Introduction. Deformity influences the weight bearing stresses on the knee joint. Correction of mechanical alignment is performed to offload the knee and slow the rate of degenerative change. Fixator assisted deformity correction facilitates accurate correction prior to internal fixation. We present our results with standard Ilizarov and UNYCO system assisted deformity correction of the lower limb. Materials and Methods. Retrospective analysis of adult surgical cases of mechanical re-alignment performed between 2010 and 2019 in a tertiary referral centre. We recorded standard demographics and operative time from the electronic patient record. We analysed digitalised radiographs to record pre- and post-operative measurements of: Mechanical axis deviation (MAD), femoral tibial angle (FTA), Medial Proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and Mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA). The accuracy of the correction was analysed. Time to healing, secondary interventions and complications were also recorded. Results. 7 patients underwent fixator assisted deformity correction with the UNYCO system and 11 with a standard Ilizarov frame. Mean pre-op MAD was 45.8mm in the UNYCO group and 43.4mm in Ilazrov; Mean post-op MAD was 9.5mm in the UNYCO group (5–15) and 12.3 in the Ilizarov group (1–25) p=0.07. The average surgical time in the UNYCO group was 200 minutes (128–325) and 252 minutes (203–301) in the Ilizarov group p=0.07. The mean post op MPTA was 90.2 (87–96) in the UNYCO group and 87.4 (81–94) in the Ilizarov group. The mean mLDFA was 90.0(81–93.5) in the UNYCO group and 87.3(82.2–93.9) in the Ilizarov group. All the corrections involved a plate or nail fixation and mean time to union was 76.3 days in the UNYCO and 117.3 in the Ilizarov group. Conclusions. Both systems allowed accurate correction of deformity and limb alignment. In this small series we were unable to show a difference in theatre time. The application of the principles of deformity correction are as important as the surgical methods

With observed success and increased popularity of growth modulation techniques, there has been a trend towards use in progressively younger patients. Younger age at growth modulation increases the likelihood of complete deformity correction and need for implant removal prior to skeletal maturity introducing the risk of rebound deformity. The purpose of this study was to quantify magnitude and identify risk factors for rebound deformity after growth modulation. We performed a retrospective review of all patients undergoing growth modulation with a tension band plate for coronal plane deformity about the knee with subsequent implant removal. Exclusion criteria included completion epiphysiodesis or osteotomy at implant removal, ongoing growth modulation, and less than one year radiographic follow-up without rebound deformity. Mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), and mechanical axis station were measured prior to growth modulation, prior to implant removal, and at final follow-up. Sixty-seven limbs in 45 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at growth modulation was 9.8 years (range 3.4–15.4 years) and mean age at implant removal was 11.4 years (range 5.3–16.4 years). Mean change in HKA after implant removal was 6.9O (range 0O–23 O). Fifty-two percent of patients had greater than 5O rebound and 30% had greater than 10O rebound in HKA after implant removal. Females less than ten years and males less than 12 years at time of growth modulation had greater mean change in HKA after implant removal compared to older patients (8.4O vs 4.7O, p=0.012). Patients with initial deformity greater than 20O degrees had an increased frequency of rebound greater than 10O compared to patients with less severe initial deformity (78% vs 22%, p=0.002). Rebound deformity after growth modulation is common. Growth modulation at a young age and large initial deformity increases risk of rebound. However, rebound does not occur in all at risk patients, therefore, we caution against routine overcorrection. Patients and their families should be informed about the risk of rebound deformity after growth modulation and the potential for multiple surgical interventions prior to skeletal maturity

Introduction. Neutral mechanical alignment in TKA has been shown to be an important consideration for survivorship, wear, and aseptic loosening. However, native knee anatomy is described by a joint line in 3° of varus, 2–3° of mechanical distal femoral valgus, and 2–3° of proximal tibia varus. Described kinematic planning methods replicate native joint alignment in extension without changing tibiofemoral alignment, but do not account for native alignment through a range of motion. An asymmetric TKA femoral component with a thicker medial femoral condyle and posterior condylar internal rotation paired with an asymmetric polyethylene insert aligns the joint line in 3° of varus while maintaining distal femoral and proximal tibial cuts perpendicular to mechanical axis. The asymmetric components recreate an anatomic varus joint line while avoiding tibiofemoral malalignment or femoral component internal rotation, a risk factor for patellofemoral maltracking. The study seeks to determine how many patients would be candidates for a kinematically planned knee without violating the principle of a neutral mechanical axis (0° ± 3°). Methods. A cohort comprised of 55 consecutive preoperative THA patients with asymptomatic knees and 55 consecutive preoperative primary unilateral TKA patients underwent simultaneous biplanar radiographic imaging. Full length coronal images from the thoracolumbar junction to the ankles were measured by two independent observers for the following: mechanical tibiofemoral angle (mTFA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA). Patients who met the following conditions: mTFA 0°±3°; mLDFA 87°±3°; and mMPTA 87°±3°, were considered candidates for TKA with an asymmetric implant that would achieve a kinematic joint line and neutral mechanical axis. Similarly, patients with the following conditions: mTFA 0°±3°; mLDFA 90°±3°; and mMPTA 90°±3°, were considered candidates for TKA with a symmetric implant that would achieve a kinematic joint line and neutral mechanical axis. Results. In this cohort of 110 patients, the mean mTFA was 1° varus ± 5°, the mean mLDFA was 87° ± 3°, mMPTA 87°± 2°. The comparison of patients meeting each of the three conditions required for a TKA with a neutral mechanical axis and a kinematic joint line are outlined in Table 1. Conclusion. A TKA with kinematic 3° varus joint line and neutral mechanical axis was possible in 52% of patients using an asymmetric implant and 23% of patients using a symmetric implant. Previous descriptions of kinematic planning using standard TKA components required compromise of neutral mechanical axis alignment with detrimental effects on overall survivorship. Knee arthroplasty using an asymmetric implant may achieve the best of both worlds, neutral mechanical axis and a kinematic joint line, in a large percentage of patients

Aims

Double-level lengthening, bone transport, and bifocal compression-distraction are commonly undertaken using Ilizarov or other fixators. We performed double-level fixator-assisted nailing, mainly for the correction of deformity and lengthening in the same segment, using a straight intramedullary nail to reduce the time in a fixator.

Aims

Computer hexapod assisted orthopaedic surgery (CHAOS), is a method to achieve the intra-operative correction of long bone deformities using a hexapod external fixator before definitive internal fixation with minimally invasive stabilisation techniques.

The aims of this study were to determine the reliability of this method in a consecutive case series of patients undergoing femoral deformity correction, with a minimum six-month follow-up, to assess the complications and to define the ideal group of patients for whom this treatment is appropriate.