Aims

Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach.

INTRODUCTION. Although several meta-analyses have been performed on total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) [1], understanding the inter-site variations of the surgical profiles may improve the interpretation of the results. Moreover, information on the global variations of how TKA is performed may benefit the development of CAOS systems that can better address geographic-specific operative needs. With increased application of CAOS [2], surgeon preferences collected globally offers unprecedented opportunity to advance geographic-specific knowledge in TKA. The purpose of this study was to investigate geographic variations in the application of a contemporary CAOS system in TKA. Materials and Methods. Technical records on more than 4000 CAOS TKAs (ExactechGPS, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR) between October 2012 and January 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 682 personalized surgical profiles, set up based on surgeon's preferences, were reviewed. These profiles encompass an extensive set of surgical parameters including the number of steps to be navigated, the sequence of the surgical steps, the definition of the anatomical references, and the parameters associated with the targeted cuts. The profiles were compared between four geographic regions: United States (US), Europe (EU), Asia (AS), and Australia (AU) for cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) designs. Clinically relevant statistical differences (CRSD, defined as significant differences in means ≥1°/mm) were identified (significance defined as p<0.05). Results. For resection parameters, CRSDs were found between regions in posterior tibial slope (PTS), tibial resection depth, as well as femoral flexion for both CR and PS profiles (marked in Table 1). Regarding anatomical references, US was the only region using posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) as the reference for CR resection depth (Table 1). Differences in percentage of preference were found in the anatomical references for tibial varus/valgus, tibial resection depth, femoral varus/valgus, femoral axial rotation, and ankle center (Table 1,2). For surgical steps, EU and AU were found to apply gap balancing technique as a common practice for the PS designs, while for the CR designs, EU and AU considerably adopted this technique (Table 2). For PS designs, EU and AU profiles preferred tibial first in the resection workflow, compared to a more balanced preference for other regions. For CR designs, US profiles were in favour of performing the femoral resection first in the workflow, compared to a strong favouring of tibial first resection workflow in EU and AS Am regions. Discussion. This study demonstrated clinically significant geographic differences may exist in the surgeons' preference of surgical parameters, anatomical references, and surgical workflow steps during TKA. These differences may reflect the geographic variations of surgeon training, surgical philosophy, or the specific characteristics of the patient population, which warrants further investigation. The strength of this study was that it is the first study to date that covered all the available surgical profiles spanning the application history of a specific CAOS system. As such, variation due to the operational differences of multiple systems was avoided. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly (see Info & Metrics tab above).

Peri-prosthetic fractures around implants in the proximal humerus can present substantial challenges. Most individuals who undergo upper limb arthroplasty tend to be osteopenic to begin with, and the anatomy of the proximal humerus does not provide an excess of bone to work with. Therefore, peri-prosthetic fractures pose difficulties to rotator cuff function and implant stability. There are multiple classification systems, but series are small and the classification does not always lead to treatment algorithms. Risk factors for humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty include endosteal notching, cortical perforation, varus malalignment, stem perforation, ipsilateral shoulder and elbow arthroplasties, and loose stems. Many of these risk factors are directly related to technical errors at the time of surgery. Poor exposure can lead to aberrant starting point and errors in reaming. Oversized prostheses can lead to cortical perforation or even stem perforation. Proper positioning of the patient on the table and surgical releases help avoid these technical errors. Peri-prosthetic fractures should be carefully evaluated radiographically for stability. Two important considerations: 1. Is the implant stable? 2. Is the fracture stable? Generally, if the implant is unstable, the implant must be revised. In the setting of a stable implant, many humeral fractures can be treated nonoperatively. Many fractures at or below the level of the tip of the implant can be treated as typical humeral fractures. Options for fixation include plates with cables or long stem prostheses which bypass the fracture. Displaced tuberosity fractures are treated with suture or wire fixation. Risk factors for a poor outcome include increased time to union, skin breakdown, and stiff shoulder

