You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Systematic review
Are eponyms used correctly or not? A literature review with a focus on shoulder and elbow surgery
Free
  1. Matthijs Paul Somford1,
  2. Rebecca A Nieuwe Weme2,
  3. Cornelis Niek van Dijk3,
  4. Frank FA IJpma4,
  5. Denise Eygendaal5
  1. 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ziekenhuis Rijnstate, Arnhem, Gelderland, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of General surgery, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Orthopedic surgery, AMC Ziekenhuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  5. 5Department of Orthopedic surgery, Amphia Ziekenhuis, Breda, North Brabant, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to: Dr Matthijs Paul Somford
    , Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ziekenhuis Rijnstate, Arnhem, Gelderland 9728 NT, The Netherlands; mp_somford@hotmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110453

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    When the name of an inventor or discoverer is used to describe a condition, procedure or fracture it is called an eponymous term and the namegiver becomes an eponym. Eponymous terms recognise some of the pioneers in the field. In contrast with an anatomical or developmental description, the original meaning of an eponymous term may have been lost over time. New insights in pathology, pathoanatomy and trauma mechanisms can make the use of historical eponymous terms inappropriate. Adaptations of the original meaning might develop over time and may lead to improper use and understanding of eponymous term. With time, insights into and development of new techniques for diagnosis and operative care change. This can result in modification of eponymous terms.

    New nomenclature may even become more appropriate than the historical eponymous term. We are all aware of the need to speak the same language in order to avoid misinterpretation and errors. It is under debate whether eponymous terms contribute to avoid confusion. Misspelling of an eponymous term may make publications on a subject untraceable. This is especially the case with foreign names or words that are used in the English-language literature and vice versa.

    With our current research, we tried to establish whether eponymous terms are still used in current literature and whether their original meaning was used.

    Materials and methods

    To establish whether eponymous terms are correctly used in current literature, 12 common eponymous terms for traumatic conditions of shoulder and elbow were selected (table 1) on a consensus basis by a committee of experts in the field of upper extremity injuries. A PubMed search was conducted to find articles that used the eponymous terms. The search was limited to journal publication dates between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2015. Possibly misspelled eponymous terms were included in the search, as were eponymous terms with 10 or more hits. This resulted in six eponymous terms that were eligible for our study. Languages were limited to English, German and Dutch. Systematic literature reviews were excluded. Current concept articles were not excluded.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Search results

    For the six selected eponymous terms, the original description was traced by means of historical research. The search was conducted by backtracking references up to the original description or analysis of textbooks written by the person whose eponymous term is discussed. After identifying the index publication, the sentence or passage on which the eponymous term is based was carefully identified and used to compare it with the current articles.

    On identification, the articles were analysed for the description of the eponymous term itself and then compared with the description in the original publication. This was done by three authors. When the authors were not unanimous, consensus was met after discussion on the score given. If the description in current articles did not meet the original one, the article was scored as ‘divergent’; if there was no clear description of the eponymous term, it was scored as ‘undefined’. If the description was the same as the original manuscript, it was scored ‘similar’. In case that the authors chose to use a modification of the eponymous term but stated the original meaning in their material and methods, the article was scored as ‘similar’ too. No analysis was done to ascertain the quality of research or to interpret the outcomes of the articles. The six eponymous terms selected are (table 1 and figure 1) as follows:

    • Bankart (also Bankert) lesion, excluding ‘Bankart procedure’ and ‘bony Bankart’

    • Bristow-Latarjet (also Laterjet) procedure

    • Essex-Lopresti injury of the forearm

    • Galeazzi (also Galeazi) fracture

    • Hill-Sachs lesion, excluding reverse Hill-Sachs

    • Monteggia (also Montegia) fracture

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Flowchart depicting the process of article selection.

    From the original publications, these eponymous terms are defined as follows:

    • The Bankart lesion (Arthur Sidney Blundell Bankart, 1879–1951) is a detachment of the glenoid ligament from the anterior margin of the glenoid cavity after anterior glenohumeral injury.1 It should be noted that ‘bony Bankart’ is an interesting term, as Bankart wrote explicitly that he never had seen recurrent dislocation after glenoid fracture or bony abnormality.1 Therefore the ‘bony Bankart’ is excluded from our analysis.

    • The Bristow-Latarjet procedure (Walter Rowley Bristow, 1882–1947, and Michel Latarjet, 1919–1999) is a difficult eponymous term, since it comprises two surgical procedures that are very much alike but not the same. The distinctive similarity between the Bristow and Latarjet procedures is the use of the coracoid for anterior shoulder stabilisation. Bristow used only the tip of the coracoid and fixed the conjoined tendon to a slit in the subscapular muscle with sutures, as described by Helfet in 1958.2 Latarjet used the whole coracoid and fixed it with one screw, and raved the anterior shoulder capsule, as he described in 1958.3 Only stating ‘coracoid transposition’ is not specific enough to establish the exact technique used, so the articles using this description were scored as ‘undefined’.

