Casa de Saúde Nossa Senhora do Carmo, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Introduction
The elastic suture allows progressive closure of lesions, encompassing all its levels, restoring normal anatomy and all containment and resistance functions of the skin layers without new morbidity factors for the patient. It was first used to bring together the edges of a fasciotomy after compartmental syndrome in the upper limb.1
This study aimed to report the use of elastic suture for surgical wound closure in a fasciotomy after compartmental syndrome in a leg with traumatic fractures of the proximal third of the tibia and fibula associated with vascular injury.
Case report
Male patient, 30 years old, who had been struck by a passenger vehicle, suffered open fractures of the tibia and fibula. He underwent surgical debridement and lavage, and transarticular external fixation from the femur to the tibia in a public hospital ofthe State ofRio de Janeiro, and was then transferred to our institution.
During clinical and orthopedic examination, the patient presented mild pain, swelling ++++/4+, suture on the anterior aspect of the leg, with normal capillary perfusion and thin pulse in the affected limb. Routine lower limb and trauma Xrays were made, as well as a CT scan of the injured limb. The images disclosed isolated leg injuries, with comminuted fractures of the proximal third of the tibia and fibula, which were aligned, stabilized, and maintained by a transarticular external fixator (Fig. 1). Laboratory tests indicated alterations from the normal parameters for the following items: neutrophils, 9128; reactive C protein, 34.4; and creatine kinase, 3940. Over the course of a few hours, the patient developed progressive and severe pain that did not resolve with analgesic use, paresthesia of the ipsilateral hallux, edema, and tense shiny skin. Decompressive fasciotomy was performed. During the surgery, disruption of the tibiofibular trunk was observed and ligated. The fasciotomy was not directly sutured, and the incision site was protected with occlusive dressings (Fig. 2). The patient was then transferred to the intensive care unit for rhabdomyolysis treatment. The vascular surgery department was consulted and an arteriography of the limb was performed, which showed disruption of tibiofibular trunk compatible with the trauma (Fig. 3); it was observed that the posterior tibial and fibular arteries were perfused by retrograde flow. Seven days after fasciotomy, the patient presented a clean wound, without signs of infection. At that moment, the elastic suture system was positioned. An elastic band for vascular surgery was attached to the skin with metal clips, which were applied with surgical stapler 0.5 cm from the incision edges, starting at the proximal apex and continuing toward the distal vertex. The wire was attached to one side and passed through the incision to be attached on the opposite side, in a sequence that resembles a zigzag from the proximal to the distal regions – the shoelace technique. After 7 days, an overall approximation of the wound edges was observed; when the elastic
wire and the metal clips were removed, permanent suture was made with nylon 2-0 thread (Fig. 4A–D). The final treatment of the fracture was conducted with a hybrid external fixator (Fig. 5).
Discussion
The identification of compartment syndrome is not always easy, as peripheral perfusion and arterial pulses are usually observed, not representing good parameters for clinical suspicion. In laboratory tests, an increase in creatine kinase (CK) is observed, which indicates myoglobinuria and suggests the diagnosis.2 Fracture of the tibial shaft is one of the most frequent causes of compartment syndrome.3 The repair of its surgical wounds is performed with grafts or large skin flaps; this leads to new wounds, which also demand
treatment. These measures are accompanied by pain, increased incidence of infections, scar retraction, rejection, and failure.4 Proximal fractures of the tibia present increased risk for compartment syndrome.5 This condition is more frequent in cases with vascular injury and is characterized by increased blood pressure in regions surrounded by inelastic muscle fascia, altering the local microcirculation and undermining tissue viability. Compartment syndrome is an
orthopedic emergency; decompression fasciotomy is a therapeutic resource for damage control and reducing the risk of severe sequelae.6
Severe pain is the earliest objective clinical finding,7 and increased pressure and turgid compartment may be observed at palpation. Its severity is associated to the speed in which the pressure increases, its duration and the degree of tissue microcirculation impairment.8
The fasciotomy incision represents itself an injury to the patient; furthermore, it increases the risk of infections and the length of hospital stay. Several procedures have been described for closing this type of incision, using various types of materials; there are even reports on the use of properly sterilized common elastic string fixated to the skin adjacent to the incision with surgical suture, providing good approximation of the wound edges in just 5 days after the procedure, with full closure of the skin 20 days after surgery, without the need for secondary skin suture.9 In the present case, the elastic suture effectively assisted the definitive closure of the fasciotomy incision allowing a secondary suture, and waived the need for an autograft skin, being a feasible, easy-to-perform, and low-cost technique.
