings include increased nerve T2 signal, muscle atrophy and denervation oedema.• Imaging can reveal causative lesions, including scarring, masses and anatomical variants.
PubMed: 37782348
DOI: 10.1186/s13244-023-01514-6