A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Functional Status after Knee Fracture and Knee Fracture Dislocation.

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of tibial plateau fracture dislocations (FD) with tibial plateau fractures alone. This study was an analysis of a series of tibial plateau fractures, in which FD was defined as a fracture of the tibial plateau with an associated loss of congruent joint reduction and stability of the knee, and classified by the Moore system. Patient data collected included demographics, injury information, and functional outcomes (short musculoskeletal function assessment [SMFA] score and Pain by the visual analog scale). Clinical outcomes at follow-up were recorded including knee range of motion, knee stability and development of complications. There were a total of 325 tibial plateau fracture patients treated operatively, of which 22.2% were identified as FD (n = 72). At injury presentation there was no difference with regard to nerve injury or compartment syndrome (both p > 0.05). FD patients had a higher incidence of arterial injury and acute ligament repair (both p < 0.005). At a mean follow-up of 17.5 months, FD patients were similar with regard to pain, total SMFA scores, and return to sports than their non-FD counterparts (p = 0.884, p = 0.531, p = 0.802). FD patients were found to have decreased knee flexion compared with non-FD patients by 5 degrees (mean: 120 and 125 degrees) (p < 0.05). FD patients also had a higher incidence of late knee instability and subsequent surgery for ligament reconstruction (p < 0.005 & p < 0.05). However, there was no difference in neurological function between groups at follow-up (p = 0.102). Despite the higher incidence of ligamentous instability and decreased range of motion, FD patients appear to have similar long-term functional outcomes compared with non-FD of the tibial plateau. While FD patients initially presented with a higher incidence of arterial injury, neurovascular outcomes at final follow-up were similar to those without a dislocation.

Posterolateral Corner Injury Evolution of Diagnosis and Treatment.

Injuries to the posterolateral corner of the knee are rare but significant injuries that occur most commonly in the context of a multiligamentous knee injury. The structures of the posterolateral corner serve as a primary restraint to varus and external rotation and as a secondary restraint to posterior translation. Contemporary reconstructive techniques focus on anatomic restoration of function of the posterolateral corner and excellent long-term results have been demonstrated.

Does a Traumatic Etiology of Hip Pain Influence Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes?

PURPOSE: To determine whether patients who reported a discrete traumatic event precipitating the onset of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) reported similar patient-reported outcomes for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) following hip arthroscopy as patients with atraumatic hip pain associated with FAIS alone. METHODS: A retrospective comparative therapeutic investigation of a prospectively collected database of cases performed by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2015 identified a group of patients who developed FAIS after a discrete traumatic event. This group was compared 1:2 with a body mass index and age-matched group of primary hip arthroscopies with atraumatic hip pain attributed to FAIS. Preoperative mHHS and NAHS were obtained and compared with those at 2-year follow-up. Clinical failure at 2 years was defined as any further ipsilateral hip surgery including revision arthroscopy and conversion to arthroplasty. RESULTS: In the traumatic etiology group, the mean mHHS and NAHS improved from 49.6 to 82.7 (P < .001) and from 46.9 to 84.0 (P < .001), respectively. The mean mHHS and NAHS in the atraumatic group improved from 51.5 to 85.82 (P < .001) and from 49.3 to 85.2 (P < .001), respectively. Survivorship at 2 years was 81.1% for traumatic etiology and 88.3% for atraumatic etiology; adjusted proportional hazards regression analysis demonstrated a difference in survivorship that was not statistically significant between the traumatic and atraumatic cohorts (hazard ratio 1.8, 95% confidence interval 0.8-4.0). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study demonstrate that patients presenting with FAIS and history of a traumatic hip injury can expect to experience similar good outcomes at 2 years following primary hip arthroscopy as compared with patients with atraumatic FAIS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III (Therapeutic) retrospective comparative study.