    • The Essex-Lopresti injury (Peter Gordon Essex-Lopresti, 1915–1951) of the forearm was described in 1951 as a comminuted radial head fracture with dislocation of the distal radioulnar joint and disruption of the interosseous membrane.4

    • Galeazzi (Riccardo Galeazzi, 1891–1961) in his original articles from 1934 and 1935 described a fracture of the radius with dislocation of the distal radioulnar joint.5 ,6 This fracture came to bear his name.

    • Hill and Sachs (Harold Arthur Hill, 1901–1973, and Maurice David Sachs 1909–1987) described in 1940 a distinctive defect in the humeral head after anterior shoulder dislocation. It is a compression fracture that shows four specific characteristics radiologically: (1) It is at the posterolateral location of the humeral head; only very large defects extend into the greater tuberosity. (2) In external rotation the defect is subtle and often overlooked. (3) The indentation is best seen with the arm in internal rotation and presents as a dense line of ‘condensation’. (4) An avulsed fragment from the humerus is practically never present; there may be a small chip from the inferior portion of the glenoid rim.7 Since Hill and/or Sachs did not describe the reversed type of this lesion, articles on this subject were excluded.

    • Monteggia (Giovanni Battista Monteggia, 1762–1815) described in 1814 a fracture of the proximal third of the ulna combined with an anterior dislocation of the radial head at the proximal radioulnar joint.8 A fracture at any site of the ulna with any kind of proximal radial dislocation was described by Hamilton and Malgaigne, but the majority of these fractures are not by definition a Monteggia fracture.9

    Results

    Bankart lesion

    Initial search with the keywords ‘Bankart lesion’ and ‘Bankert lesion’ produced 40 hits in PubMed, and after exclusion of abstract and full text, 24 were included for final analysis (graph 1).10–33 The excluded articles were in a different language (two Spanish, one Czech), reported on Bankart repair (3) or bony Bankart lesions (6) or were systematic reviews (4). Nine (37%) articles did not clearly define a Bankart lesion. Four (17%) descriptions were divergent, and the remaining 11 (46%) had a description similar to the original one (table 2).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Bankart (Bankert) lesion (articles used after exclusion criteria: 24)

    Bristow-Latarjet procedure

    Initial search with the keywords ‘Bristow-Latarjet procedure’ and ‘Bristow-Laterjet procedure’ produced 11 hits in PubMed, and after exclusion of abstract and full text, 8 remained for final analysis (graph 1).28 ,34–40 The excluded articles were systematic reviews. Two (25%) articles did not clearly define a Bristow-Latarjet procedure. Six (75%) descriptions were divergent and none had a description similar to the original one (table 3).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Bristow-Latarjet (Laterjet) procedure (articles used after exclusion criteria: 8)

    Essex-Lopresti injury of the forearm

    Initial search with the keywords ‘Essex-Lopresti injury of the forearm’ produced 12 hits in PubMed, and after exclusion of abstract and full text, 11 remained for final analysis (graph 1).41–51 The excluded article was a letter to the editor. One (9%) article did not clearly define an Essex-Lopresti injury. One (9%) description was divergent, and the remaining nine (82%) had a description similar to the original one (table 4).

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Essex-Lopresti injury of the forearm (articles used after exclusion criteria: 11)

    Galeazzi fracture

    Initial search with the keywords ‘Galeazzi fracture’ and ‘Galeazi fracture’ produced 11 hits in PubMed, and after exclusion of abstract and full text, 10 remained for final analysis (graph 1).52–61 The excluded article was in a different language (French). Four (40%) articles did not clearly define a Galeazzi fracture. One (10%) description was divergent, and the remaining five (50%) had a description similar to the original one (table 5).

    View this table:
    Table 5

    Galeazzi (Galeazi) fracture (articles used after exclusion criteria: 10)

    Hill-Sachs lesion

    Initial search with the keywords ‘Hill-Sachs lesion’ produced 31 hits in PubMed, and after exclusion on abstract and full text, 22 remained for final analysis (graph 1).15 ,17 ,24–29 ,31 ,32 ,62–73 The excluded articles were in a different language (two Spanish, one Czech), reported on reverse Hill-Sachs lesions (3), or were systematic reviews (3). In total, 7 (32%) articles did not clearly define a Hill-Sachs lesion. A total of 5 (23%) descriptions were divergent, and the remaining 10 (45%) had a description similar to the original one (table 6).

    View this table:
    Table 6

    Hill-Sachs lesion (articles used after exclusion criteria: 22)

    Monteggia fracture

    Initial search with the keywords ‘Monteggia fracture’ and ‘Montegia fracture’ produced 23 hits in PubMed, and after exclusion of abstract and full text, 21 remained for final analysis (graph 1).53 ,74–93 The excluded articles were in a different language (two Chinese). In total, 11 (52%) articles did not clearly define a Monteggia fracture. A total of 5 (24%) descriptions were divergent, and the remaining 5 (24%) had a description similar to the original one (table 7).

