Patient dissatisfaction is not uncommon following primary total knee arthroplasty. One proposed method to alleviate this is by improving knee kinematics. Therefore, we aimed to answer the following research question: are there significant differences in knee kinematics based on the design of the tibial insert (cruciate-retaining (CR), ultra-congruent (UC), or medial congruent (MC))? Overall, 15 cadaveric knee joints were examined with a CR implant with three different tibial inserts (CR, UC, and MC) using an established knee joint simulator. The effects on coronal alignment, medial and lateral femoral roll back, femorotibial rotation, bony rotations (femur, tibia, and patella), and patellofemoral length ratios were determined.Aims
Methods
The aims of this network meta-analysis (NMA) were to examine nonunion rates and functional outcomes following various operative and nonoperative treatments for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Initial search strategy incorporated MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four treatment arms were created: nonoperative (NO); intramedullary nailing (IMN); reconstruction plating (RP); and compression/pre-contoured plating (CP). A Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare all treatment options for outcomes of nonunion, malunion, and function using the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome scores.Aims
Methods
Tibial component loosening is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include isolated tibial component revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons who are unfamiliar with the existing implant or have a “let's just start over attitude.” This option adds morbidity versus isolated tibial exchange. While isolated tibial exchange has lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging with regard to exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options. Patients revised for isolated aseptic tibial loosening were identified from 2012–2017. Patients with revision implants, or those revised for infection, instability, osteolysis, or femoral component loosening were excluded. 161 patients met these criteria, 85 patients had an isolated tibial revision and 76 had revision of both components despite having only a loose tibial component. Patient demographics as well as clinical and radiographic outcomes were recorded for each cohort.Introduction
Methods
