Total knee arthroplasty has been the main treatment method among advanced osteoarthritis (OA) patients. The main post-operative evaluation considers the level of pain, stability and range of motion (ROM). The knee flexion level is one of the most important categories in the total knee arthroplasty patient's satisfaction in Asian countries due to consistent habits of floor-sitting, squating, kneeling and cross legged sitting. In this study, we discovered that the posterior capsular release enabled the further flexion angles by 14 degrees compared to the average ROM without posterior release group. Our objective was to increase the ROM using the conventional total knee arthroplasty by the posterior capsular release. Posterior capsular release is being used in order to manage the flexion contraction. Although the high flexion method extends the contact area during flexion by extending the posterior condyle by 2mm, the main problem has been the early femoral loosening. We searched for the method to get the deep knee flexion with the conventional knee prosthesis. 122 OA patients with less than preoperative 130 flexion that underwent conventional TKAs using Nexgen from January, 2014 to September, 2016 were reviewed. Posterior femoral osteophytes were removed as much as possible, but 74 cases were performed posterior capsular release, while 48 cases were not performed. After checking postoperative ROM after 6 months of operation, we compared 74 knees with a posterior capsular release and 48 knees without posterior capsular release. As a result, the average ROM in the posterior capsular release group was 132 degrees, but the average ROM without posterior release group is 118 degrees. No postoperative hyperextension was found when the adequate size of polyethylene (PE) thickness was utilized. Hence, the conventional TKA with a posterior capsular release showed satisfactory clinical outcomes in the deep knee flexion of Asians

Background. Frozen Shoulder is a common condition which causes significant morbidity in people of working age. The 2 most popular forms of surgical treatment for this condition are Manipulation under Anaesthesia (MUA) or MUA plus Arthroscopic Capsular Release (ACR). Both treatment modalities are known to give good results, but no-one has compared the two to see which is better. Aim. To compare the outcome in patients with primary frozen shoulder, who are treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Methods. 56 patients with primary frozen shoulder were treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Each patient had their American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), and their Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) measured pre- and post-operatively. Results. The patients who had MUA plus ACR had a mean ASES of 19.6 pre-operatively, 78.3 at 6 months, and a mean of 80.1 at 12 months. The mean OSS was 32.5 pre-operatively, 53.6 at 6 months and 53.8 at 12 months. The patients who had a MUA had a mean ASES of 28.7 pre-operatively, 57.9 at 6 months and 58 at 12 months. The mean OSS was 33 pre-operatively, 42.5 at 6 months and 48 at 12 months. Conclusions. Both treatments give good results; MUA plus ACR give significantly superior results at 6 to 12 months post-operatively. However, there is no significant difference beyond 12 months

Background. In total hip arthroplasty (THA), the importance of preserving muscle is widely recognized. It is important to preserve the short external rotator muscles because they contribute to joint stability and prevent postoperative dislocation. However, despite careful capsular release and femoral rasping, damage to the short external rotator muscles may occur. The Optymis Shot Stem preserves more bone and surrounding tissue than does a traditional primary stem. We investigated the usefulness of the stem in terms of the extent of preservation of the tendon attachment on the greater trochanter. Method. In this study, we enrolled 31 consecutive patients (39 hips; 6 males, 25 females) who underwent THA. Simultaneous bilateral THA was performed in 8 patients. The patients’ mean age was 56.1 years. Diagnoses included developmental dysplasia in 35 hips (Crowe group 1: 31 hips, group 2: 4 hips), and sequel of Perthes disease in 4 hips. All THAs were performed via the direct anterior approach without traction tables. The femoral procedure was performed with the hip hyperextended, and posterior capsular release was performed if the femoral procedure became technically difficult. We compared the following among patients: the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, rate of posterior capsular release, postoperative radiographic findings, WOMAC score before and after surgery, and any complications. Results. The mean operative time was 42.0 ± 8.9 min, the mean intraoperative blood loss was 308 ± 196 g, and the mean hospital stay was 6.7 ± 1.3 days. Posterior capsular release was performed in 17 hips [44%; 10 hips (32%) in Crowe group 1, 8 hips (88%) for other diagnoses]. The total WOMAC score improved significantly from 42.4 points preoperatively to 11.2 points at 3 months preoperatively. A postoperative stem subsidence ≥3 mm was observed in 1 hip (2.6%), whereas postoperative dislocation, intra- and postoperative periprosthetic fracture, and thigh pain were not observed. Conclusions. The Optymis Short Stem could be placed without performing posterior capsular release in 68% of patients with Crowe group 1 developmental dysplasia. We therefore consider the stem as useful for preserving the tendon attachment on the greater trochanter

