Computer-assisted navigation for intramedullary nail fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures: A randomized, controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Lag screw cutout is one of the most commonly reported complications following intramedullary nail fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures. However, its occurrence can be minimized by a well-positioned implant, with a short Tip-to-Apex Distance (TAD). Computer-assisted navigation systems provide surgeons with the ability to track screw placement in real-time. This could allow for improved lag screw placement and potentially reduce radiation exposure to the patient and surgeon. METHODS: Between Oct 2014 and Jan 2016, patients with intertrochanteric femur fractures being treated with intramedullary nail fixation by one of three fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologists were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were low-energy mechanism of injury and fracture class 31-A1/A2. Open fractures and patients with multiple injuries to the lower extremity were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to computer-assisted navigation or a conventional fluoroscopic technique for lag screw placement. The primary outcomes were TAD, measured by postoperative anteroposterior and lateral x-rays by an independent reviewer, and radiation exposure measured in seconds of fluoroscopy time. Surgical time was also recorded. RESULTS: 50 patients were randomized, 26 to the computer-assisted navigation group and 24 to the control group. The mean manually-measured TAD in the computer-assisted navigation group was 14.1mm±3.2 and in the control group was 14.9mm±3.0 (p=0.394). There was no difference between groups in total radiation time (navigation: 58.8 s±23.6, control: 56.5 s±28.5, p=0.337) or radiation time during lag screw placement (navigation: 19.4 s±8.8, control: 18.8 s±8.0, p=0.522). The surgical time was significantly longer in the computer-assisted navigation group with a mean surgical time of 45.8min±9.8 compared to 38.4min±9.3 in the control group (p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted navigation consistently produced excellent TADs, however it was not significantly better than conventional methods when done by fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologists. Surgeons with a lower volume trauma practice could potentially benefit from computer-assisted navigation to obtain better TAD.

Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft tissue.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes of autograft and allograft anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are mixed, with some reports of excellent to good outcomes and other reports of early graft failure or significant donor site morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in functional outcomes, failure rates, and stability between autograft and allograft ACL reconstructions. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Evidence Based Medicine Reviews Collection), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus were searched for articles on ACL reconstruction. Abstracts from annual meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, and Arthroscopy Association of North America were searched for relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES WERE AS FOLLOWS: primary unilateral ACL injuries, mean patient age less than 41 years, and follow-up for at least 24 months postreconstruction. Exclusion criteria for studies included the following: skeletally immature patients, multiligament injuries, and publication dates before 1990. DATA EXTRACTION: Joint stability measures included Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-1000 arthrometer assessment, and frequency of graft failures. Functional outcome measures included Tegner activity scores, Cincinnati knee scores, Lysholm scores, and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) total scores. RESULTS: More than 5000 studies were identified. After full text review of 576 studies, 56 were included, of which only 1 directly compared autograft and allograft reconstruction. Allograft ACL reconstructions were more lax when assessed by the KT-1000 arthrometer. For all other outcome measures, there was no statistically significant difference between autograft and allograft ACL reconstruction. For all outcome measures, there was strong evidence of statistical heterogeneity between studies. The sample size necessary for a randomized clinical trial to detect a difference between autograft and allograft reconstruction varied, depending on the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: With the current literature, only KT-1000 arthrometer assessment demonstrated more laxity with allograft reconstruction. A randomized clinical trial directly comparing allograft to autograft ACL reconstruction is warranted, but a multicenter study would be required to obtain an adequate sample size.