    View this table:
    Table 7

    Monteggia fracture (articles used after exclusion criteria: 21)

    In total, 96 articles were analysed, of which 27 (28%) were scored divergent, 32 (33%) undefined and 37 (39%) similar.

    Discussion

    Although our series are small, it is the first time that the use of eponymous terms is studied in this manner. We limited our search to the year 2014 since our goal is to get a contemporary idea of the use of eponyms and we did not have the intention to do a thorough historical analysis of past use of the chosen eponymous terms. The major finding of our analysis is that the majority of eponymous terms are not used as originally described (61%). There was a large variety in the results, but a 100% match between the original description of the eponymous term and the meaning of the same eponymous term in our study period was not found. For the Bristow-Latarjet procedure none of the recently used eponyms were in concordance with the original. The reason that 75% of the recent descriptions diverged from the original one is because of the complex nature of this eponymous term, which encompasses two techniques. By stating this in the Materials and Methods section and by referring to the used technique, it is possible to still use the eponymous. A similar description can thus be named, although using only one or maybe a variation of the technique.

    The use of eponymous terms in orthopaedic surgery is a well-known mirror of our professional past. Eponymous terms commemorate the pioneers that shaped our profession the way it is practiced today, although it is possible that the eponym is not the one that first described the condition that came to bear his name. This is known as Nonoriginal Malappropriate Eponymous Nomenclature (NOMEN).94 However, in the years following the initial description of certain conditions or surgical techniques, advancing insights changed classifications of diagnoses/pathologies and treatment algorithms. The original description might therefore no longer be appropriate. Often an addition of a ‘variant’ or ‘modification’ to the eponymous term is used to show that its meaning has been changed. This is in concordance with Ravitch's statement on eponyms that: ‘1) The man so honoured was not the first to describe the disease, operation or instrument; 2) He misunderstood the situation; 3) He is generally misquoted; and 4) 1, 2 and 3 are simultaneously true’.95 This can add complexity to the scientific comparison and discussion. It is important to determine whether the definition is similar when talking, reading or writing about a condition or surgical technique. It has been shown that it might not be the case when using eponymous terms.96

    The origin of eponymous terms is diverse; it varies from citing the first or most well-known author of the original description in an article97 or book98 to using it to honour the person we learnt from.2 Sometimes the original author himself dedicates the finding to his own name.99 Independently of origin, eponymous terms are and will remain part of our daily routine.

    Eponymous term divergence may be due to a lack of specificity in the description given in the current literature. It would take a larger group with focus on one single eponymous term to investigate this. When a new description appeared for the analysed eponymous terms, our results did not show it as being used by all the authors. Divergent descriptions can be ascribed to a variety of reasons (all tables).

    The group that kept the eponymous term undefined poses difficulties. This would only be a theoretical problem if all the other descriptions were similar to the original ones, and (although scientifically it is not appropriate) we could assume that the undefined eponymous term is used similarly to the original description. As this is not the case, we cannot be sure that the articles that did not define the meaning of the eponymous term used it correctly. This makes the research results hard to interpret and apply in our daily practice.

    Systematic reviews were excluded, because they report on other (older) articles and do not necessarily use the eponymous term as a distinctive marker themselves. Although excluded for this reason, the article by Trivedi et al100 is an interesting example of erroneous use of eponymous terms, since it states that a Bankart lesion is defined as glenoid bone loss. Their recommendations should be carefully interpreted, as a search for Bankart lesions for that review will mostly result in articles reporting on labral tears; hence, the definitive article selection should be corrected for this. It probably means that over time adaptation of the Bankart lesion has occurred. In the past, bony avulsion was referred to as a ‘bony Bankart’ and over time the condition was attributed to Bankart.

    A limitation to our study is that we chose a time span of 1 year to search our articles in. We feel though that this results in enough articles we could analyse to answer our research question for this study. Since it was the first time this kind of study was performed, we chose to keep the limit to this time span as a form of pilot. Further studies could direct their search on a limited amount of eponymous terms from the first time they are described up until today to obtain a clear understanding of the use of the eponymous term over time.

    Another limit is that the study is restricted to elbow and shoulder surgery; therefore, it might not be applicable to other specialties. The found literature on the debate, whether or not eponyms should be used, is from all kinds of specialties, so the issue seems applicable to general medicine. To research all fields of medicine in one study would be better but unrealistic in our view, since there are more than 20 000 medical eponyms.101 ,102

    We recommend describing the lesion in relation to the local (patho)anatomy or trauma mechanism since it is less prone to misinterpretation. When an eponymous structure, lesion or therapy is used, the Materials and Methods section should specify the used anatomical/pathological meaning of the eponymous term. A reference to the original description or the description used should also be given. When the description diverges from the original, it should be stated in what way the eponymous term is being used.