Specific brace-fitting complications in idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) have been rarely described in published series, and usually focus on non-compliance. Our primary aim was to compare the rate of persistent pressure sores in patients fitted with Markell boots and Mitchell boots. Our additional aims were to describe the frequency of other brace fitting complications and identify age trends in these complications. A retrospective analysis of medical files of 247 idiopathic CTEV patients born between 01/01/2010 - 01/01/2021 was performed. Data was collected using a REDCap database. Pressure sores of sufficient severity for clinician to recommend time out of brace occurred in 22.9% of Mitchell boot and 12.6% of Markell boot patients (X. 2. =6.9, p=0.009). The overall rate of bracing complications was 51.4%. 33.2% of parents admitted to bracing non-compliance and 31.2% of patients required re-casting during the bracing period for relapse. For patients with a minimum follow-up of age 6 years, 44.2% required tibialis anterior tendon transfer. Parents admitting to non-compliance were significantly more likely to have a child who required tibialis anterior tendon transfer (X. 2. =5.71, p=0.017). Overall rate of capsular release (posteromedial release or posterior release) was 2.0%. Neither medium nor longterm results of Ponseti treatment in the Australian and New Zealand clubfoot have been published. Globally, few publications describe specific bracing complications in clubfoot, despite this being a notable challenge for clinicians and families. Recurrent pressure sores is a persistent complication with the Mitchell boots for patients in our center. In our population of Australian clubfoot patients, tibialis anterior tendon transfer for relapse is common, consistent with the upper limit of tibialis anterior tendon transfer rates reported globally

Background. Performing total knee replacement needs both bony & soft tissue consideration. Late John Insall advocating spacer blocks with concept of balanced & equal flexion – extension Gap. Although we usually excise both ACL & PCL, still it is possible to retain more soft tissue. Both PCL retaining & sacrificing Require intact collaterals for stability. Superficial MCL & LCL should be preserved, if possible. After PCL removal the following advantages could obtain: More correction of fixed varus or valgus deformity, More surgical exposure. but there are no proved disadvantages like; increasing in stress & loosening of bone-cement-prosthesis interface, specific clinical difference in ROM, forward lean during stepping up, proprioception inferiority. In other hand over tight PCL cause excessive rollback of tibia & knee hinges open, preventing flexion (booking), and Severe posteromedial poly wear in poor balance PCL might be happened. Mid range laxity when Post. Capsule is tight, even with correct tensioning in full extension & 90 degree flexion, may occur (and secondary collateral ligaments imbalance throughout ROM). There is a major effect of capsular contracture in coronal mal alignment with flexion contracture. Full MCL releases not only correct fixed varus but also open the medial space in flexion. MCL & post. Capsule has combined valgus resistant effect in extension. PCL release increase flexion gap more, May be necessary to release something that affect extension gap as compensated balancing (Post.medial capsule). Any flexion contracture need to posterior capsulotomy & post. Condyle osteophyte removal before femoral recut. So it is possible to perform posteromedial capsulotomy prior to superficial MCL release. Method. From May 2009 to June 2013, 219 TKA (165 patient) (bilateral in 54 patients, simultaneous bilateral in 5 patients) with primary DJD and varus deformity of knees were operated by myself with joint replacement. Most patients had some degree of varus correction in flexion, passively. The varus angle was less than 25*, means mild to severe but not decompensate. 46 patients had some degree of patella baja. For soft tissue balancing during Total knee arthroplasty I consider the following steps; Medial capsule & deep MCL release, PCL release, Posteromedial capsulotomy, semimembranous release, Superficial MCL release, Pes anserinous release. Post.medial capsulotomy was done in all cases. The Average Age was 65.47 years, 131 patients (177 knees) were female (79.3%) and five of them had bilateral TKA simultaneously. Lt Knee was operated in 94 cases (42.9% of 219). Spinal anesthesia was applied in 54.3% (119 patients) & epidural anesthesisa in 5 % (13 cases). 14 knees were operated with MIS technique and 205 knees with Standard medial parapatellar incision. Semi membranous release was necessary in 72 knees (33 pure=15%, without S.MCL release). S.MCL release was mandatory in 39 (17.8 %) knees for checking balanced medial and lateral subtle laxity (playing), I have used simple blade with 1 & 2 mm thickness in each ends for younger patients, and the other one with 3&4 mm thickness in elder cases. Results. Average follow up period is 2.07 years. Average Operating time was 1: 38 (h: m). Average Transfusion = 1.29 unit packed cell. Average varus malalignment=14.76*(2–25*) / Av. Valgus angle= 7.11* (5–10 *) / Av. DLFA= 91.15* (85–102*) / Av. PMTA = 82.04* (68.5–90*) / Av. Ext. rotation cut = 5.7* (0–9). Stage l + PCL + Post. Med. Capsular release was performed in all. pure stage l + P.M.capsular release in147 cases(67.2%), plus semimembrnous release in33 cases(15%), S.MCL release in 39cases(17.8%)/ Av. Post op alignment:1.01 * varus(0 −6 *) (worse in medial pivot knee). so S.MCL release was preventedin 82.1% of cases. Av. Polyethylen size: 12.26 (9 in oxynium −19 in plus) / Semi membranous release was necessary in 72(32.8%) cases (preop varus 17.57*). / S.MCL release was mandatory in 39(17.8 %) cases (preop varus 17.6 * & No Flexibility in 30* flexion). pre operation knee society score: stage I = 26.6, stage II = 38.7 increase to stage I = 86.45, stage II = 77.63. Conclusion. In society with more kneeling habitués, during performing total knee arthroplasty with less than 25* degree varus malalignment plus some degree flexibility of the deformity in flexion, it is wise to consider posteromedial capsular release prior to semi membranous & S.MCL release to obtain full correction of alignment. But the most important thing is reaching to more align limb without instability, regardless of various technique

