Hip Labral and Capsular Repair Are Unable to Restore Distractive Stability in a Biomechanical Model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the change in hip distractive stability after a capsulotomy, labral tear, and simultaneous repair of both the capsule and the labrum in a biomechanical model. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen human cadaveric hips were analyzed using a materials testing system to measure the distractive force and distance required to disrupt the hip suction seal under the following conditions: (1) native intact capsule and labrum, (2) 2- or 4-cm interportal capsulotomy (IPC), (3) labral tear, (4) T extension, (5) labral repair, (6) T extension repair, and (7) IPC repair. Each specimen was retested at 0° of flexion, 45° of flexion, and 45° of flexion with 15° of internal rotation. RESULTS: A significantly higher distractive force was required to rupture the suction seal in the intact condition compared with IPC (P = .012; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9-42.4); IPC and labral tear (P = .002; 95% CI, 11.3-49.4); IPC, labral tear, and T extension (P = .001; 95% CI, 13.9-51.5); IPC, labral repair, and T extension (P < .001; 95% CI, 20.8-49.7); IPC, labral repair, and T extension repair (P = .002; 95% CI, 12.5-52.4); and IPC repair, labral repair, and T extension repair (P = .01; 95% CI, 5.8-46.1). The IPC condition required a higher distractive force in isolation than when combined with a labral tear (P = .14; 95% CI, 1.2-12.0), T extension (P = .005; 95% CI, 2.8-15.3), or labral repair (P = .002; 95% CI, 4.4-18.8). CONCLUSIONS: The distractive resistance of an intact hip capsule and labrum was not restored once the soft tissues were violated, despite labral repair with a loop technique and capsular repair with interrupted figure-of-8 sutures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Time-zero complete capsular repair with concomitant labral repair may not be adequate to restore distractive hip stability after hip arthroscopy, reinforcing the use of postoperative precautions in the early postoperative period.

If at first you don't succeed, should you try again? The efficacy of repeated closed reductions of distal radius fractures.

INTRODUCTION: A repeated closed reduction ("re-reduction") of a displaced distal radius fracture is a common procedure performed to obtain satisfactory alignment and avoid surgery when the initial reduction is deemed unsatisfactory. However, the efficacy of re-reduction is unclear. Compared to a single closed reduction, does a re-reduction of a displaced distal radius fracture: (1) improve radiographic alignment at the time of fracture union and, (2) decrease the rate of operative intervention? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of 99 adults aged 20-99 years with extra-articular or minimally displaced intra-articular, dorsally angulated, displaced distal radius fracture with or without an associated ulnar styloid fracture who underwent a re-reduction, compared against 99 adults matched for age and sex who were managed with a single reduction. Exclusion criteria were skeletal immaturity, fracture-dislocation and articular displacement greater than 2 mm. Outcome measures included radiographic alignment at fracture union and rate of surgical intervention. RESULTS: At 6-8 weeks follow-up, the single reduction group had greater radial height (p = 0.045, CI 0.04 to 3.57), and less ulnar variance (p < 0.001, CI - 3.08 to - 1.00) compared to the re-reduction group. Immediately following re-reduction, 49.5% of patients met radiographic non-operative criteria, but by 6-8 weeks follow-up, only 17.5% of patients continued to meet these criteria. Patients in the re-reduction group were treated with surgery 34.3% of the time, compared to 14.1% of the time for patients in the single reduction group (p = 0.001). In patients aged under 65 years, 49.0% of those who underwent a re-reduction were managed with surgery, compared to 21.0% of those who had a single reduction (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: A re-reduction performed to improve radiographic alignment and avoid surgical management in this subset of distal radius fractures had minimal value. Alternative treatment options should be considered before attempting a re-reduction.

Challenges to Implementing Total Joint Replacement Programs in Developing Countries.

In this review article, the authors present the many challenges that orthopedic surgeons in developing countries face when implementing arthroplasty programs. The issues of cost, sterility, and patient demographics are specifically addressed. Despite the many challenges, developing countries are beginning to offer hip and knee reconstructive surgery to respond to the increasing demand for such elective operations as the prevalence of osteoarthritis continues to increase. The authors shed light on these nascent arthroplasty programs.

Variability in the Reporting Terminology of Adverse Events and Complications in Ankle Fracture Fixation: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Classification systems for the reporting of surgical complications have been developed and adapted for many surgical subspecialties. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the variability and frequency of reporting terms used to describe adverse events and complications in ankle fracture fixation. We hypothesized that the terminology used would be highly variable and inconsistent, corroborating previous results that have suggested a need for standardized reporting terminology in orthopedics. METHODS: Ankle fracture outcome studies meeting predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected for analysis by 2 independent observers. Terms used to define adverse events and complications were identified and recorded. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with the aid of a third observer. All terms were then compiled and assessed for variability and frequency of use throughout the studies involved. Reporting terminology was subsequently grouped into 10 categories. RESULTS: In the 48 studies analyzed, 301 distinct terms were utilized to describe complications or adverse events. Of these terms, 74.4% (224/301) were found in a single study each. Only 1 term, "infection," was present in 50% of studies, and only 19 of 301 terms (6.3%) were used in at least 10% of papers. The category that was most frequently reported was "infection," with 89.6% of studies reporting on this type of adverse event using 25 distinct terms. Other categories were "wound healing complications" (72.9% of papers, 38 terms), "bone/joint complications" (66.7% of papers, 35 terms), "hardware/implant complications" (56.3% of papers, 47 terms), "revision" (56.3% of papers, 35 terms), "cartilage/soft tissue injuries" (45.8% of papers, 31 terms), "reduction/alignment issues" (45.8% of papers, 29 terms), "medical complications" (43.8% of papers, 32 terms), "pain" (29.2% of papers, 16 terms), and "other complications" (20.8% of papers, 13 terms). There was a 78.6% interobserver agreement in the identification of terms across the 48 studies included. CONCLUSION: The reporting terminology utilized to describe complications and adverse events in ankle fracture fixation was found to be highly variable and inconsistent. This variability prevents accurate reporting of complications and adverse events and makes the analysis of potential outcomes difficult. The development of standardized reporting terminology in orthopedics would be instrumental in addressing these challenges and allow for more accurate and consistent outcome reporting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; systematic review of Level III studies and above.