    Conclusion

    Eponymous terms in shoulder and elbow trauma and surgery are used inadequately and inconsistently. The use of eponymous terms probably cannot be avoided in scientific literature and in daily patient care, but it should be regarded with care.103 ,104 This, since the majority of eponymous terms are not used according to their original description and understanding of their meaning, differs among medics and researchers. Since eponymous terms are hard to abolish in our daily practice and an explanation on their meaning will not always be given, we propose that when used in the scientific literature, the original description or current use should be clarified. The Materials and Methods section of each article should explicitly specify the supposed meaning of the used eponymous term. Only then can we interpret the results correctly.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Bankart AS
      . Recurrent or habitual dislocation of the shoulder-joint. Br Med J 1923;2:1132–3.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Helfet AJ
      . Coracoid transplantation for recurring dislocation of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1958;40-B:198–202.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Latarjet M
      . [Technic of coracoid preglenoid arthroereisis in the treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder]. Lyon Chir 1958;54:604–7.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Essex-lopresti P
      . Fractures of the radial head with distal radio-ulnar dislocation; report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1951;33B:244–7.
      OpenUrlWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Galeazzi R
      . Über ein besonderes Syndrom bei Verletzungen im Bereich der Unteramrknochen. Arch Orthop Unfall-Chir 1935;35:557–62. doi:10.1007/BF02581917
      OpenUrl
    6. ↵
      1. Galeazzi R
      . Di una particolare sindrome traumatica dello scheletro dell'avambraccio. Atti Mem della Soc Lomb Chir 1934;2:663–6.
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      1. Hill H,
      2. Sachs M
      . The grooved defect of the humeral head: a frequently unrecognized complication of dislocations of the shoulder joint. Radiology 1940;35:690–700. doi:10.1148/35.6.690
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    8. ↵
      1. Monteggia GB
      . Lussazioni della ossa delle estremita superiori. In: Monteggia GB, ed. Instituzioni Chirurgisches. Milan: Maspero, 1814:131–3.
    9. ↵
      1. Bado JL
      . The Monteggia lesion. Clin Orthop Relat Res;50:71–86.
    10. ↵
      1. Armangil M,
      2. Basat HÇ,
      3. Akan B, et al
      . Arthroscopic stabilization of anterior shoulder instability using a single anterior portal. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2015;49:6–12. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2015.14.0035
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Forsythe B,
      2. Frank RM,
      3. Ahmed M, et al
      . Identification and treatment of existing copathology in anterior shoulder instability repair. Arthroscopy 2015;31:154–66. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.06.014
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Burt DM
      . Arthroscopic repair of inferior labrum from anterior to posterior lesions associated with multidirectional instability of the shoulder. Arthrosc Tech 2014;3:e727–30. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2014.09.004
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    13. ↵
      1. Kephart CJ,
      2. Abdulian MH,
      3. McGarry MH, et al
      . Biomechanical analysis of the modified Bristow procedure for anterior shoulder instability: is the bone block necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:1792–9. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.03.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Shields E,
      2. Mirabelli M,
      3. Amsdell S, et al
      . Functional and imaging outcomes of arthroscopic simultaneous rotator cuff repair and Bankart repair after shoulder dislocations. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:2614–20. doi:10.1177/0363546514550993
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      1. Ozaki R,
      2. Nakagawa S,
      3. Mizuno N, et al
      . Hill-Sachs lesions in shoulders with traumatic anterior instability: evaluation using computed tomography with 3-dimensional reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:2597–605. doi:10.1177/0363546514549543
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Belangero PS,
      2. Leal MF,
      3. de Castro Pochini A, et al
      . Profile of collagen gene expression in the glenohumeral capsule of patients with traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder. Rev Bras Ortop 2014;49:642–6. doi:10.1016/j.rboe.2014.10.008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Burks RT,
      2. Presson AP,
      3. Weng HY
      . An analysis of technical aspects of the arthroscopic Bankart procedure as performed in the United States. Arthroscopy 2014;30:1246–53. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.05.026
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Dumont GD,
      2. Golijanin P,
      3. Provencher MT
      . Shoulder instability in the military. Clin Sports Med 2014;33:707–20. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2014.06.006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Bernhardson AS,
      2. Bailey JR,
      3. Solomon DJ, et al
      . Glenoid bone loss in the setting of an anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion tear. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:2136–40. doi:10.1177/0363546514539912
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Larribe M,
      2. Laurent PE,
      3. Acid S, et al
      . Anterior shoulder instability: the role of advanced shoulder imaging in preoperative planning. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2014;18:398–403. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1384828
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Yamamoto A,
      2. Massimini DF,
      3. DiStefano J, et al
