ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
What´s New in Orthopedic Surgery for People with Hemophilia
Modern orthopedic surgery can improve the musculoskeletal problems of people with hemophilia. The most commonly affected joints are the knees, the ankles and the elbows. The most common orthopedic procedures that PWH undergo are the following: RS, arthroscopic synovectomy, arthroscopic joint debridement, ankle arthrodesis, total joint arthroplasty and removal of pseudotumors. Every surgical procedure must be performed with adequate clotting factor coverage, following the indications of the hematologist in charge. For PWH, routine pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is not indicated. In patients with inhibitors (acquired antibodies against the deficient coagulation factor) and for the surgical removal of pseudotumors, local fibrin glue is advised. The mean infection rate with TKA in PWH is 7%. Intraarticular TXA is advised to control surgical bleeding. LIA is also recommended to control postoperative pain after TKA.
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10733_92f5e6358cddee283b5621242ece9321.pdf
2018-05-01
157
160
10.22038/abjs.2018.31570.1825
Hemophilia
Orthopedic surgery
New developments
E. Carlos
RODRIGUEZ-MERCHAN
ecrmerchan@hotmail.com
1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
LEAD_AUTHOR
1. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Musculoskeletal complications
1
of hemophilia. HSS J. 2010; 6(1):37-42.
2
2. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Musculo-skeletal
3
manifestations of haemophilia. Blood Rev. 2016;
4
30(5):401-9.
5
3. Zozulya N, Kessler CM, Klukowska A, von Depka
6
M, Hampton K, Hay CR, et al. Efficacy and safety of
7
Nuwiq® (human-cl rhFVIII) in patients with severe
8
haemophilia A undergoing surgical procedures.
9
Haemophilia. 2018; 24(1):70-6.
10
4. Escobar MA, Tehranchi R, Karim FA, Caliskan U,
11
Chowdary P, Colberg T, et al. Low-factor consumption
12
for major surgery in haemophilia B with long-acting
13
recombinant glycoPEGylated factor IX. Haemophilia.
14
2017; 23(1):67-76.
15
5. Castaman G. The role of recombinant activated
16
factor VII in the haematological management of
17
elective orthopedic surgery in haemophilia A
18
patients with inhibitors. Blood Transfus. 2017;
19
15(5):478-86.
20
6. Danielson H, Lassila R, Ylinen P, Yrjönen T. Total
21
joint replacement in inhibitor-positive haemophilia:
22
Long-term outcome analysis in fifteen patients.
23
World J Orthop. 2017; 8(10):777-84.
24
7. Mortazavi SM, Najafi A, Toogeh G. Total joint
25
replacement in haemophilia A patients with high
26
titre of inhibitor using a new brand recombinant
27
factor VIIa (Aryoseven(®) ). Haemophilia. 2016;
28
22(5):e451-3.
29
8. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Management of hemophilic
30
arthropathy of the ankle. Cardiovasc Hematol Disord
31
Drug Targets. 2017; 17(2):111-8.
32
9. Takedani H, Hirose J, Minamoto F, Kubota M,
33
Kinkawa J, Noguchi M. Major orthopedic surgery
34
for a haemophilia patient with inhibitors using a
35
new bypassing agent. Haemophilia. 2016; 22(5):
36
10. Liddle AD, Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Evidence-based
37
management of the knee in hemophilia. JBJS Rev.
38
2017; 5(8):e12.
39
11. Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Valentino LA. Orthopedic
40
disorders of the knee in hemophilia: a current
41
concept review. World J Orthop. 2016; 7(6):370-5.
42
12. Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Romero-Garrido JA, Gomez-
43
Cardero P. Multimodal blood loss prevention
44
approach including intra-articular tranexamic acid
45
in primary total knee arthroplasty for patients
46
with severe haemophilia A. Haemophilia. 2016;
47
22(4):e318-20.
48
13. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Single local infiltration
49
analgesia (LIA) aids early pain management after
50
total knee replacement (TKR): an evidence-based
51
review and commentary. HSS J. 2018; 14(1):47-9.
52
14. Moore MF, Tobase P, Allen DD. Meta-analysis:
53
outcomes of total knee arthroplasty in the
54
haemophilia population. Haemophilia. 2016;
55
22(4):e275-85.
56
15. Ernstbrunner L, Hingsammer A, Catanzaro S, Sutter
57
R, Brand B, Wieser K, et al. Long-term results of
58
total knee arthroplasty in haemophilic patients:
59
an 18-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol
60
Arthrosc. 2017; 25(11):3431-8.
61
16. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Simultaneous bilateral total
62
knee arthroplasty in hemophilia: is it recommended?
63
Expert Rev Hematol. 2017; 10(10):847-51.
64
17. Mortazavi SMJ, Firoozabadi MA, Najafi A, Mansouri
65
P. Evaluation of outcomes of suction drainage in
66
patients with haemophilic arthropathy undergoing
67
total knee arthroplasty. Haemophilia. 2017;
68
23(4):e310-5.