There are several concerns about the current simulators for TKA. First, the knee is flexed in a “passive way” under the condition of applying constant muscular tension forces. Second, the effects of hip joint motion are not taken into account. Thirdly, the external load for example, upper body weight is not applied in a natural way. Finally, few simulators are capable of knee flexion greater than about 100°. To this end, we have developed a novel knee simulator system that reproduces the active and natural knee motion to evaluate kinematics and joint forces of TKA. Our simulator system has the following advantages and innovative features. First, it is driven directly by muscles' tension forces, and the knee is capable of active flexion. Secondly, a hip joint is incorporated into it and the lower limb motion is achieved in a synergistic way between the hip and knee joints. Thirdly, it is capable of complete deep knee flexion up to 180°. Figure 1 shows the structure of the system. Both the hip and knee joints are moved by the tension forces of four wires that simulate the functions of the mono-articular muscles ((1), (3)) and the bi-articular muscles ((2), (4)) by means of a multiple pulley system (Fig 2). The femoral and tibial components of TKA are secured in the distal end of the upper link (thigh) and the proximal end of the lower link (shank) respectively. The ankle assembly has three sets of rotary bearings whose axes intersect at a fixed point, the center of the ankle, allowing spherical movement of the tibia about the ankle center. Springs were stretched around the ankle center to substitute the muscles around the ankle. Weights I and II are counterweights so as to duplicate the weights of the human upper body, thigh and shank respectively. The wires are pulled to produce the hip and knee motions. The linear bearings running along vertical rods also prevent the system from collapsing. In the experiment, a custom-designed posterior stabilized type TKA was attached to the simulator system for evaluation. The system was operated so as to reproduce the sit-to-stand features in a quasi-static manner in order to study the kinematics of TKA. Beyond 130°, the knee proceeded to flex passively because of upper body weight. Conspicuous internal/external rotation or valgus/varus motion of the tibia relative to the femur was not observed as the knee flexed. When our simulator system was driven in a quasi-static manner, it was able to measure the kinematics of TKA however, when the system was driven in a dynamic manner, it oscillated because the springs around the ankle were not stiff enough to hold the inverted pendulum-like system upright and the ratios of the tension force exerted by the four wires simulating muscles could not be determined appropriately

We have developed a novel knee simulator that reproduces the active knee motion to evaluate kinematics and joint reaction forces of TKA. There have been developed many kinds of knee simulators; Most of them are to predict TKA component wear and the others are to evaluate the kinematics and/or kinetics of TKA. The most simulators have been operated using the data of the loading and kinematics profile of the knee obtained from normal gait. Here a problem is that such variables as joint force and kinematics are the outcome caused by the application of muscles' and external forces. If so, a simulator should be operated by the muscles' and external forces so as to duplicate the in vivo condition. Other disadvantages for the current knee simulators are; a knee joint motion is made passively, the effects of the hip joint motion are not taken into account, and the maximum flexion angle is usually limited at about 100°. Considering the above, we have developed a knee simulator with the following advantages and innovative features. First, the simulator is driven by the muscles' forces and an active knee motion is made with bearing the upper body weight. As a result, the knee shows a 3D kinematics and generates the tibio-femoral contact forces. Under this condition, the TKA performance is to be assessed. Secondly, a hip joint mechanism is also incorporated into the simulator. The lower limb motion is achieved by the synergistic function between the hip and knee joints. Under this condition, a natural knee motion is to be reproduced. Thirdly, the simulator can make complete deep knee flexion up to 180°. Thus not only the conventional TKA but also a new TKA for high flexion can be attached to it for the evaluation. Figure 1 shows the structure of the simulator, in which both the hip and knee joints are moved in a synergistic fashion by the pull forces of four wires. The four wires are pulled by the four servomotors respectively and reproduce the functions of the mono-articular muscles ((1), (3)) and the bi-articular muscles ((2), (4)) through the multiple pulley system. It should be noted that weight A and B are not heavy enough for the inverted double pendulum to stand up straight. They are applied as counter weights so that each segment duplicate the each segmental weight of the human lower limb. Figure 2 shows a sequential representation of stand to sit features: (a) at standing, (b) at high flexion, and (c) at deep flexion. At a state of 130° knee flexion between (b) and (c), hamstrings wire (4) becomes shortest and then exhibits an eccentric contraction, thereby attaining deep flexion. Our knee simulator can be a useful tool for the evaluation of TKA performance and may potentially substitute the in vivo experiments