      . Glenohumeral contact pressure with simulated anterior labral and osseous defects in cadaveric shoulders before and after soft tissue repair. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:1947–54. doi:10.1177/0363546514531905
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Guermazi A,
      2. Jomaah N,
      3. Hayashi D, et al
      . MR arthrography of the shoulder: optimizing pulse sequence protocols for the evaluation of cartilage and labrum. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:1421–8. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.030
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Edmonds EW,
      2. Roocroft JH,
      3. Parikh SN
      . Spectrum of operative childhood intra-articular shoulder pathology. J Child Orthop 2014;8:337–40. doi:10.1007/s11832-014-0598-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Zhu W,
      2. Lu W,
      3. Zhang L, et al
      . Arthroscopic findings in the recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014;24:699–705. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1259-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Argintar E,
      2. Heckmann N,
      3. Wang L, et al
      . The biomechanical effect of shoulder remplissage combined with Bankart repair for the treatment of engaging Hill-Sachs lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:585–92. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3092-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Wolf EM,
      2. Arianjam A
      . Hill-Sachs remplissage, an arthroscopic solution for the engaging Hill-Sachs lesion: 2- to 10-year follow-up and incidence of recurrence. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:814–20. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.009
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Grimberg J,
      2. Diop A,
      3. Ghosn RB, et al
      . Bankart repair versus Bankart repair plus remplissage: an in vitro biomechanical comparative study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2016;24:374–80. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3052-z
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Streubel PN,
      2. Krych AJ,
      3. Simone JP, et al
      . Anterior glenohumeral instability: a pathology-based surgical treatment strategy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014;22:283–94. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-22-05-283
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Witney-Lagen C,
      2. Perera N,
      3. Rubin S, et al
      . Fewer anchors achieves successful arthroscopic shoulder stabilization surgery: 114 patients with 4 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:382–7. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.010
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Moran CJ,
      2. Fabricant PD,
      3. Kang R, et al
      . Arthroscopic double-row anterior stabilization and Bankart repair for the ‘high-risk’ athlete. Arthrosc Tech 2014;3:e65–71. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2013.08.011
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Horst K,
      2. Von Harten R,
      3. Weber C, et al
      . Assessment of coincidence and defect sizes in Bankart and Hill-Sachs lesions after anterior shoulder dislocation: a radiological study. Br J Radiol 2014;87:20130673. doi:10.1259/bjr.20130673
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Guity MR,
      2. Akhlaghpour S,
      3. Yousefian R
      . Determination of prevalence of glenoid bony lesions after recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation using the 3-D CT scan. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2014;28:20.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Tudisco C,
      2. Bisicchia S,
      3. Savarese E, et al
      . ‘8 plate’: an alternative device to fix highly recurrent traumatic anterior gleno-humeral instability in patients with severe impairment of the anterior capsule. Open Orthop J 2014;8:457–61. doi:10.2174/1874325001408010457
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Sakeb N,
      2. Islam MA,
      3. Jannat SN
      . Outcome of modified Bristow-Laterjet procedure in post-traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation in young population. Mymensingh Med J 2015;24:74–83.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Nourissat G,
      2. Delaroche C,
      3. Bouillet B, et al
      . Optimization of bone-block positioning in the Bristow-Latarjet procedure: a biomechanical study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014;100:509–13. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.023
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Giles JW,
      2. Degen RM,
      3. Johnson JA, et al
      . The Bristow and Latarjet procedures: why these techniques should not be considered synonymous. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:1340–8. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00627
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    37. ↵
      1. Boileau P,
      2. Thélu CÉ,
      3. Mercier N, et al
      . Arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet combined with Bankart repair restores shoulder stability in patients with glenoid bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:2413–24. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3691-x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Sastre S,
      2. Peidro L,
      3. Méndez A, et al
      . Suprascapular nerve palsy after arthroscopic Latarjet procedure: a case report and review of literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016;24:601–3. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3075-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. de Figueiredo EA,
      2. Belangero PS,
      3. Ejnisman B, et al
      . Complex shoulder injuries in sports. BMJ Case Rep 2014;2014:pii: bcr2014203661. doi:10.1136/bcr-2014-203661
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    40. ↵
      1. Willems WJ
      . Reconstruction of glenoid bone defects in shoulder instability with autologous bone. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2014;7:12–5. doi:10.1007/s12178-013-9200-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Martínez Villén G,
      2. García Martínez B,
      3. Aso Vizán A
