Hip arthrodesis in the pediatric population: where do we stand?

Reconstructive and salvage procedures have continued to evolve in orthopedic surgery with changing functional demands of the population as well as advances in implants and surgical techniques. What used to be popular or traditional care at some point may eventually become a thing of the past, and this is true as far as many orthopedic surgical procedures are concerned. Understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, and managing and postponing the destructive pathway of osteoarthritis (OA) has been the goal of orthopedists since the specialty began in the early part of 18th century. Options of treating the severe sequelae of an arthritic joint have varied in different treatment eras. Management options have changed from a spectrum of non-treatment and slow suffering to muscle and soft-tissue releases, interposition arthroplasty and eventual extreme options like joint fusion or arthrodesis. The concept and advent of joint replacement surgery started a new era in the management of OA and was a dream come true in many ways. Mobility and stability are achieved together during the arthroplasty (joint replacement) that allowes the patient to maintain a good level of function. Arthroplasty certainly has its pros and cons as we have discovered in the past six decades. Pushing the envelope to younger population has its limitation in terms of longevity of the prosthesis, early loosening, need for repeated revisions that at some point may not be technically possible and risk of infection and disastrous consequences like PE and death associated with the gravity of the procedure. As infrequent as it is in today's clinical practice, arthrodesis of the hip joint has a role and remains a solid option for a well selected case

Discrepancy between prevalence and perceived effectiveness of treatment methods in myofascial pain syndrome: Results of a cross-sectional, nationwide survey

Background: Myofascial pain is a common dysfunction with a lifetime prevalence affecting up to 85% of the general population. Current guidelines for the management of myofascial pain are not available. In this study we investigated how physicians on the basis of prescription behaviour evaluate the effectiveness of treatment options in their management of myofascial pain. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, nationwide survey with a standardized questionnaire among 332 physicians (79.8% male, 25.6% female, 47.5 +/- 9.6 years) experienced in treating patients with myofascial pain. Recruitment of physicians took place at three German meetings of pain therapists, rheumatologists and orthopaedists, respectively. Physicians estimated the prevalence of myofascial pain amongst patients in their practices, stated what treatments they used routinely and then rated the perceived treatment effectiveness on a six-point scale (with 1 being excellent). Data are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation. Results: The estimated overall prevalence of active myofascial trigger points is 46.1 +/- 27.4%. Frequently prescribed treatments are analgesics, mainly metamizol/paracetamol (91.6%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/coxibs (87.0%) or weak opioids (81.8%), and physical therapies, mainly manual therapy (81.1%), TENS (72.9%) or acupuncture (60.2%). Overall effectiveness ratings for analgesics (2.9 +/- 0.7) and physical therapies were moderate (2.5 +/- 0.8). Effectiveness ratings of the various treatment options between specialities were widely variant. 54.3% of all physicians characterized the available treatment options as insufficient. Conclusions: Myofascial pain was estimated a prevalent condition. Despite a variety of commonly prescribed treatments, the moderate effectiveness ratings and the frequent characterizations of the available treatments as insufficient suggest an urgent need for clinical research to establish evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome