Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Arthroplasty ; 2024 Mar 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38548237

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) ranges from 15 to 30%. While patient selection may be partially responsible, morphological and reconstructive challenges may be determinants. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans for TKA planning allow us to evaluate the hip-knee-ankle axis and establish a baseline phenotypic distribution across anatomic parameters. The purpose of this cross-sectional analysis was to establish the distributions of 27 parameters in a pre-TKA cohort and perform threshold analysis to identify anatomic outliers. METHODS: There were 1,352 pre-TKA CTs that were processed. A 2-step deep learning pipeline of classification and segmentation models identified landmark images and then generated contour representations. We used an open-source computer vision library to compute measurements for 27 anatomic metrics along the hip-knee axis. Normative distribution plots were established, and thresholds for the 15th percentile at both extremes were calculated. Metrics falling outside the central 70th percentile were considered outlier indices. A threshold analysis of outlier indices against the proportion of the cohort was performed. RESULTS: Significant variation exists in pre-TKA anatomy across 27 normally distributed metrics. Threshold analysis revealed a sigmoid function with a critical point at 9 outlier indices, representing 31.2% of subjects as anatomic outliers. Metrics with the greatest variation related to deformity (tibiofemoral angle, medial proximal tibial angle, lateral distal femoral angle), bony size (tibial width, anteroposterior femoral size, femoral head size, medial femoral condyle size), intraoperative landmarks (posterior tibial slope, transepicondylar and posterior condylar axes), and neglected rotational considerations (acetabular and femoral version, femoral torsion). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest non-industry database of pre-TKA CTs using a fully automated 3-stage deep learning and computer vision-based pipeline, marked anatomic variation exists. In the pursuit of understanding the dissatisfaction rate after TKA, acknowledging that 31% of patients represent anatomic outliers may help us better achieve anatomically personalized TKA, with or without adjunctive technology.

2.
Am J Sports Med ; 52(5): 1137-1143, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38459690

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of modern hip arthroscopy on the natural history of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) with respect to joint preservation. PURPOSE: To (1) characterize the natural history of FAIS and (2) understand the effect of modern hip arthroscopy by radiographically comparing the hips of patients who underwent only unilateral primary hip arthroscopy with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2012, 619 consecutive patients were reviewed from the practice of a single fellowship-trained hip arthroscopic surgeon. Inclusion criteria were FAIS, bilateral radiographic findings of femoroacetabular impingement, primary unilateral hip arthroscopy (labral repair, femoroplasty, or capsular closure), and minimum 10-year follow-up. The preoperative and minimum 10-year postoperative radiographs of patients were evaluated at each time point. Both operative and nonoperative hips were graded using the Tönnis classification or the presence of hip arthroplasty by 2 independent reviewers. Subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 200 hips from 100 patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 12.0 years. Preoperatively, 98% and 99% of operative and nonoperative hips were evaluated as Tönnis grades 0 and 1, respectively; 5% of nonoperative hips had worse Tönnis grades than operative hips. The nonoperative hip advanced to a worse Tönnis grade in 48% (48/100) of cases compared with 28% (28/100) among operative hips. At follow-up, Tönnis grades between hips were equal in 70% (70/100) of the cases, the operative hip had a better grade 25% (25/100) of the time, and the nonoperative hip had a better grade 5% (5/100) of the time. Modern hip arthroscopy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 42% in osteoarthritis progression. Impingement with borderline dysplasia, age, preoperative Tönnis grade, and alpha angle >65° were key risk factors in the radiographic progression of osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of patients (70%) undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS did not experience differences between operative and nonoperative hips in terms of the radiographic progression of osteoarthritis, the natural history may be favorably altered for 25% of patients whose Tönnis grade was better after undergoing arthroscopic correction. Modern hip arthroscopy indications and techniques represent a valid joint-preservation procedure conferring a relative risk reduction of 42% in the progression of osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy for mixed patterns of impingement and instability were the fastest to degenerate.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Femoracetabular Impingement , Osteoarthritis , Humans , Femoracetabular Impingement/diagnostic imaging , Femoracetabular Impingement/surgery , Femoracetabular Impingement/complications , Hip Joint/diagnostic imaging , Hip Joint/surgery , Follow-Up Studies , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Arthroscopy/methods , Cohort Studies , Treatment Outcome , Osteoarthritis/surgery , Retrospective Studies
3.
Arthroscopy ; 2024 Feb 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38331364