      . Total distal radioulnar joint prosthesis as salvage surgery in multioperated patients. Chir Main 2014;33:390–5. doi:10.1016/j.main.2014.09.004
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Grassmann JP,
      2. Hakimi M,
      3. Gehrmann S V, et al
      . The treatment of the acute Essex-Lopresti injury. Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1385–91. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B10.33334
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Erickson BJ,
      2. Fillingham YA,
      3. Cvetanovich GL, et al
      . A rare case of an Essex-Lopresti injury secondary to a gunshot wound. Polish Orthop Traumatol 2014;79:97–101.
      OpenUrl
    44. ↵
      1. Baghdadi YMK,
      2. Morrey BF,
      3. Sanchez-Sotelo J
      . Anconeus interposition arthroplasty: mid- to long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:2151–61. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3629-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Venouziou AI,
      2. Papatheodorou LK,
      3. Weiser RW, et al
      . Chronic Essex-Lopresti injuries: an alternative treatment method. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:861–6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.043
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Elamrani D,
      2. Aumar A,
      3. Wavreille G, et al
      . Comparative morphometry of the antebrachial and crural interosseous membranes: preliminary study for the use of the crural interosseous membrane in the surgical repair of the antebrachial interosseous membrane tears. Surg Radiol Anat 2014;36:333–9. doi:10.1007/s00276-013-1199-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Wegmann K,
      2. Engel K,
      3. Burkhart KJ, et al
      . Sequence of the Essex-Lopresti lesion–a high-speed video documentation and kinematic analysis. Acta Orthop 2014;85:177–80. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.887952
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. McGinley JC,
      2. Gold G,
      3. Cheung E, et al
      . MRI detection of forearm soft tissue injuries with radial head fractures. Hand (N Y) 2014;9:87–92. doi:10.1007/s11552-013-9561-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Brin YS,
      2. Palmanovich E,
      3. Bivas A, et al
      . Treating acute Essex-Lopresti injury with the TightRope device: a case study. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 2014;18:51–5. doi:10.1097/BTH.0000000000000036
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Hernández-Cortés P,
      2. Gómez-Sánchez R,
      3. Pajares-López M, et al
      . Sauvé-Kapandji and reverse Sauvé-Kapandji procedures for treating chronic longitudinal radioulnar dissociation with capitellum fracture. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2014;48:593–7. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2014.3121
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Loeffler BJ,
      2. Green JB,
      3. Zelouf DS
      . Forearm instability. J Hand Surg Am 2014;39:156–67. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.07.010
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    52. ↵
      1. Gould FJ,
      2. Broome GHH
      . Extensor tendon entrapment after a Galeazzi-type paediatric fracture. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2015;40:323–4. doi:10.1177/1753193414525906
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    53. ↵
      1. Köse A,
      2. Aydın A,
      3. Ezirmik N, et al
      . Alternative treatment of forearm double fractures: new design intramedullary nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014;134:1387–96. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2058-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Saka G,
      2. Saglam N,
      3. Kurtulmus T, et al
      . Treatment of isolated diaphyseal fractures of the radius with an intramedullary nail in adults. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014;24:1085–93. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1398-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Sabat D,
      2. Dabas V,
      3. Dhal A
      . Late extensor pollicis longus rupture following plate fixation in Galeazzi fracture dislocation. Indian J Orthop 2014;48:426–8. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.136311
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Nagy MT,
      2. Ghosh S,
      3. Shah B, et al
      . Delayed rupture of flexor tendons in zone V complicated by neuritis 18 years following Galeazzi fracture-dislocation. BMJ Case Rep 2014;2014:pii: bcr2013010188. doi:10.1136/bcr-2013-010188
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    57. ↵
      1. Fillingham Y,
      2. Hellman M,
      3. Haughom B, et al
      . Report of Galeazzi fracture resulting from a ballistic injury. Polish Orthop Traumatol 2014;79:5–9.
      OpenUrl
    58. ↵
      1. Takemoto R,
      2. Sugi M,
      3. Immerman I, et al
      . Ulnar variance as a predictor of persistent instability following Galeazzi fracture-dislocations. J Orthop Traumatol 2014;15:41–6. doi:10.1007/s10195-013-0266-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Little JT,
      2. Klionsky NB,
      3. Chaturvedi A, et al
      . Pediatric distal forearm and wrist injury: an imaging review. Radiographics 2014;34:472–90. doi:10.1148/rg.342135073
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      1. Fayaz HC,
      2. Jupiter JB
      . Galeazzi fractures: our modified classification and treatment regimen. Handchirurgie Mikrochirurgie Plast Chir 2014;46:31–3. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1367035
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    61. ↵
      1. Saka G,
      2. Saglam N,
      3. Kurtulmuş T, et al
      . New interlocking intramedullary radius and ulna nails for treating forearm diaphyseal fractures in adults: a retrospective study. Injury 2014;45(Suppl 1):S16–23. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.10.040
      OpenUrl
    62. ↵
      1. Patel RM,
      2. Amin NH,
      3. Lynch TS, et al
      . Management of bone loss in glenohumeral instability. Orthop Clin North Am 2014;45:523–39. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2014.06.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    63. ↵
