Introduction and Objective. Hip fractures represent one of the most challenging injuries in orthopaedic practice due to the associated morbidity, mortality and the financial burden they impose on the health care systems. By many still considered as the gold standard in the management of intertrochanteric fractures, the Dynamic Hip Screw utilizes controlled collapse during weight bearing to stabilize the fracture. Despite being a highly successful device, mechanical failure rate is not uncommon. The most accepted intraoperative indicator for lag screw failure is the tip apex distance (TAD), yet lateral femoral wall thickness (LWT) is another evolving parameter for detecting the potential for lateral wall fracture with subsequent medialization and implant failure. The aim of this study is to determine the mean and cut off levels for LWT that warrant lateral wall fracture and the implications of that on implant failure, revision rates and implant choice. Materials and Methods. This prospective cohort study included 42 patients with a mean age of 70.43y with intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with DHS fixation by the same consultant surgeon from April 2019 to December 2019. The study sample was calculated based on a confidence level of 90% and margin of error of 5%. Fracture types included in the study are 31A1 and 31A2 based on the AO/OTA classification system. LWT was assessed in all patients preoperatively using Surgimap (Nemaris, NY, USA) software. Patients were divided into two groups according to the post-operative integrity of the lateral femoral wall, where group (A) sustained a lateral femoral wall fracture intraoperatively or within 12 months after the index procedure, while in group (B) the lateral femoral wall remained intact. All patients were regularly followed up radiologically and clinically per the Harris Hip Score (HHS) for a period of 12 months. Results. At 12 months five patients (12%) suffered a postoperative lateral wall fracture, while in 37 patients (88%) the lateral femoral wall remained intact. The mean preoperative LWT of patients with a postoperative lateral wall fracture was 18.04 mm (SD ± 1.58) compared to 26.22mm (SD ± 5.93) in the group without a lateral wall fracture. All patients with post-operative lateral femoral wall fracture belong to 31A2 group, while 78.4% of the patients that did not develop post-operative lateral femoral wall fracture belong to 31A1 group. Eighty percent of patients in group (A) experienced shortening, collapse, shaft medialization and varus deformity. The mean Harris hip score of group (A) was 39.60 at 3 months and 65.67 at 6 months postoperatively, while that of group (B) was 80.75 and 90.65 at 3 and 6 months respectively, denoting a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Treatment failure meriting a revision surgery was 40 % in group (A) and 8% in group (B) denoting a statistically significant difference (p<0.001). The cut-off point of LWT below which there is a high chance of post-operative lateral wall fracture when fixed with DHS is 19.6mm. This was shown on the receiver operating curve (ROC) by plotting the sensitivity against the 100 % specificity with a set 95% confidence interval 0.721 – 0.954. When lateral wall thickness was at 19.6 mm, the sensitivity was 100% and specificity was 81.8%. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.838, which was statistically significant (P = 0.015). Conclusions. Preoperative measurement of LWT in elderly patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures is decisive. The cut off point for postoperative lateral wall fracture according to our study is 19.6 mm; hence, intramedullary fixation has to be considered in this situation

Summary Statement. Routine metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty is not essential and the use of cobalt chromium or stainless steel implants is recommended regardless of the patient's metal allergy status. Introduction. This study was undertaken to obtain a consensus amongst joint arthroplasty experts with regards to metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty and the choice of implant in patients with potential metal allergy. Patients & Methods. A web based Delphi consensus study was used including orthopaedic surgeons that had previously published on the topic of knee, hip or shoulder arthroplasty. Two rounds of questionnaires were sent via electronic mail. Consensus was considered if agreement was 60% or higher. Results. 18 surgeons responded to the first and 17 to the second round of questionnaires. There was consensus that patients having metal arthroplasty surgery should not be routinely questioned about metal allergy prior to surgery. There was consensus that patch testing is not necessary even if metal allergy is suspected. Most respondents agreed in proceeding with cobalt chromium or stainless steel implant in patients suspected of metal allergy regardless of the results of cutaneous patch testing. Discussion/Conclusion. This consensus study suggests that routine metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty is not essential. The use of traditional cobalt chromium/stainless steel implants is recommended regardless of the patient's metal allergy status