Introduction. The range of motion (ROM) obtained after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an important measurement to evaluate the postoperative outcomes impacting other measures such as postoperative function and satisfaction. Flexion contracture is a recognized complication of TKA, which reduces ROM or stability and is a source of morbidity for patients. Objectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of intra-operative soft tissue release on correction of flexion contracture in navigated TKA. Methods. This is prospective cohort study, 43 cases of primary navigation assisted TKA were included. The mean age was 68.3 ± 6.8 years. All patients were diagnosed with grade 4 degenerative arthritis in K-L grading system. The average preoperative mechanical axis deviation was 10.3° ± 5.3 and preoperative flexion contracture was 12.8° ± 4.8. All arthroplasties were performed using a medial parapatellar approach with patellar subluxation. First, medial release was performed, and posterior cruciate ligament was sacrificed. After all bone cutting was performed and femoral and tibial trials were inserted, removal of posterior femoral spur and capsular release were performed. The degree of correction of flexion contracture was evaluated and recorded with navigation. Results. After the medial soft tissue release, as a first step, the flexion contracture was recorded as 7.2° ± 4.3 and 4.1° ± 4.0 as varus. The second step, posterior cruciate ligament was sacrificed, the flexion contracture was recorded as 7.2° ± 4.4 and 5.5° ± 3.0 as varus. After posterior clearing procedure and capsular release, the flexion contracture was showed as 3.9° ± 1.2 and 1.4° ± 1.2 as varus. The final angles after cemented real implant were recorded as 3.3° ± 1.4 in flexion contracture, 0.9° ± 1.8 in varus. There were significant differences all steps except between medial release step and posterior cruciate sacrifice step and between posterior clearing step and final angle. Conclusions. The appropriate soft tissue balancing could correct flexion contracture intra-operatively. The medial release could correct the flexion contracture around 5° compared with preoperative flexion contracture, and posterior clearing procedure could improve further extension. However, the sacrifice of posterior cruciate ligament provided little effect on correction of the flexion contracture intra-operatively

Glenoid exposure is the name of the game in total shoulder arthroplasty. I can honestly say that it took me more than 5 years but less than 10 to feel confident exposing any glenoid, regardless of the degree of bone deformity and the severity of soft-tissue contracture. This lecture represents the synthesis of my experience exposing some of the most difficult glenoids. The basic principles are performing extensive soft-tissue release, minimizing the anteroposterior dimension of the humerus by osteophyte excision, making an accurate humeral neck cut, having a plethora of glenoid retractors, and knowing where to place them. The ten tips, in reverse order of importance are: 10.) Tilt the table away from operative side—this helps face the surface of the glenoid, especially in cases of posterior wear, toward the surgeon. 9.) Have multiple glenoid retractors—these include a large Darrach, a reverse double-pronged Bankart, one or two blunt Homans, small and large Fukudas. 8.) Remove all humeral osteophytes before attempting to retract the humerus posteriorly to expose the glenoid—this helps to decrease the overall anteroposterior dimension of the humerus and allows for maximum posterior displacement of the humerus. 7.) Make an accurate humeral neck cut—even 5mm of extra humeral bone will make glenoid exposure difficult. 6.) Optimal humeral position—it has been taught that abduction, external rotation, and extension is the optimal position. It may vary with each case. Therefore, experiment with humeral rotation to find the position that allows maximum visualization. This is often the position that makes the cut surface of the humerus parallel to the surface of the glenoid. 5.) Optimal retractor placement—my typical retractor placement is a Fukuda on the posterior lip of the glenoid, a reverse double-pronged Bankart on the anterior neck of the scapula, and a blunt Homan posterosuperiorly. Occasionally, a second blunt Homan anteroinferiorly is helpful, particularly in muscular males with a large pectoralis major. 4.) Laminar spreader for lateral humeral displacement—this can be helpful for posterior capsulorrhaphy or for posterior glenoid bone grafting. 3.) Maximal humeral capsular release—the release of the anterior capsule from the humerus must go well past the 6 o'clock position and up the posterior surface of the humerus. This aides in humeral exposure but also allows for more posterior displacement of the humerus during glenoid exposure. 2.) Anteroinferior capsular release or excision—extensive anteroinferior release or excision (my preference), allows for maximal posterior humeral displacement and also restores external rotation. 1.) Posterior or posteroinferior capsular release—release of the posteroinferior corner of the capsule from the glenoid results in a noticeable increase in posterior humeral retractability. In cases without substantial posterior subluxation, extensive release of the entire posterior capsule is performed