      1. Gyftopoulos S,
      2. Albert M,
      3. Recht MP
      . Osseous injuries associated with anterior shoulder instability: what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:W541–50. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11824
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    64. ↵
      1. Omori Y,
      2. Yamamoto N,
      3. Koishi H, et al
      . Measurement of the glenoid track in vivo as investigated by 3-dimensional motion analysis using open MRI. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:1290–5. doi:10.1177/0363546514527406
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    65. ↵
      1. Agneskirchner JD,
      2. Lafosse L
      . [Transfer of the coracoid process in recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder joint. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2014;26:296–306. doi:10.1007/s00064-011-0052-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    66. ↵
      1. McCabe MP,
      2. Weinberg D,
      3. Field LD, et al
      . Primary versus revision arthroscopic reconstruction with remplissage for shoulder instability with moderate bone loss. Arthroscopy 2014;30:444–50. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.12.015
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    67. ↵
      1. Chan CM,
      2. Farmer KW
      . Technique using bone wax to aid in fashioning grafts for osteochondral allografting of bony defects of humeral head. J Surg Orthop Adv 2014;23:49–51. doi:10.3113/JSOA.2014.0049
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Mohtadi NGH,
      2. Chan DS,
      3. Hollinshead RM, et al
      . A randomized clinical trial comparing open and arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability: two-year follow-up with disease-specific quality-of-life outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:353–60. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01656
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    69. ↵
      1. Aslani H,
      2. Zafarani Z,
      3. Ebrahimpour A, et al
      . Early clinical results of arthroscopic remplissage in patients with anterior shoulder instability with engaging Hill-Sachs lesion in Iran. Arch bone Jt Surg 2014;2:43–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Di Giacomo G,
      2. De Vita A,
      3. Costantini A, et al
      . Management of humeral head deficiencies and glenoid track. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2014;7:6–11. doi:10.1007/s12178-013-9194-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Magee T
      . Prevalence of HAGL lesions and associated abnormalities on shoulder MR examination. Skeletal Radiol 2014;43:307–13. doi:10.1007/s00256-013-1778-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Omi R,
      2. Hooke AW,
      3. Zhao KD, et al
      . The effect of the remplissage procedure on shoulder range of motion: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 2014;30:178–87. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.11.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Di Giacomo G,
      2. Itoi E,
      3. Burkhart SS
      . Evolving concept of bipolar bone loss and The Hill-Sachs lesion: from ‘engaging/non-engaging’ lesion to ‘on-track/off-track’ lesion. Arthroscopy 2014;30:90–8. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.10.004
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Kozin SH,
      2. Abzug JM,
      3. Safier S, et al
      . Complications of pediatric elbow dislocations and Monteggia fracture-dislocations. Instr Course Lect 2015;64:493–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    75. ↵
      1. Bor N,
      2. Rubin G,
      3. Rozen N, et al
      . Chronic anterior Monteggia lesions in children: report of 4 cases treated with closed reduction by ulnar osteotomy and external fixation. J Pediatr Orthop 2015;35:7–10. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000203
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    76. ↵
      1. Andjelković S,
      2. Vučković Č,
      3. Milutinović S, et al
      . Giovanni Battista Monteggia (1762–1815). Srp Arh Celok Lek 2015;143:105–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    77. ↵
      1. Ramirez RN,
      2. Ryan DD,
      3. Williams J, et al
      . A line drawn along the radial shaft misses the capitellum in 16% of radiographs of normal elbows. J Pediatr Orthop 2014;34:763–7. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000199
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    78. ↵
      1. Delpont M,
      2. Jouve J-L,
      3. Sales de Gauzy J, et al
      . Proximal ulnar osteotomy in the treatment of neglected childhood Monteggia lesion. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014;100:803–7. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.06.022
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    79. ↵
      1. Mellema JJ,
      2. Doornberg JN,
      3. Dyer GSM, et al
      . Distribution of coronoid fracture lines by specific patterns of traumatic elbow instability. J Hand Surg Am 2014;39:2041–6. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.06.123
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    80. ↵
      1. Ray R,
      2. Gaston M
      . Treatment of late-presenting Monteggia variant with an isolated, simple flexion ulnar osteotomy. J Pediatr Orthop B 2014;23:472–6. doi:10.1097/BPB.0000000000000062
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    81. ↵
      1. Ha T,
      2. Grant S,
      3. Huntley JS
      . Monteggia type IV fracture in a child with radial head dislocation irreducible by closed means: a case report. BMC Res Notes 2014;7:539. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-539
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    82. ↵
      1. Rehim SA,
      2. Maynard MA,
      3. Sebastin SJ, et al
      . Monteggia fracture dislocations: a historical review. J Hand Surg Am 2014;39:1384–94. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.02.024
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    83. ↵
      1. Kim YS,
      2. Lee HM,
      3. Kim JP, et al
