Imaging of abdominal hernias

Abdominal hernias are a common clinical problem. The main types of abdominal hernias are external or abdominal wall hernias, which involve protrusion of abdominal contents through a defect in the abdominal wall; internal hernias, which involve protrusion of viscera through the peritoneum or mesentery and into a compartment in the abdominal cavity; and diaphragmatic hernias, which involve protrusion of abdominal contents into the chest. Clinical diagnosis of abdominal hernias can be difficult. However, plain radiography, radiography performed after administration of barium, and computed tomography allow evaluation of suspected abdominal hernias and detection of those that are clinically occult. The anatomic location of the hernia, the contents, and complications such as incarceration, bowel obstruction, volvulus, and strangulation can be demonstrated with radiologic examination. Occasionally, complications such as neoplasms or inflammatory conditions can be identified in the hernial contents. With abdominal imaging modalities, a variety of abdominal hernias can be confidently diagnosed

Comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty in terms of patellofemoral pain and function:a prospective, randomised, controlled trial

\u3cp\u3eBackground: Despite growing evidence in the literature, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the use of the mobile-bearing (MB) design total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: In a prospective, comparative, randomised, single centre trial, 106 patients with end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee were randomised to either an MB or fixed-bearing (FB) group to receive posterior stabilised (PS)-TKA using a standard medial parapatellar approach and patellar resurfacing with follow-up (FU) for 5 years. The primary outcome was anterior knee pain (AKP) during the chair rise test and the stair climb test 5 years after surgery. The secondary outcome was the ability to rise from a chair and to climb stairs, range of motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), RAND-36 scores and radiological analysis of the patellar tilt. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups at 5 years FU in terms of median AKP during the chair rise test and the stair climb test (p = 0.5 and p = 0.8, respectively). There was no significant difference in any of the other secondary outcome parameters between the groups at 5 years FU. Conclusion: A mobile-bearing TKA does not decrease AKP compared to fixed bearings.\u3c/p\u3

Comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty in terms of patellofemoral pain and function: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial

Abstract Background Despite growing evidence in the literature, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the use of the mobile-bearing (MB) design total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods In a prospective, comparative, randomised, single centre trial, 106 patients with end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee were randomised to either an MB or fixed-bearing (FB) group to receive posterior stabilised (PS)-TKA using a standard medial parapatellar approach and patellar resurfacing with follow-up (FU) for 5 years. The primary outcome was anterior knee pain (AKP) during the chair rise test and the stair climb test 5 years after surgery. The secondary outcome was the ability to rise from a chair and to climb stairs, range of motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), RAND-36 scores and radiological analysis of the patellar tilt. Results No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups at 5 years FU in terms of median AKP during the chair rise test and the stair climb test (p = 0.5 and p = 0.8, respectively). There was no significant difference in any of the other secondary outcome parameters between the groups at 5 years FU. Conclusion A mobile-bearing TKA does not decrease AKP compared to fixed bearings. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02892838 . Level of evidence I

Accuracy of the Precision Saw versus the Sagittal Saw during total knee arthroplasty:a randomised clinical trial

\u3cp\u3eBackground The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the oscillating tip saw system (Precision Saw = PS) with the more conventional fully oscillating blade system (Sagittal Saw = SS) during computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty (CAS-TKA). Methods A prospective, randomised, controlled trial included 58 consecutive patients who underwent primary CAS-TKA and were randomly assigned in the PS group or the SS group to compare the accuracy of both blades. The primary outcome was the difference between the intended cutting planes and the actual cutting planes in degrees (°) in two planes of both the femur and the tibia. The secondary outcome was total surgery time. Results Tibia: In the VV-plane no significant differences were registered for the mean absolute deviation (p = 0.28). The PS was more accurate in the AP-plane (p = 0.03). Femur: The PS showed significantly fewer mean absolute deviations in the VV-plane (p = 0.03); however, the SS revealed better accuracy in the FE-plane (p = 0.04). The difference in the surgery time between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.45). Two outliers were measured using the SS, while seven outliers were detected using the PS. Conclusion The Precision Saw is not proven to be overall more accurate than the Sagittal Saw. Significantly better accuracy was shown with the PS in the two cutting planes, with the exception of one cutting plane that favoured the SS. Greater number of outliers were found using the PS. Level of evidence: II\u3c/p\u3

Accuracy of the Precision Saw versus the Sagittal Saw during total knee arthroplasty: A randomised clinical trial

Background The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the oscillating tip saw system (Precision Saw = PS) with the more conventional fully oscillating blade system (Sagittal Saw = SS) during computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty (CAS-TKA). Methods A prospective, randomised, controlled trial included 58 consecutive patients who underwent primary CAS-TKA and were randomly assigned in the PS group or the SS group to compare the accuracy of both blades. The primary outcome was the difference between the intended cutting planes and the actual cutting planes in degrees (°) in two planes of both the femur and the tibia. The secondary outcome was total surgery time. Results Tibia: In the VV-plane no significant differences were registered for the mean absolute deviation (p = 0.28). The PS was more accurate in the AP-plane (p = 0.03). Femur: The PS showed significantly fewer mean absolute deviations in the VV-plane (p = 0.03); however, the SS revealed better accuracy in the FE-plane (p = 0.04). The difference in the surgery time between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.45). Two outliers were measured using the SS, while seven outliers were detected using the PS. Conclusion The Precision Saw is not proven to be overall more accurate than the Sagittal Saw. Significantly better accuracy was shown with the PS in the two cutting planes, with the exception of one cutting plane that favoured the SS. Greater number of outliers were found using the PS. Level of evidence: I