Glenoid exposure is the name of the game in total shoulder arthroplasty. I can honestly say that it took me more than 5 years but less than 10 to feel confident exposing any glenoid, regardless of the degree of bone deformity and the severity of soft-tissue contracture. This lecture represents the synthesis of my experience exposing some of the most difficult glenoids. The basic principles are performing extensive soft-tissue release, minimizing the anteroposterior dimension of the humerus by osteophyte excision, making an accurate humeral neck cut, having a plethora of glenoid retractors, and knowing where to place them. The ten tips, in reverse order of importance are: 10.) Tilt the table away from operative side—this helps face the surface of the glenoid, especially in cases of posterior wear, toward the surgeon. 9.) Have multiple glenoid retractors—these include a large Darrach, a reverse double-pronged Bankart, one or two blunt Homans, small and large Fukudas. 8.) Remove all humeral osteophytes before attempting to retract the humerus posteriorly to expose the glenoid—this helps to decrease the overall anteroposterior dimension of the humerus and allows for maximum posterior displacement of the humerus. 7.) Make an accurate humeral neck cut—even 5mm of extra humeral bone will make glenoid exposure difficult. 6.) Optimal humeral position—it has been taught that abduction, external rotation, and extension is the optimal position. It may vary with each case. Therefore, experiment with humeral rotation to find the position that allows maximum visualization. This is often the position that makes the cut surface of the humerus parallel to the surface of the glenoid. 5.) Optimal retractor placement—my typical retractor placement is a Fukuda on the posterior lip of the glenoid, a reverse double-pronged Bankart on the anterior neck of the scapula, and a blunt Homan posterosuperiorly. Occasionally, a second blunt Homan anteroinferiorly is helpful, particularly in muscular males with a large pectoralis major. 4.) Laminar spreader for lateral humeral displacement—this can be helpful for posterior capsulorrhaphy or for posterior glenoid bone grafting. 3.) Maximal humeral capsular release—the release of the anterior capsule from the humerus must go well past the 6 o'clock position and up the posterior surface of the humerus. This aides in humeral exposure but also allows for more posterior displacement of the humerus during glenoid exposure. 2.) Anteroinferior capsular release or excision—extensive anteroinferior release or excision (my preference), allows for maximal posterior humeral displacement and also restores external rotation. 1.) Posterior or posteroinferior capsular release—release of the posteroinferior corner of the capsule from the glenoid results in a noticeable increase in posterior humeral retractability. In cases without substantial posterior subluxation, extensive release of the entire posterior capsule is performed. Following these steps will help the surgeon to gain adequate glenoid exposure, even in the most difficult cases

Shoulder arthritis in the young adult is a deceptive title. The literature is filled with articles that separate outcomes based on an arbitrary age threshold and attempt to provide recommendations for management and even potential criteria for implanting one strategy over another using age as the primary determinant. However, under the age of 50, as few as one out of five patients will have arthritis that can be accurately classified as osteoarthritis. Other conditions such as post-traumatic arthritis, post-surgical arthritis including capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and rheumatoid arthritis create a mosaic of pathologic bone and soft tissue changes in our younger patients that distort the conclusions regarding “shoulder arthritis” in the young adult. In addition, we are now seeing more patients with unique conditions that are still poorly understood, including arthritis of the pharmacologically performance-enhanced shoulder. Early arthritis in the young adult is often recognised at the time of arthroscopic surgery performed for other preoperative indications. Palliative treatment is the first option, which equals “debridement.” If the procedure fails to resolve the symptoms, and the symptoms can be localised to an intra-articular source, then additional treatment options may include a variety of cartilage restoration procedures that have been developed primarily for the knee and then subsequently used in the shoulder, including microfracture, and osteochondral grafting. The results of these treatments have been rarely reported with only case series and expert opinion to support their use. When arthritis is moderate or severe in young adults, non-arthroplasty interventions have included arthroscopic capsular release, debridement, acromioplasty, distal clavicle resection, microfracture, osteophyte debridement, axillary nerve neurolysis, and bicep tenotomy or tenodesis, or some combination of these techniques. Again, the literature is very limited, with most case series less than 5 years of follow-up. The results are typically acceptable for pain relief, some functional improvement, but not restoration to completely normal function from the patient's perspective. Attempts to resurface the arthritic joint have resulted in limited benefits over a short period of time in most studies. While a few remarkable procedures have provided reasonable outcomes, they are typically in the hands of the developer of the procedure and subsequently, other surgeons fail to achieve the same results. This has been the case with fascia lata grafting of the glenoid, dermal allografts, meniscal allografts, and even biologic resurfacing with large osteochondral grafts for osteoarthritis. Most surgical interventions that show high value in terms of improvement in quality of life require 10-year follow-up. It is unlikely that any of these arthroscopic procedures or resurfacing procedures will provide outcomes that would be valuable in terms of population healthcare; they are currently used on an individual basis to try to delay progression to arthroplasty, with surgeon bias based on personal experience, training, or expert opinion. Arthroplasty in the young adult remains controversial. Without question, study after study supports total shoulder arthroplasty over hemiarthroplasty once the decision has been made that joint replacement is the only remaining option

