The Exeter femoral stem continues to migrate during its first decade after implantation: 10–12 years of follow-up with radiostereometric analysis (RSA)

Optimising joint reconstruction management in arthritis and bone tumour patient

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

Diminished amplification of SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab in a commercial dual-target qRT-PCR diagnostic assay

Here we describe a SARS-CoV-2 variant with diminished amplification of the ORF ORF1ab target in the Cobas® dual-target SARS-CoV-2 assay resulting in a discrepancy of Ct-values (Ct-value 20.7 for the E-gene and Ct-value 30.2 for ORF1ab). Five unique nucleotide mutations were identified in ORF1ab: C11450A (nsp10) C14178T (RdRp), G15006T (RdRp), G18394T (Hel), and G20995T (Hel). This case highlights the importance of surveillance of genomic regions used in molecular diagnostics and the importance of the public release of target regions used to update commercial and in-house developed SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests. This work underpins the importance of using dual-targets in molecular diagnostic assays to limit the change of false-negative results due to primer and/or probe mismatches

Early subsidence of shape-closed hip arthroplasty stems is associated with late revision

<div><p><b>Background and purpose —</b> Few studies have addressed the association between early migration of femoral stems and late aseptic revision in total hip arthroplasty. We performed a meta-regression analysis on 2 parallel systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine the association between early migration and late aseptic revision of femoral stems.</p><p><b>Patients and methods —</b> Of the 2 reviews, one covered early migration data obtained from radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies and the other covered long-term aseptic revision rates obtained from survival studies with endpoint revision for aseptic loosening. Stems were stratified according to the design concept: cemented shape-closed, cemented force-closed, and uncemented. A weighted regression model was used to assess the association between early migration and late aseptic revision, and to correct for confounders. Thresholds for acceptable and unacceptable migration were determined in accordance with the national joint registries (≤ 5% revision at 10 years) and the NICE criteria (≤ 10% revision at 10 years).</p><p><b>Results —</b> 24 studies (731 stems) were included in the RSA review and 56 studies (20,599 stems) were included in the survival analysis review. Combining both reviews for the 3 design concepts showed that for every 0.1-mm increase in 2-year subsidence, as measured with RSA, there was a 4% increase in revision rate for the shape-closed stem designs. This association remained after correction for age, sex, diagnosis, hospital type, continent, and study quality. The threshold for acceptable migration of shape-closed designs was defined at 0.15 mm; stems subsiding less than 0.15 mm in 2 years had revision rates of less than 5% at 10 years, while stems exceeding 0.15 mm subsidence had revision rates of more than 5%.</p><p><b>Interpretation —</b> There was a clinically relevant association between early subsidence of shape-closed femoral stems and late revision for aseptic loosening. This association can be used to assess the safety of shape-closed stem designs. The published research is not sufficient to allow us to make any conclusions regarding such an association for the force-closed and uncemented stems.</p></div