The aim of this study was to compare the preinjury functional scores with the postinjury preoperative score and postoperative outcome scores following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery (ACLR). We performed a prospective study on patients who underwent primary ACLR by a single surgeon at a single centre between October 2010 and January 2018. Preoperative preinjury scores were collected at time of first assessment after the index injury. Preoperative (pre- and post-injury), one-year, and two-year postoperative functional outcomes were assessed by using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm Knee Score, and Tegner Activity Scale.Aims
Methods
The purpose of this study was to compare reoperation and revision rates of double plating (DP), single plating using a lateral locking plate (SP), or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs). All patients with PDFF primarily treated with DP, SP, or DFA between 2008 and 2022 at a university teaching hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was revision surgery for failure following DP, SP, or DFA. Secondary outcome measures included any reoperation, length of hospital stay, and mortality. All basic demographic and relevant implant and injury details were collected. Radiological analysis included fracture classification and evaluation of metaphyseal and medial comminution.Aims
Methods
Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics. Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system.Aims
Methods