There is an association between tibial fractures and the development of compartment syndrome. Differential diagnosis from early recognition of signs and symptoms is necessary for initiating appropriate therapy, which improves prognosis and reduces the morbidity rate. Leg fasciotomy closure10 with elastic suture is cheaper method and contributes to a shorter hospital stay when compared to the vacuum technique.11
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
1. Lattermann C, Romeo AA, Anbari A, Meininger AK, McCarty LP, Cole BJ, et al. Arthroscopic debridement of the extensor carpi radialis brevis for recalcitrante lateral epicondylitis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(5):651–6. 2. Cohen M, Motta Filho GR. Epicondilite lateral do cotovelo. Rev Bras Ortop. 2012;47(4):414–20. 3. Boyer MI, Hastings H 2nd. Lateral tennis elbow: is there any science out there? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8(5):481–91. 4. Nirschl RP, Pettrone FA. Tennis elbow. The surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(6):832–9. 5. Knutsen EJ, Calfee RP, Chen RE, Goldfarb CA, Park KW, Osei DA. Factors associated with failure of nonoperative treatment in lateral epicondylitis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(9):2133–7. 6. Sanders TL Jr, Maradit Kremers H, Bryan AJ, Ransom JE, Smith J, Morrey BF. The epidemiology and health care burden of tennis elbow: a population-based study. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(5):1066–71. 7. Baker CL Jr, Murphy KP, Gottlob CA, Curd DT. Arthroscopic classification and treatment of lateral epicondylitis: two-year clinical results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(6):475–82. 8. Coonrad RW, Hooper WR. Tennis elbow: its course, natural history, conservative and surgical management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55(6):1177–82. 9. Baker CL. Arthroscopic versus open techniques for extensor tenodesis of the elbow. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;1:184–91. 10. Baumgard SH, Schwartz DR. Percutaneous release of the epicondylar muscles for humeral epicondylitis. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10(4):233–6.11. Owens BD, Murphy KP, Kuklo TR. Arthroscopic release for lateral epicondylitis. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(6):582–7. 12. Yoon JP, Chung SW, Yi JH, Lee BJ, Jeon IH, Jeong WJ, et al. Prognostic factors of arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis release for lateral epicondylitis. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(7):1232–7. 13. Szabo SJ, Savoie FH 3rd, Field LD, Ramsey JR, Hosemann CD. Tendinosis of the extensor carpi radialis brevis: an evaluation of three methods of operative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(6):721–7. 14. Oki G, Iba K, Sasaki K, Yamashita T, Wada T. Time to functional recovery after arthroscopic surgery for tennis elbow. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(10):1527–31. 15. Othman AM. Arthroscopic versus percutaneous release of common extensor origin for treatment of chronic tennis elbow. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(3):383–8. 16. Martynetz FA, Fariac FF, Supertic MJ, Mussi Filho S, Oliveira LMM. Avaliac¸ão de pacientes submetidos ao tratamento artroscópico da epicondilite lateral refratária ao tratamento conservador. Rev Bras Ortop. 2013;48(6):532–7. 17. Miyazaki AN, Fregoneze M, Santos PD, da Silva LA, Pires DC, Mota Neto J, et al. Avaliac¸ão dos resultados do tratamento artroscópico da epicondilite lateral. Rev Bras Ortop. 2010;45(2):136–40. 18. Zoppi Filho A, Vieira LAG, Ferreira Neto AA, Benegas E. Tratamento artroscópico da epicondilite lateral do cotovelo. Rev Bras Ortop. 2004;39(3):93–101. 19. Verhaar J, Walenkamp G, Kester A, van Mameren H, van der Linden T. Lateral extensor release for tennis elbow. A prospective long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(7):1034–43. 20. Baker CL Jr, Baker CL 3rd. Long-term follow-up of arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):254–60.
