Kaikki aineistot
Lisää
Background: The fit of the allograft is a particular concern in fresh cadaveric osteochondral allograft (FOCA) surgery. Digital design and fabrication were utilized in conjunction with traditional surgery to enable efficient discovery and reproduction of appropriately dimensioned allograft. Methods: A patient with large osteochondral defects in the lateral femoral condyle was to undergo FOCA surgery. A digital virtual operation was performed, based on computed tomography (CT) images of the patient. Polyamide saw templates were manufactured using a selective laser sintering process, and gypsum powder was used to manufacture preoperative and intraoperative medical models with binder jetting process. The design dimensions were verified numerically by determining the intactness of the section surface and allograft volume based on four independent measurements of the initial design, and an automated design optimization strategy was postulated. For the surgery, a lateral longitudinal approach was employed. Results:The virtual operation allowed an efficient design of the saw templates. Their shape and dimensions were verified with a numerical CT analysis method. The allograft dimensions (medial–lateral/superior–inferior/anterior–posterior) were approximately 40/28.5/24 mm, respectively, with the anterosuperior corner diagonally removed, yielding a section volume of approximately 16.5 cm3. These manually chosen dimensions were reminiscent of the corresponding computationally optimized values. Conclusions: Use of computer-aided design in virtual operation planning and three-dimensional printing in the fabrication of designed templates allowed for an efficient FOCA procedure and accurate allograft fitting. The numerical optimization method allowed for a semiautomated design process, which could in turn be realized also with surgical navigation or robotic surgery methods.
Purpose: Severe cartilage damage and advanced knee osteoarthritis (OA) might be associated with poor outcomes of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). The purpose of this prospective follow-up study was to explore MAT survivorship and patient satisfaction among young patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency and radiological OA of different Kellgren–Lawrence (K–L) grades. Methods: Thirty-five consecutive MAT patients were prospectively followed up for 2 years. The lateral meniscus was replaced in 29 patients and the medial meniscus in 6 patients. Outcomes were assessed using the KOOS4 composite score, KOOS subscales, Lysholm knee score, and OA K–L grade progression from weight-bearing knee radiographs. For the outcome analysis, patients were categorized into two groups: 19 in Group A (K–L classification 0–1) and 16 in Group B (K–L classification 2). Results: In terms of KOOS4 and Lysholm scores, the patients showed a clinically significant improvement from baseline to the 1-year follow-up (22.2 points, 95% CI 16.6–27.8 for KOOS4 and 16.8 points, 95% CI 8.9–24.6 for Lysholm), and the improvement remained at 2 years (20.6 points, 95% CI 13.2–28.1 for KOOS4 and 21.5, 95% CI 12.5–30.7 for Lysholm). At the 6-month follow-up, this improvement was not yet observed. Minor between-group differences were observed in the KOOS4 and Lysholm scores for the K–L 0–1 and K–L 2 OA groups, but the estimates were imprecise with wide confidence intervals. A clinically relevant difference between these two study groups could not be found at any timepoint. The reoperation rate was higher in the K–L 2 group than in the K–L 0–1 group (31% vs. 11%). Conclusions: MAT yielded improved patient-reported outcomes and subjective satisfaction at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. The differences from baseline exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at all timepoints. The severity of cartilage damage and knee OA in terms of the K–L grade at the time of surgery did not affect the KOOS and Lysholm scores after the MAT procedure. Knee OA progression in terms of K–L grade worsening was not observed in any patients. Level of evidence: III.