Clinical Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in Patients 60 or Older: A Minimum of 2-Year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To examine clinical outcomes and survivorship in patients aged 60 years or older who underwent hip arthroscopy for management of hip pain. METHODS: Prospectively collected data for patients 60 or older undergoing hip arthroscopy were obtained. All patients were indicated for hip arthroscopy based on standard preoperative examination as well as routine and advanced imaging. Demographic data, diagnosis, and details regarding operative procedures were collected. Baseline preoperative modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) and Non-arthritic Hip Scores (NAHS) were compared to mHHS and NAHS at the 2-year follow-up. Survivorship was assessed to determine failure rates, with failure defined as any subsequent ipsilateral revision arthroscopic surgery and/or hip arthroplasty. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age (standard deviation) and body mass index were 65.8 years (4.5 years) and 26.1 (4.7), respectively. Baseline mean mHHS and NAHS for all patients improved from 47.8 (±12.5) and 47.3 (±13.6) to 75.6 (±17.6) and 78.3 (±18.6), respectively (P < .001 for both). Five patients (11.9%) met failure criteria and underwent additional surgery at an average of 14.8 (8-30) months. Three underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty (7.1%), whereas 2 had revision arthroscopy with cam/pincer resection and labral repair for recurrent symptoms (4.7%). One- and 2-year survival rates were 95.2% and 88.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that in patients 60 or older with Tonnis grade 0 or 1 osteoarthritic changes on initial radiographs-treatment with hip arthroscopy can lead to reliable improvement in early outcomes. As use of hip arthroscopy for treatment of mechanical hip pain increases, additional studies with long-term follow-up are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Bone morphogenetic proteins in craniofacial surgery: current techniques, clinical experiences, and the future of personalized stem cell therapy.

Critical-size osseous defects cannot heal without surgical intervention and can pose a significant challenge to craniofacial reconstruction. Autologous bone grafting is the gold standard for repair but is limited by a donor site morbidity and a potentially inadequate supply of autologous bone. Alternatives to autologous bone grafting include the use of alloplastic and allogenic materials, mesenchymal stem cells, and bone morphogenetic proteins. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are essential mediators of bone formation involved in the regulation of differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells into osteoblasts. Here we focus on the use of BMPs in experimental models of craniofacial surgery and clinical applications of BMPs in the reconstruction of the cranial vault, palate, and mandible and suggest a model for the use of BMPs in personalized stem cell therapies.

Acellular nerve allografts in peripheral nerve regeneration: a comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: Processed nerve allografts offer a promising alternative to nerve autografts in the surgical management of peripheral nerve injuries where short deficits exist. METHODS: Three established models of acellular nerve allograft (cold-preserved, detergent-processed, and AxoGen-processed nerve allografts) were compared with nerve isografts and silicone nerve guidance conduits in a 14-mm rat sciatic nerve defect. RESULTS: All acellular nerve grafts were superior to silicone nerve conduits in support of nerve regeneration. Detergent-processed allografts were similar to isografts at 6 weeks postoperatively, whereas AxoGen-processed and cold-preserved allografts supported significantly fewer regenerating nerve fibers. Measurement of muscle force confirmed that detergent-processed allografts promoted isograft-equivalent levels of motor recovery 16 weeks postoperatively. All acellular allografts promoted greater amounts of motor recovery compared with silicone conduits. CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that differential processing for removal of cellular constituents in preparing acellular nerve allografts affects recovery in vivo.

Nerve allotransplantation as it pertains to composite tissue transplantation.

Nerve allografts provide a temporary scaffold for host nerve regeneration and allow for the repair of significant segmental nerve injuries. From rodent, large animal, and nonhuman primate studies, as well as clinical experience, nerve allografts, with the use of immunosuppression, have the capacity to provide equal regeneration and function to that of an autograft. In contrast to solid organ transplantation and composite tissue transfers, nerve allograft transplantation requires only temporary immunosuppression. Furthermore, nerve allograft rejection is difficult to assess, as the nerves are surgically buried and are without an immediate functional endpoint to monitor. In this article, we review what we know about peripheral nerve allograft transplantation from three decades of experience and apply our current understanding of nerve regeneration to the emerging field of composite tissue transplantation.