Introduction. In total knee arthroplasty (TKA) the knee may be found to be too stiff in extension, causing a flexion contracture. One proposed surgical technique to correct this extension deficit is to recut the distal femur, but that may lead to excessively raising the joint line. Alternatively, full extension may be gained by stripping the posterior capsule from its femoral attachment, however if this release has an adverse impact on anterior-posterior (AP) stability of the implanted knee then it may be advisable to avoid this technique. The aim of the study was therefore to investigate the effect of posterior capsular release on AP stability in TKA, and compare this to the restraint from the cruciate ligaments and different TKA inserts. Methods. Eight cadaveric knees were mounted in a six degree of freedom testing rig (Fig.1) and tested at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° flexion with ±150 N AP force, with and without a 710 N axial compressive load. The rig allowed an AP drawer to be applied to the tibia at a fixed angle of flexion, whilst the other degrees-of-freedom were unconstrained and free to translate/ rotate. After the native knee was tested with and without the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), a cruciate-retaining TKA (Legion; Smith & Nephew) was implanted and the tests repeated. The following stages were then performed: replacing with a deep dished insert, cutting the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), releasing the posterior capsule using an osteotome (Fig. 2), replacing with a posterior-stabilised implant and finally using a more-constrained insert. Results. In anterior drawer, only cutting the ACL caused a large increase in laxity compared to the native state (8 mm average across all flexion angles). At 0°, releasing the posterior capsule increased the laxity by 1.4 mm compared with cutting the PCL (p < 0.05), with no significance found at any other flexion angles. In posterior drawer with no compressive load, cutting the PCL significantly increased laxity at 30°, 60° and 90° (average 7 mm), however additional release of the posterior capsule only increased laxity by 1.5 mm and 0.8 mm at 0° and 30° respectively. At 30°, 60° and 90°, posterior stability was significantly restored by introducing a posterior-stabilised or more-constrained insert. When a 710 N compressive load was applied. Conclusions. The most important finding of the study was that releasing the posterior capsule did not cause a clinically large difference in AP laxity in context with cutting the PCL. Therefore, releasing the posterior capsule to restore extension during TKA surgery could be considered a biomechanically safe option. In cases of posterior instability due to PCL and capsular damage, a posterior-stabilised insert can restore stability, particularly in mid to late flexion. Future studies could compare this data to isolated implant constraints, to help investigate how much stability is provided by the different implant geometries compared to the PCL and posterior capsule