AIMS: Several previously identified patient-, injury-, and treatment-related factors are associated with the development of nonunion in distal femur fractures. However, the predictive value of these factors is not well defined. We aimed to assess the predictive ability of previously identified risk factors in the development of nonunion leading to secondary surgery in distal femur fractures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with traumatic distal femur fracture treated with lateral locking plate between 2009 and 2018. The patients who underwent secondary surgery due to fracture healing problem or plate failure were considered having nonunion. Background knowledge of risk factors of distal femur fracture nonunion based on previous literature was used to form an initial set of variables. A logistic regression model was used with previously identified patient- and injury-related variables (age, sex, BMI, diabetes, smoking, periprosthetic fracture, open fracture, trauma energy, fracture zone length, fracture comminution, medial side comminution) in the first analysis and with treatment-related variables (different surgeon-controlled factors, e.g. plate length, screw placement, and proximal fixation) in the second analysis to predict the nonunion leading to secondary surgery in distal femur fractures. RESULTS: We were able to include 299 fractures in 291 patients. Altogether, 31/299 fractures (10%) developed nonunion. In the first analysis, pseudo-R2 was 0.27 and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.81. BMI was the most important variable in the prediction. In the second analysis, pseudo-R2 was 0.06 and AUC was 0.67. Plate length was the most important variable in the prediction. CONCLUSION: The model including patient- and injury-related factors had moderate fit and predictive ability in the prediction of distal femur fracture nonunion leading to secondary surgery. BMI was the most important variable in prediction of nonunion. Surgeon-controlled factors had a minor role in prediction of nonunion.
Background: Medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common health problem resulting in knee pain and limiting patients’ physical activity. After failed conservative treatment, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) are possible surgical treatment options for this condition. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence in the literature comparing objective and subjective outcomes of these procedures. Also, there is no common agreement on whether these procedures provide comparable results in late-stage medial knee OA patients. Methods: We will perform a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing HTO and UKA in patients with late-stage medial knee OA. 100 patients with isolated medial knee OA (KL III–IV) are assigned to either UKA (n = 50) or HTO (n = 50) procedure in patients 45–65 years of age. Our primary outcome will be KOOS5 at one year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include OARSI physical assessment, length of stay, wearable activity watch, radiographs (OA progression according to Kellgren-Lawrence classification), patient-reported outcomes (KOOS subscales, pain visual analog scale [VAS], Lysholm, and Oxford knee scores), and adverse events (conversion to total knee arthroplasty, surgery-related complications, need for revision surgery) outcomes. Our hypothesis is that neither of the interventions is superior as measured with KOOS5 at 12 months. Ethics and dissemination: The institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District has approved the protocol. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov/TooloH NCT05442242. Registered on 7/1/2022.
Background There have previously been no validated foot and ankle-specific patient-reported outcome measures in Finnish. Methods The Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) was translated and adapted into Finnish. Thereafter, 165 patients who had undergone foot and ankle surgery completed a questionnaire set on two separate occasions. Analyses included testing of floor-ceiling effect, internal consistency, reproducibility, and validity. Results Minor linguistic differences emerged during the translation. Some structural adjustments were made. The mean (SD) total VAS-FA score was 74 (23). In the three subscales, maximum scores were noted in 2–5% of the responses, and internal consistency ranged from 0.81 to 0.94. Reproducibility was excellent (ICC, 0.97). The total VAS-FA score correlated significantly with the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (r = 0.84) and the 15D Mobility dimension (r = 0.79). The VAS-FA loaded on two factors (pain/movement and problems/limitations). Conclusions The Finnish version of the VAS-FA has high reliability and strong validity.
Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are widely accepted measures for evaluating outcomes of surgical interventions. As patient-reported information is stored in electronic health records, it is essential that there are valid electronic PRO (ePRO) instruments available for clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of electronic versions of five widely used foot and ankle specific PRO instruments. Methods Altogether 111 consecutive elective foot/ankle surgery patients were invited face-to-face to participate in this study. Patients completed electronic versions of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), the modified Lower Extremity Function Scale (LEFS), the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), and the Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) on the day of elective foot and/or ankle surgery. Construct validity, coverage, and targeting of the scales were assessed. Results Based on general and predefined thresholds, construct validity, coverage, and targeting of the ePRO versions of the FAAM, the FAOS, the MOXFQ, and the VAS-FA were acceptable. Major issues arose with score distribution and convergent validity of the modified LEFS instrument. Conclusions The ePRO versions of the FAAM, the FAOS, the MOXFQ, and the VAS-FA provide valid scores for foot and ankle patients. However, our findings do not support the use of the modified LEFS as an electronic outcome measure for patients with orthopedic foot and/or ankle pathologies.