The stability of total talar prosthesis-How stable to dislocation? Cadaveric study.

The aim of this study was to characterize ankle stability of total talar prosthesis (TTP) and to determine the effect of implant sizes on stability as well as the resistance to TTP dislocation. Twelve below-knee cadaveric specimens were divided into two groups. Group 1 received a size matched implant and Group 2 received downsized implant by 5%. The stability assessment under fluoroscopy was performed for each cadaver in its native state. Following TTP insertion process, each then underwent evaluation of the TTP ankle stability. The stability of pre- and post-TTP was compared. (1) Anterior drawer distance. (2) Talar tilt angle under varus and valgus stress. (3) Subtalar tilt angle under varus stress was measured. Finally, the dislocation test was performed using the aforementioned testing conditions, then the stress force was slowly increased from 0 to 350 N, during which time it was observed on fluoroscopy all the time. Compared to pre TTP ankles, varus and anterior drawer stress showed significant instability (p < 0.001-0.031). Only anterior drawer stress in smaller sized implants showed significant instability when compared to identical sized implants (p = 0.008). No dislocation was seen under varus, valgus, and subtalar stress. However, anterior dislocation was observed in all cases of smaller size implant group (p = 0.045). TTP implant was stable under valgus and subtalar stress. However, clinicians should pay attention to anterior instability. Notably, downsized implants should be considered carefully to minimize the chance of anterior dislocation.

Do Coronal or Sagittal Plane Measurements Have the Highest Accuracy to Arthroscopically Diagnose Syndesmotic Instability?

BACKGROUND: To compare the accuracy of arthroscopic sagittal versus coronal plane distal tibiofibular motion toward diagnosing syndesmotic instability. METHODS: Arthroscopic assessment of the syndesmosis was performed on 21 above-knee cadaveric specimens, first with all ligaments intact and subsequently with sequential transection of the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament, the interosseous ligament, the posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament, and the deltoid ligament. A lateral hook test, an anterior-to-posterior (AP) translation test, and a posterior-to-anterior (PA) translation test were performed under 100 N of applied force. Anterior and posterior third coronal plane diastasis and AP and PA sagittal plane fibular translations were measured relative to the static tibia. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed that the area under the curve (AUC) was higher for the combined AP and PA sagittal measurements (AUC, 0.91; accuracy, 83.5%; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 89%) than the coronal plane measurements (anterior third: AUC, 0.65; accuracy, 60.5%; sensitivity, 63%; specificity, 59%; posterior third: AUC, 0.73; accuracy, 68.5%; sensitivity, 80%; specificity, 57%) (P < .001), underscoring the higher accuracy of sagittal plane measurements. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic measurement of sagittal plane fibular translation is more accurate than coronal plane diastasis for evaluating syndesmotic instability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should focus on distal tibiofibular motion in the sagittal plane when arthroscopically evaluating suspected syndesmotic instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Biomechanical cadaveric study.

Using area and volume measurement via weightbearing CT to detect Lisfranc instability.

Weightbearing CT (WBCT) allows evaluation of the Lisfranc joint under physiologic load. We compared the diagnostic sensitivities of one-dimensional (1D) distance, two-dimensional (2D) area, and three-dimensional (3D) volumetric measurement of the injured Lisfranc joint complex (tarsometatarsal, intertarsal, and intermetatarsal) on WBCT among patients with surgically-confirmed Lisfranc instability. The experimental group comprised of 14 patients having unilateral Lisfranc instability requiring operative fixation who underwent preoperative bilateral foot and ankle WBCT. The control group included 36 patients without foot injury who underwent similar imaging. Measurements performed on WBCT images included: (1) Lisfranc joint (medial cuneiform-base of second metatarsal) area, (2) C1-C2 intercuneiform area, (3) C1-M2 distance, (4) C1-C2 distance, (5) M1-M2 distance, (6) first tarsometatarsal (TMT1) angular alignment, (7) second tarsometatarsal (TMT2) angular alignment, (8) TMT1 dorsal step off distance, and (9) TMT2 dorsal step-off distance. In addition, the volume of the Lisfranc joint in the coronal and axial plane were calculated. Among patients with unilateral Lisfranc instability, all WBCT measurements were increased on the injured side as compared to the contralateral uninjured side (p values: <.001-.008). Volumetric measurements in the coronal and axial plane had a higher sensitivity (92.3%; 91.6%, respectively) and specificity (97.7%; 96.5%, respectively) than 2D and 1D Lisfranc joint measurements, suggesting them to be the most accurate in diagnosing Lisfranc instability. The control group showed no difference in any of the measurements between the two sides. WBCT scan can effectively differentiate between stable and unstable Lisfranc injuries. Lisfranc joint volume measurements demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity, suggesting that this new assessment has high clinical implications for diagnosing subtle Lisfranc instability.