Aims. Several previously identified patient-, injury-, and treatment-related factors are associated with the development of nonunion in
Aims. This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on hip and
Introduction.
Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare reoperation and revision rates of double plating (DP), single plating using a lateral locking plate (SP), or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for the treatment of periprosthetic
Aims. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic
Aims. Postoperative malalignment of the femur is one of the main complications in
Introduction. The incidence of
Helical plates potentially bypass the medial neurovascular structures of the thigh. Recently, two plate designs (90°- and 180°-helix) proved similar biomechanically behaviour compared to straight plates. Aims of this study were: (1) Feasibility of MIPO-technique with 90°- and 180°-helical plates on the femur, (2) Assessment of distances to adjacent anatomical structures at risk, (3) Comparison of these distances to using medial straight plates instead, (4) Correlation of measurements performed in anatomic dissection with CT-angiography. MIPO was performed in ten cadaveric femoral pairs using either a 90°-helical 14-hole-LCP (Group1) or a 180°-helical 15-hole-LCP-DF (Group2). CT angiography was used to evaluate the distances between the plates and the femoral arteries as well as the distances between the plates and the perforators. Subsequently, the specimens were dissected, and the distances were determined again manually. Finally, all helical plates were removed, and all measurements were repeated after application of straight medial plates (Group3). Closest overall distances between plates and femoral arteries were 15 mm (11 − 19 mm) in Group1, 22 mm (15 − 24 mm) in Group2 and 6 mm (1 − 8 mm) in Group3 with a significant difference between Group1 and Group3 (p < 0.001). Distances to the nearest perforators were 24 mm (15 − 32 mm) in Group1 and 2 mm (1 − 4 mm) in Group2. Measurement techniques (visual after surgery and CT-angiography) demonstrated a strong correlation of r2 = 0.972 (p < 0.01). MIPO with 90°- and 180°-helical plates is feasible and safe. Attention must be paid to the medial neurovascular structures with 90°-helical implants and to the proximal perforators with 180°-helical implants. Helical implants can avoid medial neurovascular structures compared to straight plates although care must be taken during their distal insertion. Measurements during anatomical dissection correlate with CT-angiography.
Purpose: surgical fixation
This multi-center randomized prospective trial examined fixation for
The management of periprosthetic
Abstract. Introduction. Distal Femoral Fractures around a Total Knee Replacement have a reported incidence of 0.25–2.3% of primary TKRs. Literature suggests that these fractures have high complication rates such as non union and revision. Methodology. A retrospective case note review was undertaken of all patients who sustained a
With an aging population and increase in total knee arthroplasty, periprosthetic
Introduction and Objective.
The objective of this study was to use patient-specific finite element modeling to measure the 3D interfragmentary strain environment in clinically realistic fractures. The hypothesis was that in the early post-operative period, the tissues in and around the fracture gap can tolerate a state of strain in excess of 10%, the classical limit proposed in the Perren strain theory. Eight patients (6 males, 2 females; ages 22–95 years) with
Introduction.
Introduction and Objective. Plating of geriatric
Aims. The modified Radiological Union Scale for Tibia (mRUST) fractures score was developed in order to assess progress to union and define a numerical assessment of fracture healing of metadiaphyseal fractures. This score has been shown to be valuable in predicting radiological union; however, there is no information on the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of this index for various cut-off scores. The aim of this study is to evaluate sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and cut-off points of the mRUST score for the diagnosis of metadiaphyseal fractures healing. Methods. A cohort of 146
Orthopaedic injuries in the knee are often associated with vascular injury. When these vascular injuries are missed devastating there are devastating outcomes like limb ablation. Pulse examination in these patients is not sensitive to exclude vascular injuries. That often lead to clinicians opting for Computed Tomography Angiogram (CTA) to exclude vascular. this usually leads to a burden in Radiology Department. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of vascular injury in patient with orthopaedic injury in the knee. The computed tomography (CT) done in patients with
Abstract. Introduction. We aimed to compare the outcomes of elderly patients with periarticular distal femur or supracondylar periprosthetic fractures treated with either open reduction internal fixation or distal femoral replacement. Methods. A retrospective review of patients over 65 years with AO Type B and C fractures of the distal femur or Su type I and II periprosthetic fractures treated with either a DFR or ORIF was undertaken. Outcomes including Length of Stay, PROMs (Oxford Knee Score and EQ 5D), infection, union, mortality, complication and reoperation rates were assessed. Data on confounding variables were also collected for multivariate analysis. Patients below 65 years and extra articular fractures were excluded. Results. 23 patients (11 in DFR group and 12 in ORIF group) fulfilled inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. There was no difference between the DFR and ORIF groups with respect to SDI, demographic variables, ASA grade, FCI, preoperative Hb and renal function. There was no difference in 30 day mortality, reoperation rates, 30 day readmission rates and LOS between the two groups. Mean follow up was 12.7 and 15.9 months respectively in the DFR and ORIF groups. At final follow up after accounting for all confounding variables on multivariate analysis, functional outcomes using OKS (adjusted mean: 29.5 vs 15.8) and Health related Quality of Life outcomes using EQ 5D (adjusted mean: 0.453 vs −0.07) were significantly better in the DFR group. Conclusion. DFR for periarticular and periprosthetic