Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty

Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between the acetabular cup position and the risk of dislocation, wear and range of motion after total hip arthroplasty. The present study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of the surgeon’s estimated position of the cup after freehand placement in total hip replacement. Peroperative estimated abduction and anteversion of 200 acetabular components (placed by three orthopaedic surgeons and nine residents) were compared with measured outcomes (according to Pradhan) on postoperative radiographs. Cups were placed in 49.7° (SD 6.7) of abduction and 16.0° (SD 8.1) of anteversion. Estimation of placement was 46.3° (SD 4.3) of abduction and 14.6° (SD 5.9) of anteversion. Of more interest is the fact that for the orthopaedic surgeons the mean inaccuracy of estimation was 4.1° (SD 3.9) for abduction and 5.2° (SD 4.5) for anteversion and for their residents this was respectively, 6.3° (SD 4.6) and 5.7° (SD 5.0). Significant differences were found between orthopaedic surgeons and residents for inaccuracy of estimation for abduction, not for anteversion. Body mass index, sex, (un)cemented fixation and surgical approach (anterolateral or posterolateral) were not significant factors. Based upon the inaccuracy of estimation, the group’s chance on future cup placement within Lewinnek’s safe zone (5–25° anteversion and 30–50° abduction) is 82.7 and 85.2% for anteversion and abduction separately. When both parameters are combined, the chance of accurate placement is only 70.5%. The chance of placement of the acetabular component within 5° of an intended position, for both abduction and anteversion is 21.5% this percentage decreases to just 2.9% when the tolerated error is 1°. There is a tendency to underestimate both abduction and anteversion. Orthopaedic surgeons are superior to their residents in estimating abduction of the acetabular component. The results of this study indicate that freehand placement of the acetabular component is not a reliable method

Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after total knee arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fracture following total knee arthroplasty is a potentially serious complication. This injury can involve the distal femur, proximal tibia or the patella. This review article analyzes the prevalence, risk factors, classification and treatment options for periprosthetic fractures of the femur

Minimally invasive total knee replacement : techniques and results

In this review, we outlined the definition of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in total knee replacement (TKR) and described the different surgical approaches reported in the literature. Afterwards we went through the most recent studies assessing MIS TKR. Next, we searched for potential limitations of MIS knee replacement and tried to answer the following questions: Are there selective criteria and specific patient selection for MIS knee surgery? If there are, then what are they? After all, a discussion and conclusion completed this article. There is certainly room for MIS or at least less invasive surgery (LIS) for appropriate selected patients. Nonetheless, there are differences between approaches. Mini medial parapatellar is easy to master, quick to perform and potentially extendable, whereas mini subvastus and mini midvastus are trickier and require more caution related to risk of hematoma and VMO nerve damage. Current evidence on the safety and efficacy of mini-incision surgery for TKR does not appear fully adequate for the procedure to be used without special arrangements for consent and for audit or continuing research. There is an argument that a sudden jump from standard TKR to MIS TKR, especially without computer assistance such as navigation, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) or robotic, may breach a surgeon's duty of care toward patients because it exposes patients to unnecessary risks. As a final point, more evidence is required on the long-term safety and efficacy of this procedure which will give objective shed light on real benefits of MIS TKR

Aware online interdependency modelling via evidence theory

"Critical infrastructure interdependency models are typically used in a simulation-based perspective, in order to perform 'what if?' analyses and identify structural vulnerabilities in a dynamic perspective. While in the literature some attempts have been made to use interdependency models at real time, such approaches are flawed by the inability to properly determine the ongoing situation. Such models, typically, receive data from SCADA systems, which are mostly able to assess the effects of failures rather than the causes, while knowing the typology of failure would increase dramatically the predictive-ability of online interdependency models. In this paper, a situation awareness framework is provided with the aim to complement online interdependency models by providing more specific information on the causes of the outages highlighted by sensor data. In order to determine such causes, in this paper a transferable belief model representation is adopted to increase the awareness of interdependency models on fault causes. Moreover in this paper some of the limitations of evidence theory methods are highlighted and discussed, with particular reference to a real time context, providing some insights on how to overcome them, especially the closed-world assumption.