Background. Performing total knee replacement needs both bony & soft tissue consideration. Late John Insall advocating spacer blocks with concept of balanced & equal flexion – extension Gap. Although we usually excise both ACL & PCL, still it is possible to retain more soft tissue. Both PCL retaining & sacrificing Require intact collaterals for stability. Superficial MCL & LCL should be preserved, if possible. after PCL removal the following advantages could obtain: More correction of fixed varus or valgus deformity, More surgical exposure. but there are no proved disadvantages like; increasing in stress & loosening of bone-cement-prosthesis interface, specific clinical difference in ROM, forward lean during stepping up, proprioception inferiority. in other hand Over tight PCL cause excessive rollback of tibia & knee hinges open, preventing flexion (booking), and Severe posteromedial poly wear in poor balance PCL might be happened. Mid range laxity when Post. Capsule is tight, even with correct tensioning in full extension & 90 degree flexion, may occur (and secondary collateral ligaments imbalance throughout ROM). There is a major effect of capsular contracture in coronal mal alignment with flexion contracture. Full MCL releases not only correct fixed varus but also open the medial space in flexion. MCL & post. Capsule has combined valgus resistant effect in extension. PCL release increase flexion gap more, May be necessary to release something that affect extension gap as compensated balancing (Post.medial capsule). Any flexion contracture need to posterior capsulotomy & post. Condyle osteophyte removal before femoral recut. So it is possible to perform posteromedial capsulotomy prior to superficial MCL release. Method. From May to Dec. 2009, 22 patients (23 knees) with primary DJD and varus deformity of knees were operated by myself with joint replacement. most patients had some degree of varus correction in flexion, passively. the varus angle was less than 25∗, means mild to severe but not decompensated. For soft tissue balancing during Total knee arthroplasty I consider the following steps;. Medial capsule & deep MCL release, PCL release, Posteromedial capsulotomy, semimembranous release, Superficial MCL release, Pes anserinous release. Post. medial capsulotomy was done in all cases. The Average Age was 64.74 years, 19 patients were female (83%) and one of them had bilateral TKA simultaneously. Lt Knee was operated in 14 cases (70% of 24). Spinal anesthesia was applied in 82%. 10 patients were operated with MIS technique and 13 patients with Standard medial parapatellar incision. Semi membranous release was necessary in 4 cases (preop varus 17,20,24,25∗). MCL release was mandatory in 2 cases (preop varus 17, 24 ∗ & No Flexibility in 30∗ flexion).for checking balanced medial and lateral subtle laxity (playing), I have used simple blade with 1 & 2 mm thickness in each ends for younger patients, and the other one with 3&4 mm thickness in elder cases. Results. Average follow up period is 234.45 days. Average Operating time was 1: 32 (h:m). Average Transfusion = 1.22 unit packed cell. No Flexibility in 30∗ flexion was seen in 3 patients. Average varus malalignment =15.29∗ (2-25∗)/Av. Valgus angle = 7.19∗ (5-10 ∗)/Av. DLFA = 90.47∗ (87-93∗)/Av. PMTA = 83.41∗ (77-88.5∗)/Av. Ext. rotation cut = 3.11∗. Stage l + PCL + Post. Med. Capsular release was performed in 82.61%./Av. Post op alignment: 1.8 ∗ varus (0 -6 ∗) (worse in medial pivot knee). Av. Polyethylen size: 12.4 (9 in oxynium -19 in plus)/Semi membranous release was necessary in 4 cases (preop varus 17,20,24,25∗) (Post. Op varus 1,6,4,2)./S.MCL release was mandatory in 2 cases (preop varus 17, 24 ∗ & No Flexibility in 30∗ flexion) (Post. Op varus: 1, 4 ∗). pre operation knee society score: stage I = 27.8, stage II = 37.9 increase to stage I = 85.47, stage II = 75.65. Conclusion. In society with more kneeling habitués, during performing total knee arthroplasty with less than 25∗ degree varus malalignment plus some degree flexibility of the deformity in flexion, it is wise to consider posteromedial capsular release prior to semi membranous & S.MCL release to obtain full correction of alignment. But the most important things is reaching to full align limb regardless of which chosen technique

The anatomic resection approach is based on the patient's unique anatomy adjusting for worn cartilage or bone loss. The femoral component is aligned around the primary transverse distal femoral axis around which the tibia follows a multi-radius of curvature. The tibia cut is made according to the patient's native anatomy adjusting for worn cartilage and bone loss, and applying an anatomic amount of tibial slope. This technique minimises the need for ligamentous releases to a large degree preserving the competence of the patient's soft tissue. Ligament and capsular releases can be used in difficult cases. Adjustments for the natural varus up to 3 degrees and slope of the tibial bone cut (3 – 10 degrees) further aids in knee balancing. The final alignment may not agree with a neutral hip-knee-ankle mechanical alignment on full length standing x-rays, leaving varus knees in slight varus, and valgus legs in neutral. Since little or no balance is required, this operation can be performed efficiently. Personalise the reconstruction and alignment as much as possible for each patient. The traditional “one size fits all” method where all patients have a center hip, knee, and ankle alignment needs to be reevaluated and reserved for the valgus leg

