Reliability of limb alignment measurement for high tibial osteotomy with a navigation system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is one treatment option for young and active patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The success of this procedure substantially depends on the degree of correction of the mechanical axis. Computer-assisted navigation systems are believed to improve the precision of axis correction through intraoperative real-time monitoring. This study investigates the accuracy of limb alignment measurements with a navigation system on a cadaver specimen.</p> <p>Materials and methods</p> <p>The measurements were performed on a well-preserved cadaver specimen with a mechanical leg axis of 4° varus. Data was collected during the HTO workflow. Repeated serial measurements were undertaken by four different surgeons. After these measurements, different landmarks were deliberately set at the wrong place to examine the influence of mistakes during registration.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was a high intra-and interobserver reliability with a mean mechanical leg axis of 3.9° ± 0.7° and a mean error of 0.6°. The grossly incorrect placement of landmarks for knee and ankle center resulted in an incorrect mechanical leg axis of 1° valgus up to 10° varus.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The computer-assisted navigation system provided precise information about the mechanical leg axis, irrespective of the observer's experience.</p

Radiographic assessment of the femorotibial joint of the CCLT rabbit experimental model of osteoarthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purposes of the study were to determine the relevance and validity of in vivo non-invasive radiographic assessment of the CCLT (Cranial Cruciate Ligament Transection) rabbit model of osteoarthritis (OA) and to estimate the pertinence, reliability and reproducibility of a radiographic OA (ROA) grading scale and associated radiographic atlas.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In vivo non-invasive extended non weight-bearing radiography of the rabbit femorotibial joint was standardized. Two hundred and fifty radiographs from control and CCLT rabbits up to five months after surgery were reviewed by three readers. They subsequently constructed an original semi-quantitative grading scale as well as an illustrative atlas of individual ROA feature for the medial compartment. To measure agreements, five readers independently scored the same radiographic sample using this atlas and three of them performed a second reading. To evaluate the pertinence of the ROA grading scale, ROA results were compared with gross examination in forty operated and ten control rabbits.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Radiographic osteophytes of medial femoral condyles and medial tibial condyles were scored on a four point scale and dichotomously for osteophytes of medial fabella. Medial joint space width was scored as normal, reduced or absent. Each ROA features was well correlated with gross examination (p < 0.001). ICCs of each ROA features demonstrated excellent agreement between readers and within reading. Global ROA score gave the highest ICCs value for between (ICC 0.93; CI 0.90-0.96) and within (ICC ranged from 0.94 to 0.96) observer agreements. Among all individual ROA features, medial joint space width scoring gave the highest overall reliability and reproducibility and was correlated with both meniscal and cartilage macroscopic lesions (r_s= 0.68 and r_s= 0.58, p < 0.001 respectively). Radiographic osteophytes of the medial femoral condyle gave the lowest agreements while being well correlated with the macroscopic osteophytes (r_s= 0.64, p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Non-invasive in vivo radiography of the rabbit femorotibial joint is feasible, relevant and allows a reproducible grading of experimentally induced OA lesion. The radiographic grading scale and atlas presented could be used as a template for in vivo non invasive grading of ROA in preclinical studies and could allow future comparisons between studies.</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field