Comparison of needle and conventional arthroscopy for visualisation of predefined anatomical structures of the knee joint: a feasibility study in human cadavers and patients.

BACKGROUND: In terms of the optics used for Knee arthroscopy, a large number of different endoscopes are currently available. However, the use of the 30° optics in knee arthroscopy has been established as the standard procedure for many years. As early as the 1990s, needle arthroscopy was occasionally used as a diagnostic tool. In addition to the development of conventional optics technology in terms of camera and resolution, needle arthroscopes are now available with chip-on-tip image sensor technology. To date, no study has compared the performance of this kind of needle arthroscopy versus standard arthroscopy in the clinical setting in terms of the visibility of anatomical landmarks. In this monocentric prospective feasibility study, our aim was to evaluate predefined anatomical landmarks of the knee joint using needle arthroscopy (0° optics) and conventional knee arthroscopy (30° optics) and compare their performance during knee surgery. METHODS: Examinations were performed on eight cadavers and seven patients who required elective knee arthroscopy. Two surgeons independently performed the examinations on these 15 knee joints, so that we were able to compare a total of 30 examinations. The focus was on the anatomical landmarks that could be visualized during a conventional diagnostic knee arthroscopy procedure. The quality of visibility was evaluated using a questionnaire. RESULTS: In summary, the average visibility for all the anatomic landmarks was rated 4.98/ 5 for the arthroscopy using 30° optics. For needle arthroscopy, an average score of 4.89/ 5 was obtained. Comparatively, the needle arthroscope showed slightly limited visibility of the retropatellar gliding surface in eight (4.5/ 5 vs. 5/ 5), medial rim of the patella in four (4.85/ 5 vs. 5/ 5), and suprapatellar recess in four (4.83/ 5 vs. 5/ 5) cases. Needle arthroscopy was slightly better at visualizing the posterior horn of the medial meniscus in four knee joints (4.9/ 5 vs. 4.85/ 5). CONCLUSION: Needle arthroscopy is a promising technology with advantages in terms of minimally invasive access and good visibility of anatomical landmarks. However, it also highlights some limitations, particularly in cases with challenging anatomy or the need for a wide field of view.

A computed tomography based survey study investigating the agreement of the therapeutic strategy for fragility fractures of the pelvis.

Treatment recommendations for fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) have been provided along with the good reliable FFP classification but they are not proven in large studies and recent reports challenge these recommendations. Thus, we aimed to determine the usefulness of the FFP classification determining the treatment strategy and favored procedures in six level 1 trauma centers. Sixty cases of FFP were evaluated by six experienced pelvic surgeons, six inexperienced surgeons in training, and one surgeon trained by the originator of the FFP classification during three repeating sessions using computed tomography scans with multiplanar reconstruction. The intra-rater reliability and inter-rater reliability for therapeutic decisions (non-operative treatment vs. operative treatment) were moderate, with Fleiss kappa coefficients of 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.62) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.34-0.49). We found a therapeutic disagreement predominantly for FFP II related to a preferred operative therapy for FFP II. Operative treated cases were generally treated with an anterior-posterior fixation. Despite the consensus on an anterior-posterior fixation, the chosen procedures are highly variable and most plausible based on the surgeon's preference.

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis Classification: A Multicenter Assessment of the Intra-Rater and Inter-Rater Reliabilities and Percentage of Agreement.

BACKGROUND: The fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) classification was established to address the specific fracture morphology and dynamic instability in the elderly. Although this system is frequently used, data on the intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities are lacking. METHODS: Six experienced and 6 inexperienced surgeons and 1 surgeon trained by the originator of the FFP classification ("gold standard") each used the FFP classification 3 times to grade the computed tomography (CT) scans of 60 patients from 6 hospitals. We assessed intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities using Fleiss kappa statistics and the percentage of agreement using the "gold standard," the submitting hospital, and the majority vote as references. RESULTS: The intra-rater reliability for the FFP classification was mainly moderate, with a mean Fleiss kappa coefficient (and 95% confidence interval) of 0.46 (0.40 to 0.50) for the complete classification (i.e., both the main-group FFP ratings [I through III] and the subgroup ratings [a, b, and c]) and 0.60 (0.53 to 0.65) for the main group only. The inter-rater reliability was substantial for the main group classification (0.61 [0.54 to 0.66]) and moderate for the complete classification (0.53 [0.48 to 0.58]). The percentage of agreement was 68% to 80%. The lowest agreement was found for FFP II and III. CONCLUSIONS: The FFP classification displayed moderate and substantial intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With moderate to substantial intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities, the FFP classification forms a solid basis for future clinical investigations. The differentiation of FFP II from FFP III should be evaluated thoroughly, as the initial treatment changes from nonoperative for II to operative for III.