Achievement of adequate exposure in revision total knee arthroplasty is critical as it reduces the surgical time, enhances the ability for both component removal and reconstruction, and avoids devastating complications such as extensor mechanism disruption. However, this can be challenging as prior multiple surgeries and limited mobility contribute to a loss of tissue elasticity, thickened capsular envelope, and peri-articular soft tissue adhesions. A thorough pre-operative assessment of a patient's past surgical history, comorbidities, pre-operative radiographs (i.e. the presence of severe patella baja), and physical examination including range of motion, prior incisions, and soft tissue pliability are useful in determining the appropriate surgical techniques necessary for a successful revision. A systematic approach to the ankylosed knee is critical. Most techniques are geared towards mobilization of the extensor mechanism to safely displace the patella for component exposure. The initial exposure should consist of a long skin incision, a subperiosteal medial release, and debridement of suprapatellar, medial, and lateral adhesions to the femoral condyles. A lateral capsular release can prove helpful in further mobilization of the extensor mechanism. When performing a medial parapatellar arthrotomy it's important to keep in mind further extensile exposure techniques that may be required. For example, the arthrotomy should not extend proximally into the vastus intermedius or rectus femoris in the event that a quadriceps snip technique is to be used as this can compromise the ability to repair this exposure. Despite a large exposure and release of adhesions, sometimes the extensor mechanism remains at risk of rupture and adequate visualization cannot be obtained. In this event, extensile exposures such as a quadriceps snip, quadriceps turndown or tibial tubercle osteotomy are considered. The location of the patella often dictates the best exposure option as severe patella baja may not be overcome with a proximally based release. The quadriceps snip is most commonly used and provides improved exposure without the necessity of modifying the patient's post-operative rehabilitation. In addition, it can be extended to a quadriceps turndown which vastly improves visualization, but at the expense of needing to immobilise the knee post-operatively. A tibial tubercle osteotomy can also be used and provides excellent exposure especially in the case of severe patella baja or when removal of a cemented tibial stem is required. It preserves the extensor muscles, but risks include increased post-operative wound drainage due to limited soft tissue coverage, failure of fixation, or fracture of the tibial tubercle fragment or tibial shaft. Exposure in revision total knee arthroplasty is critical. Fortunately, this can be reliably achieved with a systematic approach to the knee and through the use of several extensile exposures at the surgeon's discretion

Measured resection approach (anatomic) is based on the patients' unique anatomy adjusting for worn cartilage or bone loss. The femoral component is aligned around the primary transverse distal femoral axis around which the tibia follows a multi-radius of curvature. The tibia cut is made according to the patient's native anatomy adjusting for worn cartilage and bone loss, and applying an anatomic amount of tibial slope. This technique minimises the need for partial ligamentous releases to a large degree preserving the competence of the patient's soft tissue, though ligament and capsular releases can be used in difficult cases. Adjustments for the varus/valgus (up to 3 degrees) or slope of the tibial bone cut (3–10 degrees) further aids in knee balancing. The final alignment may not agree with a neutral hip-knee-ankle mechanical alignment on full length standing x-rays, leaving varus knees in slight varus, and valgus legs in neutral. Since little balance is required this operation can be performed in less than 40 minutes

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) is a challenging clinical problem in young patients. Given the possibility of early glenoid component loosening in this population with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and subsequent need for early revision, alternative treatment options are often recommended to provide pain relief and improved range of motion. While nonoperative modalities including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications and physical therapy focusing on rotator cuff strengthening and scapular stabilization may provide some symptomatic relief, young patients with glenohumeral OA often need surgery for improved outcomes. Joint preserving techniques, such as arthroscopic debridement with removal of loose bodies and capsular release, with or without biceps tenotomy or tenodesis, remains a viable nonarthroplasty option in these patients. Clinical studies evaluating the outcomes of arthroscopic debridement for glenohumeral OA in young patients have had favorable outcomes. Evidence suggests that earlier stages of glenohumeral OA have more favorable outcomes with arthroscopic debridement procedures, with worse outcomes being observed in patients with complete joint space loss and bipolar chondral lesions. More advanced arthroscopic options include inferior osteophyte excision and axillary neurolysis or microfracture of chondral lesions, both of which have demonstrated favorable early clinical outcomes. Patients with some preserved joint space and small osteophytes can avoid arthroplasty and have improved functional outcomes after arthroscopic debridement for glenohumeral OA. Caution should be advised when indicating this procedure for patients with large osteophytes, grade IV bipolar lesions, biconcave glenoids, and complete loss of joint space

The standard approach is through the deltopectoral interval. Among patients with prior incisions, one makes every effort to either utilise the old incision or to incorporate it into a longer incision that will allow one to approach the deltopectoral interval and retract the deltoid laterally. The deltopectoral interval is most easily developed just distal to the clavicle, where there is a natural infraclavicular triangle of fat that separates the deltoid and pectoralis major muscles even in very scarred or stiff shoulders. Typically, the deltoid is retracted laterally leaving the cephalic vein on the medial aspect of the exposure. The anterior border of the deltoid is mobilised from the clavicle to its insertion on the humerus. The anterior portion of the deltoid insertion together with the more distal periosteum of the humerus may be elevated slightly. The next step is to identify the plane between the conjoined tendon group and the subscapularis muscle. Dissection in this area must be done very carefully due to the close proximity of the neurovascular group, the axillary nerve, and the musculocutaneous nerve. Scar is then released from around the base of the coracoid. The subacromial space is freed of scar and the shoulder is examined for range of motion. Particularly among patients with prior rotator cuff surgery, there may be severe scarring in the subacromial space. Internal rotation of the arm with dissection between the remaining rotator cuff and deltoid is critical to develop this plane. If external rotation is less than 30 degrees, one can consider incising the subscapularis off bone rather than through its tendinous substance. For every 1 cm that the subscapularis is advanced medially, one gains approximately 20 to 30 degrees of external rotation. The rotator interval between the subscapularis and supraspinatus is then incised. This release is then continued inferiorly to incise the inferior shoulder capsule from the neck of the humerus. This is performed by proceeding from anterior to posterior with progressive external rotation of the humerus staying directly on the bone with electrocautery and great care to protect the axillary nerve. The key for glenoid exposure as well as improvement in motion is deltoid mobilization, a large inferior capsular release, aggressive humeral head cut and osteophyte removal

