Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes for the anterior and medial approaches to open reduction in the treatment of bilateral developmental dysplasia of the hip: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) affects 1-3% of newborns and 20% of cases are bilateral. The optimal surgical management strategy for patients with bilateral DDH who fail bracing, closed reduction or present too late for these methods to be used is unclear. There are proponents of both medial approach open reduction (MAOR) and anterior approach open reduction (AOR); however, there is little evidence to inform this debate. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol. We will search the medical and scientific databases including the grey and difficult to locate literature. The Medical Subject Headings "developmental dysplasia of the hip", "congenital dysplasia of the hip", "congenital hip dislocation", "developmental hip dislocation", and their abbreviations, "DDH" and "CDH" will be used, along with the qualifier "bilateral". Reviewers will independently screen records for inclusion and then independently extract data on study design, population characteristics, details of operative intervention and outcomes from the selected records. Data will be synthesised and a meta-analysis performed if possible. If not possible we will analyse data according to Systematic Review without Meta-Analysis guidance. All studies will be assessed for risk of bias. For each outcome measure a summary of findings will be presented in a table with the overall quality of the recommendation assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach. DISCUSSION: The decision to perform MAOR or AOR in patients with bilateral DDH who have failed conservative management is not well informed by the current literature. High-quality, comparative studies are exceptionally challenging to perform for this patient population and likely to be extremely uncommon. A systematic review provides the best opportunity to deliver the highest possible quality of evidence for bilateral DDH surgical management. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42022362325).

Closed reduction techniques for acute anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anterior shoulder dislocations are the most common type of joint dislocation with the majority treated with closed reduction. Reduction methods can be grouped into their principle mode of action: traction-countertraction, leverage and scapular manipulation. The best method has yet to be identified and our aim was to find the most effective, safe and least painful method of closed reduction for acute anterior shoulder dislocations. METHODS: A search of the online databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing closed reduction methods for anterior shoulder dislocations. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Twelve eligible RCTs were included with a total of 1055 patients. Our meta-analysis showed traction-countertraction methods are marginally less painful than leverage methods by 0.86 points on the VAS scale but leverage methods are quicker by 20 s. Amongst traction-countertraction methods, the Spaso technique was the least painful and quickest, albeit with no difference in overall success rate. A meta-analysis was not possible for comparisons involving scapular manipulation due to the paucity of studies, but within two studies, scapular manipulation was significantly less painful than both leverage and traction-countertraction methods by 1.5 and 2.3 points (VAS), respectively. CONCLUSION: Traction-countertraction methods are less painful but slower than leverage methods with no difference in complication rates. However, there was no difference in overall reduction success rate between any of the groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Cement augmentation of odontoid peg fractures: the effect of cement volume and distribution on construct stiffness.

