Clinical evaluation of a resurfacing device implant for femoral osteochondral defects greater than 1 cm2 with a minimal follow-up of 4 years: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Osteochondral defects have a limited capacity to heal and can evolve to an early osteoarthritis. A surgical possibility is the replacement of the affected cartilaginous area with a resurfacing device BioPoly™ RS Partial Resurfacing Knee Implant. The aim of this study was to report the clinical and survival outcomes of the BioPoly™ after a minimum follow-up of 4 years. METHODS: This study included all patients who had a BioPoly™ for femoral osteochondral defects greater than 1 cm2 and at least ICRS grade 2. The main outcome was to observe the KOOS and the Tegner activity score were used to assess outcomes preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the VAS for pain, the complications rate post-surgery and survival rate of BioPoly™ at the last FU. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with 44.4% (8/18) of women were included with a mean age of 46.6 years (11.4), a mean body mass index (BMI) of 21.5 (kg/m2) (2.3). The mean follow-up was 6.3 years (1.3). We found a significant difference comparing pre-operative KOOS score and at last follow-up [respectively, 66.56(14.37) vs 84.17(7.656), p < 0.01]. At last follow-up, the Tegner score was different [respectively, 3.05(1.3) vs 3.6(1.3), p < 0.01]. At 5 years, the survival rate was of 94.7%. CONCLUSIONS: BioPoly™ is a real alternative for femoral osteochondral defects greater than 1 cm2 and at least ICRS grade 2. It will be interesting to compare this implant to mosaicplasty technic and/or microfracture at 5 years postoperatively regarding clinical outcomes and survival rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III. Prospective cohort study.

Outcomes of Isolated Biceps Tenodesis/Tenotomy or Partial Rotator Cuff Repair Associated with Biceps Tenodesis/Tenotomy for Massive Irreparable Tears: A Systematic Review.

Irreparable large to massive rotator cuff tears (MIRCTs) are a prevalent cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction, and nonoperative treatment may not always be effective. Various surgical options exist, with isolated biceps tenotomy/tenodesis (BT) or arthroscopic partial repair with associated biceps tenotomy/tenodesis (PCR-BT) being the most common. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available data on the clinical and functional outcomes of BT and PCR-BT in patients with MIRCTs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies on the treatment of MIRCT. We included studies with BT or PCR-BT with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The MINORS (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) score was used to assess study quality. Outcomes included were the visual analog scale for pain, functional scores such as Constant-Murley and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, range of motion, radiological measurements, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 1101 patients (506 had a BT and 595 had a PCR-BT) from 22 studies were included (cases series = 13, case-control = 7, randomized control trial = 1, prospective cohort study = 1). The mean MINORS score was 13.2 ± 3.2. The mean age and follow-up were 67 ± 6.8 years and 4.58 ± 1.1 years (range, 2, 12), respectively. The VAS improvement showed at the last follow-up for PCR-BT (range, 1.97, 5.8) and BT (range, 4, 6.1). CMS was improved at the final follow-up for PCR-BT (range, 13, 47.6) and BT (range, 10.8, 28). Regarding the ASES, it has demonstrated significant improvements for PCR-BT (range, 31.81, 44.8) and BT (range, 30,45.8). For forward flexion, PCR-BT showed improvement (range, -14°, 59.4°), as well as the BT group (range, 2°, 27.9°). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated that both BT and PCR-BT improve functional outcomes and reduce pain at midterm follow-up for MIRCT. Since we know that a failed cuff repair would worsen the shoulder, it might be beneficial in terms of the risk-benefit ratio to not repair in certain patients with MIRCT.

Artificial intelligence vs. radiologist: accuracy of wrist fracture detection on radiographs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performances of artificial intelligence (AI) to those of radiologists in wrist fracture detection on radiographs. METHODS: This retrospective study included 637 patients (1917 radiographs) with wrist trauma between January 2017 and December 2019. The AI software used was a deep neuronal network algorithm. Ground truth was established by three senior musculoskeletal radiologists who compared the initial radiology reports (IRR) made by non-specialized radiologists, the results of AI, and the combination of AI and IRR (IR+AI) RESULTS: A total of 318 fractures were reported by the senior radiologists in 247 patients. Sensitivity of AI (83%; 95% CI: 78-87%) was significantly greater than that of IRR (76%; 95% CI: 70-81%) (p < 0.001). Specificities were similar for AI (96%; 95% CI: 93-97%) and for IRR (96%; 95% CI: 94-98%) (p = 0.80). The combination of AI+IRR had a significantly greater sensitivity (88%; 95% CI: 84-92%) compared to AI and IRR (p < 0.001) and a lower specificity (92%; 95% CI: 89-95%) (p < 0.001). The sensitivity for scaphoid fracture detection was acceptable for AI (84%) and IRR (80%) but poor for the detection of other carpal bones fracture (41% for AI and 26% for IRR). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of AI in wrist fracture detection on radiographs is better than that of non-specialized radiologists. The combination of AI and radiologist's analysis yields best performances. KEY POINTS: • Artificial intelligence has better performances for wrist fracture detection compared to non-expert radiologists in daily practice. • Performance of artificial intelligence greatly differs depending on the anatomical area. • Sensitivity of artificial intelligence for the detection of carpal bones fractures is 56%.

Does using the direct anterior approach with a standard table for total hip arthroplasty reduce leg length discrepancies? Comparative study of traction table versus standard table.