      . Unusual presentation of a type 1 Monteggia equivalent lesion: simultaneous medial humeral condyle fracture with ipsilateral anterior dislocation of the radial head and acute plastic bowing of the ulna. J Pediatr Orthop B 2014;23:383–8. doi:10.1097/BPB.0000000000000061
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    84. ↵
      1. Little KJ
      . Elbow fractures and dislocations. Orthop Clin North Am 2014;45:327–40. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2014.03.004
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    85. ↵
      1. Datta T,
      2. Chatterjee N,
      3. Pal AK, et al
      . Evaluation of outcome of corrective ulnar osteotomy with bone grafting and annular ligament reconstruction in neglected Monteggia fracture dislocation in children. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:LC01–4. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2014/9891.4409
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    86. ↵
      1. Williams HLM,
      2. Madhusudhan TR,
      3. Sinha A
      . Type III Monteggia injury with ipsilateral type II Salter Harris injury of the distal radius and ulna in a child: a case report. BMC Res Notes 2014;7:156. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-156
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    87. ↵
      1. Laratta JL,
      2. Yoon RS,
      3. Frank MA, et al
      . Divergent elbow dislocation with radial shaft fracture, distal ulnar deformation, and distal radioulnar joint instability: an unclassifiable Monteggia variant. J Orthop Traumatol 2014;15:63–7. doi:10.1007/s10195-013-0239-x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    88. ↵
      1. Otsuka J,
      2. Horii E,
      3. Koh S, et al
      . Severe forearm deformity and instability after Monteggia fracture-dislocation: a case report. J Pediatr Orthop B 2014;23:168–71. doi:10.1097/BPB.0000000000000005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    89. ↵
      1. Hagedorn JM,
      2. Reichel LM
      . Posterior interosseus nerve entrapment following Monteggia fracture dislocation. J Hand Surg Am 2014;39:400–2. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.12.019
      OpenUrl
    90. ↵
      1. Segaren N,
      2. Abdul-Jabar HB,
      3. Segaren N, et al
      . Medial radial head dislocation associated with a proximal olecranon fracture: a Bado type v? Case Rep Surg 2014;2014:723756. doi:10.1155/2014/723756
      OpenUrlPubMed
    91. ↵
      1. Beutel BG,
      2. Klifto CS,
      3. Chu A
      . Percutaneous reduction and flexible intramedullary nailing for Monteggia fracture in a skeletally mature patient. Int J Surg Case Rep 2014;5:1261–4. doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2014.11.057
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    92. ↵
      1. Agrawal Y,
      2. Fernandes JA
      . Type II Monteggia injury in a toddler: an unusual presentation. J Pediatr Orthop B 2014;23:100–2. doi:10.1097/BPB.0000000000000008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    93. ↵
      1. Chagou A,
      2. Rhanim A,
      3. Berrada MS
      . The Monteggia fracture: series of 20 cases. Pan Afr Med J 2014;19:51. doi:10.11604/pamj.2014.19.51.5300
      OpenUrlPubMed
    94. ↵
      1. Aresti N,
      2. Ramachandran M
      . Nonoriginal Malappropriate Eponymous Nomenclature: examples relevant to paediatric orthopaedics. J Pediatr Orthop B 2012;21:606–10. doi:10.1097/BPB.0b013e328356f9a5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    95. ↵
      1. Ravitch MM
      . Dupuytren's invention of the Mikulicz enterotome with a note on eponyms. Perspect Biol Med 1979;22:170–84.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    96. ↵
      1. Waseem M,
      2. Khan M,
      3. Hussain N, et al
      . Eponyms: errors in clinical practice and scientific writing. Acta Orthop Belg 2005;71:1–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    97. ↵
      1. Hybbinette S
      . De la transplantation d'un fragment osseux pour remédier aux luxations récidivantes de l'epaule; constatations et résultats opératoires. Acta Chir Scand 1932;71:411–45.
      OpenUrl
    98. ↵
      1. Hoffa A
      . Lehrbuch der Frakturen und Luxationen. 4th edn. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag, 1904.
    99. ↵
      1. Kim S-H,
      2. Ha K-I,
      3. Yoo JC, et al
      . Kim's lesion: an incomplete and concealed avulsion of the posteroinferior labrum in posterior or multidirectional posteroinferior instability of the shoulder. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 2004;20:712–20. doi:10.1016/S0749-8063(04)00597-3
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    100. ↵
      1. Trivedi S,
      2. Pomerantz ML,
      3. Gross D, et al
      . Shoulder instability in the setting of bipolar (glenoid and humeral head) bone loss: the glenoid track concept. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:2352–62. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3589-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    101. ↵
      1. Garfield E
      . What's in a name? The eponymic route to immortality. Essays an Inf Sci 1983;6:384–95.
      OpenUrl
    102. ↵
      1. Baskaran LNGM,
      2. Greco PJ,
      3. Kaelber DC
      . Case report medical eponyms: an applied clinical informatics opportunity. Appl Clin Inform 2012;3:349–55. doi:10.4338/ACI-2012-05-CR-0019
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    103. ↵
      1. Woywodt A,
      2. Matteson E
      . Should eponyms be abandoned? Yes. BMJ 2007;335:424–424. doi:10.1136/bmj.39308.342639.AD
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    104. ↵
      1. Whitworth JA
      . Should eponyms be abandoned? No. BMJ 2007;335:425. doi:10.1136/bmj.39308.380567.AD
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MPS contributed to study design, literature search, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation and manuscript writing. RANW contributed to study design, data collection, data interpretation, figures/tables preparation and correction of manuscript. CNvD contributed to writing and correction of manuscript. FFAI contributed to data interpretation, writing and correction of manuscript. DE contributed to study design, data interpretation, writing and correction of manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.