Biomechanical optimization of the angle and position for surgical implantation of a straight short stem hip implant.

Conservative hip implants preserve healthy bone for revision surgeries and improve physiological loading; however, they have little supporting biomechanical data with respect to their 3D orientation during implantation. This study endeavored to determine the optimal 3D orientation of a straight short stem hip implant within the proximal femur that would yield a stress distribution most similar to an intact femur. Synthetic femurs were implanted with a stem in one of seven maximum angles or positions and axially loaded, with resultant strain values used to validate a finite element model. Design of experiments was used to analyze the range of potential implant orientations under three gait cycle loading conditions. A global optimal orientation of 9.14° valgus, 2.49° anteversion, 0.48mm posterior position, and 0.23mm inferior position was found to yield stress distributions most similar to the intact femur across the gait cycle range. In general, it was determined that the valgus orientation was optimal throughout the gait cycle, consistently exhibiting a stress distribution more similar to that of the intact femur. Minimal levels of anterior/posterior and inferior positioning were seen to be beneficial in achieving more physiological stresses in specific regions of interest within the proximal femur, while the anteverted orientation was only beneficial in loading under flexion. Overall, orthopaedic surgeons should aim to implant straight short stem hip implants in valgus up to 10°, with an otherwise neutral position and version, unless some degree of deviation would be beneficial for a patient-specific reason. This work has implications for the best surgical placement of straight short stem hip implants to yield maximal biomechanical stability.

Building Networks for Global Clinical Research: The Basics.

Over the last several decades, interest in global health across all fields of medicine, including orthopaedic surgery, has grown markedly. Cross-national collaborations are an effective means of conducting high-quality clinical research and offer many advantages over single-center investigations. Successful collaboration requires a well-designed research protocol, development of an effective team structure, and the funding to ensure the project is sustained to completion. Equally important, investigators must consider the social, linguistic, and cultural context in which the study is being undertaken. Although randomized clinical trials are the highest level of evidence, study designs may have to be adapted to accommodate available resources, expertise, and local contextual factors. With appropriate planning, these collaborative endeavors can generate changes in clinical practice and positively impact health policy.

Infection in Orthopaedics.

Infection in orthopaedic trauma patients is a common problem associated with significant financial and psychosocial costs, and increased morbidity. This review outlines technologies to diagnose and prevent orthopaedic infection, examines implant-related infection and its management, and discusses the treatment of post-traumatic osteomyelitis. The gold standard for diagnosing infection has a number of disadvantages, and thus new technologies to diagnose infection are being explored, including multilocus polymerase chain reaction with electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry and optical imaging. Numerous strategies have been employed to prevent orthopaedic infection, including use of antibiotic-impregnated implant coatings and cement; however, further research is required to optimize these technologies. Biofilm formation on orthopaedic implants is attributed to the glycocalyx-mediated surface mode of bacterial growth and is usually treated through a secondary surgery involving irrigation, debridement and the appropriate use of antibiotics, or complete removal of the infected implant. Research into the treatment of post-traumatic osteomyelitis has focused on developing an optimal local antibiotic delivery vehicle, such as antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement beads or bioabsorbable bone substitute (BBS) delivery systems. As these new technologies to diagnose, prevent and treat orthopaedic infection advance, the incidence of infection will decrease and patient care will be optimized.

Biomechanical Concepts for Fracture Fixation.

Application of the correct fixation construct is critical for fracture healing and long-term stability; however, it is a complex issue with numerous significant factors. This review describes a number of common fracture types and evaluates their currently available fracture fixation constructs. In the setting of complex elbow instability, stable fixation or radial head replacement with an appropriately sized implant in conjunction with ligamentous repair is required to restore stability. For unstable sacral fractures with vertical or multiplanar instabilities, "standard" iliosacral screw fixation is not sufficient. Periprosthetic femur fractures, in particular Vancouver B1 fractures, have increased stability when using 90/90 fixation versus a single locking plate. Far cortical locking combines the concept of dynamization with locked plating to achieve superior healing of a distal femur fracture. Finally, there is no ideal construct for syndesmotic fracture stabilization; however, these fractures should be fixed using a device that allows for sufficient motion in the syndesmosis. In general, orthopaedic surgeons should select a fracture fixation construct that restores stability and promotes healing at the fracture site, while reducing the potential for fixation failure.

Assessment of Fracture Repair.

Assessment of fracture union is a critical concept in clinical orthopaedics; however, there is no established "gold standard" for fracture healing. This review provides an overview of the problems related to the assessment of fracture healing, examines currently available tools to determine union, discusses the role of functional outcomes in the assessment of fracture healing, and finally evaluates healing outcome measures as they pertain to fracture trials. Because there is no universally accepted method to determine fracture healing, orthopaedic surgeons must rely on a range of tools that can include: radiographic assessment, mechanical assessment, serologic markers, and clinical evaluation (including functional outcomes). When used in conjunction, these tools can help to improve the sensitivity and specificity of determining fracture union. This is furthermore relevant when conducting fracture healing trials, for which there is little consensus between surgeons or the Food and Drug Administration as to optimal study endpoints. Such studies should therefore include a composite outcome measure consisting of radiographic and functional assessments to increase the quality and consistency of fracture healing trials.

Biomechanical and Electromyographic Comparisons of Isometric Trunk Flexor Endurance Test Postures: Prone Plank Versus V-Sit.

The objective of this study was to investigate why holding times on 2 different tests of isometric trunk flexor endurance capacity (prone plank and v-sit) are weakly correlated. Body position and ground reaction force data from 10 men and 10 women were used to conduct static biomechanical analyses of both test postures, and bilateral activations of the rectus abdominis, internal and external obliques, latissimus dorsi, and lumbar and thoracic erector spinae were measured in a second sample of 15 men and 15 women while holding the test postures. No between-posture differences in net low back flexor moments were found (P = .111), but the lumbar spine was 28° more flexed in the v-sit than in the plank (P < .001). No between-posture differences were detected in the rectus abdominis (P = .397), external obliques (P = .204), internal obliques (P = .226), or lumbar erector spinae (P = .116) activation levels, but those of the thoracic erector spinae (P = .0253) and latissimus dorsi (P < .001) were greater in the plank than in the v-sit. Altogether, the findings suggest that differences between plank and v-sit holding times are most likely related to between-test differences in lumbar spine postures and shoulder demands.