INTRODUCTION: Primary total hip replacement (THR) comes with a risk of leg length discrepancy (LLD), which occurs in 25 % of cases, especially when the surgery is done using an anterior approach on a traction table, since it is not easy to verify the lengths of the legs. By doing the anterior approach on a standard table an intraoperative visual evaluation of leg lengths can be done after the trial implants are in place. As far as we know, the ability to set the leg length has not been compared between procedures done on a standard table or a traction table. This led us to carry out a retrospective comparative study to determine whether using a standard table for anterior THR will 1) allow better control over leg length, 2) increase the risk of incorrect implant positioning, 3) increase the surgical complication rate. HYPOTHESIS: Anterior THR on a standard table will allow better control over leg length than anterior THR on a traction table. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single center retrospective study included 266 THRs done between January 1, 2018 and November 2, 2019 for primary (n=219) or secondary (n=47) hip osteoarthritis. The 137 cases done with a traction table were compared to the 129 cases with a standard table. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, body mass index, indication and bilateral implants. They were not comparable in the surgeon experience (more junior surgeons in the standard table group [p<0.001]) and types of implants used (more cementless cups and stems in the standard table group [p=0.001]). Radiographs were used to measure the LLD, cup inclination, and femoral stem placement in the frontal plane. Any early complications were documented. The target was for the operated leg to be the same length as the contralateral leg, which was defined as within 10mm of each other. RESULTS: The mean postoperative LLD was comparable between the traction table group 1.56±7.32 mm (min -15.6 max 17.2) and the standard table group 0.53±6.93 mm (min -16.4 max 13.7) (p=0.24). In the traction table group, 81 % (111/137) of patients had legs of the same length, versus 84 % (109/129) in the standard table group (p=0.7). Cup inclination was comparable with a mean of 40.4±7.1 degrees (min 23.4; max 58.5) in the traction table group versus 39.3±7.5 degrees (min 19.9; max 60.9) in the standard table group (p=0.21). The frontal position of the femoral stem was comparable between groups with a mean of 0.09±0.45 degrees (min -1; max 3.98) in the traction table group versus 0.08±0.59 degrees (min -4.97; max 1.93) in the standard table group (p=0.86). There were 5 complications (3.7 %) in the traction table group versus 11 (8.5 %) in the standard table group (p=0.16). CONCLUSION: Use of a standard table to carry out THR by the direct anterior approach does not provide better control over leg length than using a traction table, subject to preoperative planning. When doing the procedure on a standard table, the implant placement is at least comparable, with a similar risk of complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; case matched study.

The ankle ligament reconstruction-return to sport after injury (ALR-RSI) is a valid and reproducible scale to quantify psychological readiness before returning to sport after ankle ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Chronic ankle instability is the main complication of ankle sprains and requires surgery if non-operative treatment fails. The goal of this study was to validate a tool to quantify psychological readiness to return to sport after ankle ligament reconstruction. METHODS: The form was designed like the anterior cruciate ligament-return to sport after injury scale and "Knee" was replaced by the term "ankle". The ankle ligament reconstruction-return to sport after injury (ALR-RSI) scale was filled by patients who underwent ankle ligament reconstruction and were active in sports. The scale was then validated according to the international COSMIN methodology. The AOFAS and Karlsson scores were used as reference questionnaires. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (59 ankles) were included, 27 women. The ALR-RSI scale was strongly correlated with the Karlsson score (r = 0.79 [0.66-0.87]) and the AOFAS score (r = 0.8 [0.66-0.87]). A highly significant difference was found in the ALR-RSI between the subgroup of 50 patients who returned to playing sport and the seven who did not: 68.8 (56.5-86.5) vs 45.0 (31.3-55.8), respectively, p = 0.02. The internal consistency of the scale was high (α = 0.96). Reproducibility of the test-retest was excellent (ρ = 0.92; 95% CI [0.86-0.96]). CONCLUSION: The ALR-RSI is a valid, reproducible scale that identifies patients who are ready to return to the same sport after ankle ligament reconstruction. This scale may help to identify athletes who will find sport resumption difficult. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Anterior approach without traction table: A means of saving time and money in hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? A case-matched study with and without traction table.

BACKGROUND: The costs incurred by management of displaced femoral neck fracture are a public health issue. The anterior approach can be used for partial hip replacement, but costs in terms of equipment and time incurred by using a traction table have not to our knowledge been estimated in this indication. We therefore performed a case-control study, comparing (1) installation and deinstallation times (IT, DT) in partial hip replacement using a standard versus a traction table (ST, TT), and (2) operating times, limb-length radiography and intraoperative complications. HYPOTHESIS: Performing the anterior approach on a standard table saves installation and deinstallation time and operating time, without leading to more intraoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative retrospective study included 102 patients (mean age, 84.8±8 years; 46 ST, 56 TT). Installation time (IT) was calculated between entry in the operating room and performance of the incision; operating time (OT) between incision and closure; and deinstallation time (DT) between closure and leaving the operating room. RESULTS: Mean IT in ST (25.5±6.2min) was significantly shorter than in TT (33.9±6.2min) (p=1.1*10-9), as were DT (13±4.7 versus 17±3.4min) (p=4.1*10-6) and OT (73.5±15.9 versus 82.6±21.3minutes) (p=0.01). There were 4 intraoperative complications: 1 greater trochanter fracture in ST and 2 greater trochanter fractures and 1 proximal femoral fracture in TT. Limb-length discrepancy was comparable between ST (3.7±3.2mm (range, 0-15mm)) and TT (5.3±4.6mm (range, 0-20mm)) (p=0.06). DISCUSSION: Patient installation on a standard table reduced installation, deinstallation and operating time compared to use of a traction table, without increasing the complications rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case-control study.