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To (1) characterize the various forms of wearable sensor devices (WSDs) and (2) review the peer-reviewed literature of applied wearable technology within sports medicine. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases, from inception through 2023, was conducted to identify eligible studies using WSDs within sports medicine. Data extraction was performed of study demographics and sensor specifications. Included studies were categorized by application: athletic training, rehabilitation, and research. RESULTS: In total, 43 studies met criteria for inclusion in this review. Forms of WSDs include pedometers, accelerometers, encoders (consisting of magnetometers and gyroscopes), force sensors, global positioning system trackers, and inertial measurement units. Outcome metrics include step counts; gait, limb motion, and angular positioning; foot and skin pressure; change of direction and inclination, including analysis of both body parts and athletes on a field; displacement and velocity of body segments and joints; heart rate; plethysmography; sport-specific kinematics; range of motion, symmetry, and alignment; head impact; sleep; throwing biomechanics; and kinetic and spatiotemporal running metrics. WSDs are used in athletic training to assess sport-specific biomechanics and workload with a goal of injury prevention and training optimization, as well as for rehabilitation monitoring and research such as for risk predicting and aiding diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: WSDs enable real-time monitoring of human performance across a variety of implementations and settings, allowing collection of metrics otherwise not achievable. WSDs are powerful tools with multiple applications within athletic training, patient rehabilitation, and orthopaedic and sports medicine research. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Wearable technology may represent the missing link to quantitatively addressing return to play and previous performance. WSDs are commercially available and portable adjuncts that allow clinicians, trainers, and individual athletes to monitor biomechanical parameters, workload, and recovery status to better contextualize personalized training, injury risk, and rehabilitation.

4.
Arthroscopy ; 38(11): 3023-3029, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35469995

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the lower extremity-specific Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility (MO) bank in patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery at a large academic musculoskeletal specialty center between November 2019 and November 2020 completed the following baseline and 6-month measures: PROMIS MO, PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), PROMIS Physical Function (PF), modified Harris Hip Score, International Hip Outcome Tool 33, visual analog scale, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Construct validity was evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficients. The number of questions until completion was recorded as a marker of test burden. The percentage of patients scoring at the extreme high (ceiling) or low (floor) for each measure was recorded to measure inclusivity. Responsiveness was tested by comparing differences between baseline and 6-month measures, controlling for age and sex, using generalized estimating equations. Magnitudes of responsiveness were assessed through the effect size (Cohen d). RESULTS: In this study, 660 patients (50% female patients) aged 32 ± 14 years were evaluated. PROMIS MO showed a strong correlation with PROMIS PF (r = 0.84, P < .001), the International Hip Outcome Tool 33 (r = 0.73, P < .001), PROMIS PI (r = -0.76, P < .001), and the modified Harris Hip Score (r = 0.73, P < .001). Neither PROMIS MO, PROMIS PI, nor PROMIS PF met the conventional criteria for floor or ceiling effects (≥15%). The mean number of questions answered (± standard deviation) was 4.7 ± 2.1 for PROMIS MO, 4.1 ± 0.6 for PROMIS PI, and 4.1 ± 0.6 for PROMIS PF. From baseline to 6 months, the PROMIS and legacy measures exhibited significant responsiveness (P < .05), with similar effect sizes between the patient-reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study reveals that in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, PROMIS MO computerized adaptive testing maintains high correlation with legacy hip-specific instruments, significant responsiveness to change, and low test burden compared with legacy measures, with no ceiling or floor effects at 6-month postoperative follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.


Subject(s)
Arthroscopy , Femoracetabular Impingement , Humans , Female , Male , Femoracetabular Impingement/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Longitudinal Studies , Computerized Adaptive Testing , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Information Systems
5.
Front Surg ; 8: 662720, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34291077

ABSTRACT

Hip arthroscopy is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Despite this efficacy, clinical failures are observed, clinical entities are challenging to treat, and revision hip arthroscopy may be required. The most common cause of symptom recurrence after a hip arthroscopy that leads to a revision arthroscopy is residual cam morphology as a result of inadequate femoral osteochondroplasty and restoration of head-neck offset, though several other revision etiologies including progressive chondral and labral pathologies also exist. In these cases, it is imperative to perform a comprehensive examination to identify the cause of a failed primary arthroscopy as to assess whether or not a revision hip arthroscopy procedure is indicated. When a secondary procedure is indicated, approaches may consist of revision labral repair, complete labral reconstruction, or labral augmentation depending on labral integrity. Gross instability or imaging-based evidence of microinstability may necessitate capsular augmentation or plication. If residual cam or pincer morphology is present, additional resection of the osseous abnormalities may be warranted. This review article discusses indications, the evaluation of patients with residual symptoms after primary hip arthroscopy, and the evaluation of outcomes following revision hip arthroscopy through an evidence-based discussion. We also present a case example of a revision hip arthroscopy procedure to highlight necessary intraoperative techniques during a revision hip arthroscopy.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...