11 research outputs found

    Restoring the patient's pre-arthritic posterior slope is the correct target for maximizing internal tibial rotation when implanting a PCL retaining TKA with calipered kinematic alignment

    No full text
    Introduction: The calipered kinematically-aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) strives to restore the patient's individual pre-arthritic (i.e., native) posterior tibial slope when retaining the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). Deviations from the patient's individual pre-arthritic posterior slope tighten and slacken the PCL in flexion that drives tibial rotation, and such a change might compromise passive internal tibial rotation and coupled patellofemoral kinematics. Methods: Twenty-one patients were treated with a calipered KA TKA and a PCL retaining implant with a medial ball-in-socket and a lateral flat articular insert conformity that mimics the native (i.e., healthy) knee. The slope of the tibial resection was set parallel to the medial joint line by adjusting the plane of an angel wing inserted in the tibial guide. Three trial inserts that matched and deviated 2°> and 2° slope (p < 0.000), and 15° for the 2°< slope (p < 0.000). Discussion: When performing a calipered KA TKA with PCL retention, the correct target for setting the tibial component is the patient's individual pre-arthritic slope within a tolerance of ±2°, as this target resulted in a 15–19° range of internal tibial rotation that is comparable to the 15–18° range reported for the native knee from extension to 90° flexion

    Traumatic Proximal Femoral Fractures during COVID-19 Pandemic in the US: An ACS NSQIPÂź Analysis.

    No full text
    In order to determine the impact of COVID-19 on the treatment and outcomes in patients with proximal femoral fracture’s (PFF), we analyzed a national US sample. This is a retrospective review of American College of Surgery’s (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) for patients with proximal femoral fractures. A total of 26,830 and 26,300 patients sustaining PFF and undergoing surgical treatment were sampled during 2019 and 2020, respectively. On multivariable logistic regression, patients were less likely to have ‘presence of non-healing wound’ (p &lt; 0.001), functional status ‘independent’ (p = 0.012), undergo surgical procedures of ‘hemiarthroplasty’(p = 0.002) and ‘ORIF IT, Peritroch, Subtroch with plates and screws’ (p &lt; 0.001) and to be ‘alive at 30-days post-op’ (p = 0.001) in 2020 as compared to 2019. Patients were more likely to have a case status ‘emergent’, ‘loss of ≄10% body weight’, discharge destination of ‘home’ (p &lt; 0.001 for each) or ‘leaving against medical advice’ (p = 0.026), postoperative ‘acute renal failure (ARF)’ (p = 0.011), ‘myocardial infarction (MI)’ (p = 0.006), ‘pulmonary embolism (PE)’ (p = 0.047), and ‘deep venous thrombosis (DVT)’ (p = 0.049) in 2020 as compared to 2019. Patients sustaining PFF and undergoing surgical treatment during pandemic year 2020 differed significantly in preoperative characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications when compared to patients from the previous year

    Radiographic Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with a Suture Button Device

    No full text
    Category: Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Disagreement exists as to the optimal treatment of Lisfranc injuries of the midfoot. Some authors suggest that primary arthrodesis should be the treatment of choice, whereas others are proponents of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). There has been increased interest in using a suture button device in lieu of traditional screw fixation, which in general must be removed. Biomechanical studies comparing screw fixation with suture button devices have had conflicting results. The aim of this study was evaluate patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with a suture button radiographically over time. Methods: 43 patients with a Lisfranc injury treated surgically with a suture button device (Tightrope, Arthrex, Naples, FL) by two fellowship-trained orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons were identified via a database query for the CPT code 28615 (open treatment of tarsometatarsal joint dislocation). The distances between the first and second metatarsal (M1-M2) and between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal (C1-M2) were measured on anterior-posterior (AP) radiographs using standardized, readily-identifiable landmarks. All measurements were performed independently by two musculoskeletal radiologists and were averaged. Accuracy of reduction was assessed by comparing measurements on weightbearing AP radiographs of the uninjured foot with the operatively-treated foot at 6 weeks postoperatively, also weightbearing. Maintenance of reduction over time was assessed by comparing measurements at 6 weeks postoperatively with measurements taken at the time of last follow-up. Measurements were also compared between the injured foot preoperatively and at time of last follow-up. T-tests using SPSS software were performed for statistical analysis in comparing the means of the different measurements. Results: Average radiographic follow-up was 35.8 weeks (6.1-178.9). Accuracy of reduction was less than 1 mm for both the M1- M2 and C1-M2 measurements when comparing the uninjured foot with the surgically-treated foot at 6 weeks postoperatively; this difference was significant in the C1-M2 measurement (difference = 0.77 mm, p=0.032), but not in the M1-M2 measurement (difference = 0.44 mm, p=0.190). There was no significant difference in measurements between 6 weeks postoperatively and at final follow-up (difference in M1-M2=0.22 mm, p=0.435; difference in C1-M2=0.27 mm, p=0.352). There was significant improvement in the measured distances of the injured foot preoperatively to that measured at final follow-up in the C1-M2 measurements (difference in C1-M2=-0.82mm, p=0.021), while the difference in the M1-M2 measurements approached significance (difference in M1-M2= -0.56 mm, p=0.067). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first and largest series assessing radiographic outcomes of Lisfranc injuries in patients treated surgically with a suture button device. After open reduction of Lisfranc injuries, the suture-button device used in this study appears to adequately maintain this reduction over time while patients are weightbearing and back to full activity. We therefore conclude that based on our results, the suture button appears to present an effective alternative to traditional screw fixation for treatment of Lisfranc injuries
    corecore