The use of uncemented stems in femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: A comparative study of 671 cases.

INTRODUCTION: The use of cemented stems in elderly patients is associated with the risk of intraoperative embolic complications. Uncemented stems eliminate this risk, but their use is controversial because of the risk of mechanical complications, with estimated subsidence between 3.6 and 30% and periprosthetic fractures between 2.1 and 11% at 6 weeks. A retrospective multicenter comparative study was conducted using a propensity score analysis to evaluate mechanical performances of uncemented stems in femoral neck fractures in elderly patients to (1) compare the risk of mechanical complications and (2) assess the use of metaphyseal-anchored stems for this indication. HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in the risk of mechanical complications, intraoperatively or postoperatively, between these stems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective comparative study including 358 uncemented and 313 cemented stems. The mean age was 84.5 years [83.9-85.1]. The inclusion criteria were patients 70 years and older and a follow-up of at least 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint comprised of stem subsidence≥2mm or periprosthetic fracture (up to 3 months postoperatively). The secondary endpoints were infection, stem subsidence≥2mm, and operative time. These endpoints were analyzed using a propensity score to control confounding factors. A secondary analysis used the same endpoints to compare metaphyseal-anchored (short stems) versus Corail-like stems. RESULTS: After adjusting for the propensity score, we found 11.17% mechanical complications in the uncemented group (n=40, 5.59% subsidence, and 5.59% fractures) versus 13.42% for the cemented group (n=42, 7.99% subsidence, and 5.43% fractures). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 values (Odds Ratio [OR]=0.64 [95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.14-2.85] [p=0.7]). The mortality rate due to cement embolism was 1%. There was no difference in the rate of subsidence (OR=0.55 [95% CI: 0.02-12.5] [p=0.7]), periprosthetic fracture (OR=0.65 [95% CI: 0.13-3.12] [p=0.7]) or infection (OR=0.71 [95% CI: 0.32-1.55] [p=0.4]). However, the operative times were longer in the cemented group (p=0.03 for hemiarthroplasties [mean additional time 16minutes] and p=0.02 for total hip arthroplasties [mean additional time 22minutes]). No difference was observed between the metaphyseal-anchored (short stems) and Corail-like stems regarding operative time, rate of infection, and rate of stem subsidence or periprosthetic fractures. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first studies to highlight cemented stem subsidence when used for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. Using uncemented stems in this indication is still warranted, especially since they do not bring about more mechanical complications in the first few months. Metaphyseal-anchored short stems seem to give the same results as "standard" stems. However, these findings need to be assessed in the longer term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; retrospective comparative study.

Mixed Reality Assisted Percutaneous Scaphoid Fixation: A Proposed New Surgical Technique.

The success of percutaneous fixation of non or minimally displaced scaphoid waist fractures is reliant on optimal placement of the screw. This can be challenging for surgeons to achieve, potentially involving a large volume of intraoperative imaging, and surgical time. Mixed reality (MR) is a new technology that allows the projection of holographic imagery within the surgeon's field of vision intraoperatively. This imagery can include surgical planning data and 3D reconstructions of a patient's anatomy that can be used in order to aid the surgeon in achieving accuracy. We describe a technique for how this novel technology might be used in the future to fix scaphoid fractures-MR assisted percutaneous scaphoid fixation. This is done using cadaveric modeling. MR assisted percutaneous scaphoid fixation may have the potential to aid surgeons in achieving an optimal guidewire placement with the ability to reduce surgical time and radiation exposure.

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.