Flexion contractures are a common finding in an end-stage arthritic knee, occurring in up to 60% of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Fixed flexion deformities may result from posterior capsular scarring, osteophyte formation, and bony impingement. It is essential to correct this deformity at the time of total knee arthroplasty, as a residual flexion contracture will result in joint overload and abnormal gait mechanics. This may translate to a slower walking velocity, shorter stride length, and pain. This presentation will discuss a systematic way of dealing with flexion contractures to ensure that the total knee arthroplasty will achieve full extension. The surgical technique for treating fixed flexion deformity about the knee includes release of the posterior cruciate ligament, posterior capsular release, adequate distal femoral bone resection, and removal of osteophytes. Postoperatively, attention must be divided between obtaining maximal flexion and full extension. Should a flexion contracture be noted upon the postoperative visit, additional measures should be taken to address it

Aims

Early large treatment effects can arise in small studies, which lessen as more data accumulate. This study aimed to retrospectively examine whether early treatment effects occurred for two multicentre orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and explore biases related to this.

Flexion contractures are a common finding in an end-stage arthritic knee, occurring in up to 60% of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Fixed flexion deformities may result from posterior capsular scarring, osteophyte formation, and bony impingement. It is essential to correct this deformity at the time of total knee arthroplasty, as a residual flexion contracture will result in joint overload and abnormal gait mechanics. This may translate to a slower walking velocity, shorter stride length, and pain. This presentation will discuss a systematic way of dealing with flexion contractures to ensure that the total knee arthroplasty will achieve full extension. The surgical technique for treating fixed flexion deformity about the knee includes release of the posterior cruciate ligament, posterior capsular release, adequate distal femoral bone resection, and removal of osteophytes. Post-operatively, attention must be divided between obtaining maximal flexion and full extension. Should a flexion contracture be noted upon the post-operative visit, additional measures should be taken to address it

Revision of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty is frequently necessary during revision surgery. Newer devices have been developed that allow for easy extraction or conversion at the time of revision preserving bone stock and simplifying the procedure. However, early generation anatomic and reverse humeral stems were frequently cemented into place. Monoblock or fixed collar stems make accessing the canal from above challenging. The cortex of the Humerus is far thinner than the femur and stress shielding has commonly led to osteopenia. Many stem designs have fins that project into the tuberosities putting them at risk for fracture on extraction. Extraction starts with an extended deltopectoral incision from the clavicle to the deltoid insertion. The proximal humerus needs to be freed from adhesions of the deltoid and conjoined tendon. The deltopectoral interval is fully developed. Complete subscapularis and anterior capsular release to the level of the latissimus tendon permits full exposure of the humeral head. After head removal the stem can be assessed for loosening and signs of periprosthetic joint infection. The proximal bone around the fin of the implant should be removed from the canal. If possible, the manufacturer's extractor should be utilised. If not, then a blunt impactor can be placed from below against the collar of the stem to assist in extraction. With luck the stem can be extracted from the cement mantle. If there is no concern for infection, the cement-in-cement technique can be used for revision. Otherwise, attempts should be made to extract all the cement and cement restrictor, if present. The small cement removal tools from the hip set can be used and specialised shoulder tools are available. An ultrasound cement removal device can be very helpful. The surgeon must be particularly careful to avoid perforation of the humeral cortex. This is especially important when near the radial nerve as injury can occur. When a well-fixed stem is encountered, an osteotomy of the proximal humerus is necessary. The surgeon can utilise a linear cut with an oscillating saw along the bicipital groove for the length of the implant. An osteotome is used to crack the cement mantle allowing stem extraction. Alternatively, a window can be created to offer additional access to the cement mantle. In the event the surgeon has required an osteotomy or window, cerclage wires, cables or suture will be needed and when the bone is potentially compromised, allograft bone graft struts (tibial shaft) are used for additional support. Care is needed when passing cerclage wires to avoid injury to the radial nerve which is adjacent to the deltoid insertion. If infection is suspected or confirmed an ALBC spacer is placed. When single stage revision is planned both cemented and uncemented stem options are available. Cement placed around the humeral stem has been suggested to decrease infection incidence. Revision of cemented humeral stems is a continued challenge in revision shoulder surgery. Newer systems and reverse total shoulder options have improved the surgeon's ability to achieve good outcomes when revising prior shoulder arthroplasty