PURPOSE: The cement augmentation of a conventional anterior screw fixation in type II odontoid process fractures for elderly patients significantly increased stiffness and load to failure under anterior-posterior load in comparison with non-augmented fixation. The amount and quality of bone cement are usually taken ad hoc in clinical practise. In this study, we wanted to clarify the role of bone cement amount and its quality to the stiffness of odontoid and vertebrae body junction. METHODS: Finite-element method was used to achieve different scenarios of cement augmentation. For all models, an initial stiffness was calculated. Model (1) the intact vertebrae were virtually potted into a polymethylmethacrylate base via the posterior vertebral arches. A V-shaped punch was used for loading the odontoid in an anterior-posterior direction. (2) The odontoid fracture type IIa (Anderson-D'Alonzo classification) was achieved by virtual transverse osteotomy. Anterior screw fixation was virtually performed by putting self-drilling titanium alloy 3.5 mm diameter anterior cannulated lag screw with a 12 mm thread into the inspected vertebrae. A V-shaped punch was used for loading the odontoid in an anterior-posterior direction. The vertebrae body was assumed to be non-cemented and cemented with different volume. RESULTS: The mean cement volume was lowest for body base filling with 0.47 ± 0.03 ml. The standard body filling corresponds to 0.95 ± 0.15 ml. The largest volume corresponds to 1.62 ± 0.12 ml in the presence of cement leakage. The initial stiffness of the intact C2 vertebrae was taken as the reference value. The mean initial stiffness for non-porous cement (E = 3000 MPa) increased linearly (R2 = 0.98). The lowest stiffness (123.3 ± 5.8 N/mm) was measured in the intact C2 vertebrae. However, the highest stiffness (165.2 ± 5.2 N/mm) was measured when cement leakage out of the odontoid peg occurred. The mean initial stiffness of the base-only cemented group was 147.2 ± 8.4 N/mm compared with 157.9 ± 6.6 N/mm for the base and body cemented group. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.0061). The mean initial stiffness for porous cement (E = 500 MPa) remains constant. Therefore, there is no difference between cemented and non-cemented junction. This difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.18). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that the low porous cement was able to significantly influence the stiffness of the augmented odontoid screw fixation in vitro, although further in vivo clinical studies should be undertaken. Our results suggest that only a small amount of non-porous cement is needed to restore stiffness at least to its pre-fracture level and this can be achieved with the injection of 0.7-1.2 ml of cement. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Biomechanical comparison of cemented versus non-cemented anterior screw fixation in type II odontoid fractures in the elderly: a cadaveric study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Odontoid process fractures are the most common injuries of the cervical spine in the elderly. Anterior screw stabilization of type II odontoid process fractures improves survival and function in these patients but may be complicated by failure of fixation. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to determine whether cement augmentation of a standard anterior screw provides biomechanically superior fixation of type II odontoid fractures in comparison with a non-cemented standard screw. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty human cadaveric C2 vertebrae from elderly donors (mean age 83 years) were obtained. METHODS: Anderson and D'Alonzo type IIa odontoid fracture was created by transverse osteotomy, and fluoroscopy-guided anterior screw fixation was performed. The specimens were divided into two matched groups. The cemented group (n=10) had radiopaque high viscosity polymethylmethacrylate cement injected via Jamshidi needle into the base of the odontoid process. The other group was not augmented. A V-shaped punch was used for loading the odontoid in an anteroposterior direction until failure. The failure state was defined as screw cutout or 5% force decrease. Mean failure load and bending stiffness were calculated. RESULTS: The mean failure load for the cemented group was 352±12 N compared with 168±23 N for the non-cemented group (p<.001). The mean initial stiffness of the non-cemented group was 153±19 N/mm compared with 195±29 N/mm for the cemented group (p<.001) CONCLUSIONS: Cement augmentation of an anterior standard screw fixation of type II odontoid process fractures in elderly patients significantly increased load to failure under anteroposterior load in comparison with non-augmented fixation. This may be a valuable technique to reduce failure of fixation.

Patellofemoral Joint Replacement and Nickel Allergy: An Unusual Presentation.

Metal allergy is an unusual complication of joint replacement that may cause aseptic loosening and necessitate joint revision surgery. We present the case of nickel allergy causing aseptic loosening following patellofemoral joint replacement (PFJR) in a 54-year-old male. Joint revision surgery to a nickel-free total knee replacement was performed with good results. Our literature review shows that there is no evidence to guide the management of metal allergy in PFJR. The evidence from studies of total knee replacement is limited to retrospective case series and case reports and gives contradictory recommendations. The optimal management strategy for metal allergy in PFJR is not clear. We recommend allergy testing in patients with history of metal allergy and use of an allergen-free implant in those with positive tests. As there is no gold standard test to establish metal allergy, the choice of test should be guided by availability and recommendation from the local unit of dermatology and allergy testing. We recommend investigation for metal allergy in patients with implant loosening where other causes have been excluded.

Chemical deterrent enables a socially parasitic ant to invade multiple hosts.

Social parasites are involved in a coevolutionary arms race, which drives increasing specialization resulting in a very narrow host range. The Formicoxenus ants are a small group of social parasites with a xenobiotic lifestyle. Formicoxenus quebecensis and Formicoxenus provancheri are highly specialized ants using chemical mimicry to blend into their respective Myrmica ant host colonies. However, Formicoxenus nitidulus is unique in being able to survive in over 11 different ant host species. We observed that when live or dead F. nitidulus adults are seized by their host they are immediately dropped undamaged, despite possessing a cuticular hydrocarbon profile that differs markedly from its host. Hexane extracts of the F. nitidulus cuticle made previously acceptable prey items unattractive to their Formica host, indicating a chemical deterrent effect. This is the first time that a social parasite has been shown to exploit the generalized deterrence strategy to avoid host aggression over long periods of time. This supports the idea that coevolved and generalist diseases or parasites require fundamentally different defence mechanisms. We suggest that F. nitidulus uses its cuticular chemistry, possible alkadienes, as a novel deterrent mechanism to allow it to switch hosts easily and so become a widespread and abundant social parasite.