Osseoscopy-assisted core decompression and debridement in the treatment of avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

Core decompression of the femoral head is a standard surgical procedure used in the early stages of the femoral head avascular necrosis (AVN) (Steinberg I to III). This study aimed to determine whether the advantages of osseoscopy-assisted core decompression using a standard arthroscopic set up in the early stages of AVN of the femoral head. Twelve hips of 12 patients who underwent osseoscopy-assisted core decompression and debridement with the diagnosis of AVN of the femoral head were reviewed between 2019 and 2021. The etiology was idiopathic in 2 patients; ten had a history of steroid use. The preoperative and postoperative first month Harris Hip Score (HHS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) were recorded. Standard X-rays, computerized tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were noted at preoperatively and sixth month follow-ups. In a 1-year follow-up, X-rays and MRIs were reviewed. All patients significantly improved in the VAS and HHS after the osseoscopy-assisted core decompression (P = .002). Two of the 12 patients with an initial stage of Steinberg IIC and IIB and one with Steinberg IA had a progressive femoral collapse and, therefore, had a total hip replacement at the end of the follow-up. Nine patients (75%) had satisfactory functional and radiological results in 1-year of follow-up. However, 3 patients (25%) culminated in total hip arthroplasty in a 1-year follow-up. Using an arthroscopic set up during osseoscopy-assisted core decompression surgery of the femoral head AVN has the benefits of direct visualization and accurate debridement of the involved area. The osseoscopy-assisted core decompression technique avoids excessive debridement of the healthy bone tissue adjacent to the necrotic area.

Impact of open bursectomy and biceps tendon release with closed manipulation in frozen shoulder.

This retrospective observational study evaluated the efficacy of 2 different surgical approaches for the treatment of frozen shoulder (adhesive capsulitis). This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and recovery times of the 2 treatment modalities. Fifty patients diagnosed with frozen shoulder and treated at Seyhan State Hospital were included in the study. The patients were retrospectively divided into 2 groups based on the treatment received. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients who underwent standard closed manipulation under anesthesia, a technique involving passive movements of the shoulder joint to tear the tight capsule and expand the range of motion (ROM). Group 2, which included 25 patients, underwent closed manipulation in addition to open bursectomy and biceps tendon capsule release. Open bursectomy involves surgical removal of the bursa to alleviate inflammation, while biceps tendon capsule release addresses chronic biceps tendonitis by partially removing the capsule of the tendon. Data on demographic information, operative details, preoperative and postoperative conditions, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and analyzed. Data analysis revealed that the combination of closed manipulation with open bursectomy and biceps tendon capsule release was more effective in reducing pain, increasing ROM, and improving quality of life than closed manipulation alone. The discussion would typically elaborate on how the results compare with existing literature, the clinical implications, and any potential limitations of the study. The results showed that the method that combined closed manipulation with open bursectomy and biceps tendon capsule release was better than closed manipulation alone in terms of reducing pain, increasing ROM, and improving quality of life.

Does mini-midvastus approach have an advantageous effect on rapid recovery protocols over medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty?

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the effects of mini-midvastus (MMV) versus medial parapatellar (MPP) approach on rapid recovery protocols during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was performed in 54 patients (4 males, 50 females; mean age 64.1±6.4 years) diagnosed as primary knee osteoarthritis and planned for unilateral TKA between May 2018 and March 2019. Patients were randomly assigned as MMV (1 male, 26 females; mean age 65±6.4 years) and MPP (3 males, 24 females; mean age 63.2±6.3 years) groups. Rapid recovery TKA protocol and discharge criteria were assembled and all patients were evaluated preoperatively, and at postoperative first and third months. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was recorded for all patients. Hemoglobin and hematocrit values, radiologic assessment of alignment, knee range of motion (ROM), quadriceps muscle strength, visual analog scale (VAS), 30-sec chair-stand test, stair-climb test, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) were used for evaluations by blinded observers. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in demographic variables between two groups. Operative time in MMV Group (78.1±2.7 min) was significantly longer than the MPP Group (65.9±2.6 min) (p<0.0005). LOSs in the MMV and MPP Groups were 27.6±3.1 hours and 29.1±6.7 hours with no significant difference. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative measurements between groups in hemoglobin and hematocrit values, radiologic alignment of components, knee ROM, VAS, 30-sec chair-stand test, stair-climb test, WOMAC, KOOS, and SF-36 evaluations (p>0.05). In terms of quadriceps muscle strength gain, we could not find any difference between groups in pre- and postoperative difference of changes (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: With the use of contemporary rapid recovery protocols during TKA, MMV approach had no superiority over MPP approach when quadriceps muscle strength, LOS, pain, function, and quality of life were assessed. Longer operative time in the MMV approach compared to MPP approach may be considered as a disadvantage.