Introduction. Tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis with a retrograde intramedullary nail is an established procedure considered as a salvage in case of severe arthritis and deformity of the ankle and subtalar joints [1]. Recently, a significant development in hindfoot arthrodesis with plates has been indicated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare a plate specifically developed for arthrodesis of the hindfoot with an already established nail system [2]. Method. Sixteen paired human cadaveric lower legs with removed forefoot and cut at mid-tibia were assigned to two groups for tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis using either a hindfoot arthrodesis nail or an arthrodesis plate. The specimens were tested under progressively increasing cyclic loading in dorsiflexion and plantar flexion to failure, with monitoring via motion tracking. Initial stiffness was calculated together with range of motion in dorsiflexion and plantar flexion after 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 cycles. Cycles to failure were evaluated based on 5° dorsiflexion failure criterion. Result. Initial stiffness in dorsiflexion, plantar flexion, varus, valgus, internal rotation and external rotation did not differ significantly between the two arthrodesis techniques (p ≥ 0.118). Range of motion in dorsiflexion and plantar flexion increased significantly between 200 and 1000 cycles (p < 0.001) and remained not significantly different between the groups (p ≥ 0.120). Cycles to failure did not differ significantly between the two techniques (p = 0.764). Conclusion. From biomechanical point of view, both tested techniques for tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis appear to be applicable. However, clinical trials and other factors, such as extent of the deformity, choice of the approach and preference of the surgeon play the main role for implant choice. Acknowledgements. This study was performed with the assistance of the AO Foundation

Objectives. All-suture anchors are increasingly used in rotator cuff repair procedures. Potential benefits include decreased bone damage. However, there is limited published evidence for the relative strength of fixation for all-suture anchors compared with traditional anchors. Materials and Methods. A total of four commercially available all-suture anchors, the ‘Y-Knot’ (ConMed), Q-FIX (Smith & Nephew), ICONIX (Stryker) and JuggerKnot (Zimmer Biomet) and a traditional anchor control TWINFIX Ultra PK Suture Anchor (Smith & Nephew) were tested in cadaveric human humeral head rotator cuff repair models (n = 24). This construct underwent cyclic loading applied by a mechanical testing rig (Zwick/Roell). Ultimate load to failure, gap formation at 50, 100, 150 and 200 cycles, and failure mechanism were recorded. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results. Overall, mean maximum tensile strength values were significantly higher for the traditional anchor (181.0 N, standard error (. se). 17.6) compared with the all-suture anchors (mean 133.1 N . se. 16.7) (p = 0.04). The JuggerKnot anchor had greatest displacement at 50, 100 and 150 cycles, and at failure, reaching statistical significance over the control at 100 and 150 cycles (22.6 mm . se. 2.5 versus 12.5 mm . se. 0.3; and 29.6 mm . se. 4.8 versus 17.0 mm . se. 0.7). Every all-suture anchor tested showed substantial (> 5 mm) displacement between 50 and 100 cycles (6.2 to 14.3). All-suture anchors predominantly failed due to anchor pull-out (95% versus 25% of traditional anchors), whereas a higher proportion of traditional anchors failed secondary to suture breakage. Conclusion. We demonstrate decreased failure load, increased total displacement, and variable failure mechanisms in all-suture anchors, compared with traditional anchors designed for rotator cuff repair. These findings will aid the surgeon’s choice of implant, in the context of the clinical scenario. Cite this article: N. S. Nagra, N. Zargar, R. D. J. Smith, A. J. Carr. Mechanical properties of all-suture anchors for rotator cuff repair. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:82–89. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.62.BJR-2016-0225.R1