Less Anterior Knee Pain with a Mobile-bearing Prosthesis Compared with a Fixed-bearing Prosthesis

Anterior knee pain is one of the major short-term complaints after TKA. Since the introduction of the mobile-bearing TKA, numerous studies have attempted to confirm the theoretical advantages of a mobile-bearing TKA over a fixed-bearing TKA but most show little or no actual benefits. The concept of self-alignment for the mobile bearing suggests the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA would provide a lower incidence of anterior knee pain compared with a fixed-bearing TKA. We therefore asked whether the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee would in fact reduce anterior knee pain. We randomized 103 patients scheduled for cemented three-component TKA for osteoarthrosis in a prospective, double-blind clinical trial. With a 1-year followup, more patients experienced persistent anterior knee pain in the posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing group (10 of 53, 18.9%) than in the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing group (two of 47, 4.3%). No differences were observed for range of motion, visual analog scale for pain, Oxford 12-item questionnaire, SF-36, or the American Knee Society score. The posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee therefore seems to provide a short-term advantage compared with the posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing knee

Manual therapy followed by specific active exercises versus a placebo followed by specific active exercises on the improvement of functional disability in patients with chronic non specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical recommendations still propose active exercises (AE) for CNSLBP. However, acceptance of exercises by patients may be limited by pain-related manifestations. Current evidences suggest that manual therapy (MT) induces an immediate analgesic effect through neurophysiologic mechanisms at peripheral, spinal and cortical levels. The aim of this pilot study was first, to assess whether MT has an immediate analgesic effect, and second, to compare the lasting effect on functional disability of MT plus AE to sham therapy (ST) plus AE. METHODS: Forty-two CNSLBP patients without co-morbidities, randomly distributed into 2 treatment groups, received either spinal manipulation/mobilization (first intervention) plus AE (MT group; n = 22), or detuned ultrasound (first intervention) plus AE (ST group; n = 20). Eight therapeutic sessions were delivered over 4 to 8 weeks. Immediate analgesic effect was obtained by measuring pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale) before and immediately after the first intervention of each therapeutic session. Pain intensity, disability (Oswestry Disability Index), fear-avoidance beliefs (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), erector spinae and abdominal muscles endurance (Sorensen and Shirado tests) were assessed before treatment, after the 8th therapeutic session, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven subjects completed the study. MT intervention induced a better immediate analgesic effect that was independent from the therapeutic session (VAS mean difference between interventions: -0.8; 95% CI: -1.2 to -0.3). Independently from time after treatment, MT + AE induced lower disability (ODI mean group difference: -7.1; 95% CI: -12.8 to -1.5) and a trend to lower pain (VAS mean group difference: -1.2; 95% CI: -2.4 to -0.30). Six months after treatment, Shirado test was better for the ST group (Shirado mean group difference: -61.6; 95% CI: -117.5 to -5.7). Insufficient evidence for group differences was found in remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the immediate analgesic effect of MT over ST. Followed by specific active exercises, it reduces significantly functional disability and tends to induce a larger decrease in pain intensity, compared to a control group. These results confirm the clinical relevance of MT as an appropriate treatment for CNSLBP. Its neurophysiologic mechanisms at cortical level should be investigated more thoroughly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NCT01496144

Favorable results after total wrist arthroplasty:65 wrists in 60 patients followed for 5–9 years

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the past 40 years, several attempts have been made with total wrist arthroplasty to avoid fusion in severely destroyed wrists. The results have often been disappointing. There is only modest clinical documentation due to the small number of patients (especially non-rheumatoid cases) and short follow-up times. Here we report a multicenter series using a third-generation implant with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. METHODS: In 2012, data were retrieved from a registry of consecutive wrist operations at 7 centers with units specialized in hand surgery, between 2003 and 2007. The wrists had been reviewed annually and analysis was done on the latest follow-up data. RESULTS: 60 patients had been operated (5 bilaterally), 5 wrists had been revised, and 52 were available for follow-up (with the revised cases excluded). The pain scores, QuickDASH scores, ulnar flexion, and supination for the whole group were statistically significantly better at follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences between the rheumatoid and the non-rheumatoid patients except for motion, which was better in the non-rheumatoid group. The motion obtained depended on the preoperative motion. Implant survival was 0.9 at 5–9 years. INTERPRETATION: The clinical results in terms of pain, motion, strength, and function were similar to those in previous reports. The implant survival was 0.9 at 9 years, both in rheumatoid and non-rheumatoid cases, which is an important improvement compared to the earlier generations of total wrist arthroplasty