69
18. Park YS, Shin WJ, Kim KI. Comparison of continuous
70
infusion versus bolus injection of factor concentrates
71
for blood management after total knee arthroplasty
72
in patients with hemophilia. BMC Musculoskelet
73
Disord. 2017; 18(1):356.
74
19. Yasui T, Hirose J, Ono K, Takedani H. Arthroscopic
75
debridement for advanced haemophilic ankle
76
arthropathy. Haemophilia. 2017; 23(5):e479-81.
77
20. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Joint distraction in advanced
78
haemophilic ankle arthropathy. Haemophilia. 2016;
79
22(4):e301-4.
80
21. Brkljac M, Shah S, Hay C, Rodriguez-Merchan EC.
81
Hindfoot fusion in haemophilic arthropathy: 6-year
82
mean follow-up of 41 procedures performed in 28
83
adult patients. Haemophilia. 2016; 22(2):e87-98.
84
22. de l’Escalopier N, Badina A, Padovani JP, Harroche
85
A, Frenzel L, Wicart P, et al. Long-term results of
86
ankle arthrodesis in children and adolescents with
87
haemophilia. Int Orthop. 2017; 41(8):1579-84.
88
23. Preis M, Bailey T, Jacxsens M, Barg A. Total
89
ankle replacement in patients with haemophilic
90
arthropathy: primary arthroplasty and conversion
91
of painful ankle arthrodesis to arthroplasty.
92
Haemophilia. 2017; 23(4):e301-9.
93
24. Strauss AC, Rommelspacher Y, Nouri B, Bornemann
94
R, Wimmer MD, Oldenburg J, et al. Long-term
95
outcome of total hip arthroplasty in patients with
96
haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2017; 23(1):129-34.
97
25. Ernstbrunner L, Hingsammer A, Imam MA, Sutter R,
98
Brand B, Meyer DC, et al. Long-term results of total
99
elbow arthroplasty in patients with hemophilia. J
100
Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(1):126-32.
101
26. Zhai J, Weng X, Zhang B, Liu Y, Gao P, Bian YY. Surgical
102
treatment for hemophilic pseudotumor: twentythree
103
cases with an average follow-up of 5 years. J
104
Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99(11):947-53.
105
27. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Fibrin glue for local
106
haemostasis in haemophilia surgery. Hosp Pract (1995). 2017; 45(5):187-91.
107
28. Ahmed A, Kozek-Langenecker S, Mullier F, Pavord
108
S, Hermans C; ESA VTE Guidelines Task Force.
109
European guidelines on perioperative venous
110
thromboembolism prophylaxis: Patients with
111
preexisting coagulation disorders and after severe
112
perioperative bleeding. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018;
113
35(2):96-107.
114
29. Kachooei AR, Badiei Z, Zandinezhad ME,
115
Ebrahimzadeh MH, Mazloumi SM, Omidi-Kashani F,
116
et al. Influencing factors on the functional level of
117
haemophilic patients assessed by FISH. Haemophilia.
118
2014; 20(2):185-9.
119
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Hip Surgery in Quiescent or Active Tubercular Hip Arthritis; Is Reactivation Risk Really a Matter
About 15 % of all musculoskeletal tuberculosis (TB) have hip involvement. Early anti-tubercular drug therapy and other conservative treatment including short-term traction and mobilization programs could prevent hip joint destruction. Reactivation of TB accounts for a significant of active TB incidence, especially in the developed countries with a low TB prevalence. The risk of TB activation for population with the latent form of disease is about 5-10%. According to the existing literature surgery in tubercular hip arthritis would be safe once sufficient debridement and precise anti tubercular chemotherapy has been done.
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10734_fe1ac3ce22e996f0efea1642757450b8.pdf
2018-05-01
169
175
10.22038/abjs.2018.27960.1725
Active
Hip
Quiescent
Reactivation
Surgery
Tuberculosis
Ali
Parsa
aliparsadr@yahoo.com
1
Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Maryam
Mirzaie
mirzaiemarya@gmail.com
2
Community and Preventive Medicine Specialist, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Mohammad H.
Ebrahimzadeh
ebrahimzadehmh@mums.ac.ir
3
Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Ali
Birjandinejad
birjandinejada@mums.ac.ir
4
Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Abdolreza
Malek
malekar@mums.ac.ir
5
Department of Pediatrics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhs, Iran
AUTHOR
Alireza
Mousavian
mousaviana@mums.ac.ir
6
Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
1. Babhulkar S, Pande S. Tuberculosis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; 398(1):93-9.
1
2. Birjandinejad A, Parsa A, Ebrahimzadeh MH.
2
Isolated tuberculosis of the talonavicular joint in a
3
child. Foot. 2012; 22(3):255-7.
4
3. Jeddo S, Huang CW, Li M. Case report on the recurrence
5
of tuberculosis of hip after 40 years. Springerplus.
6
2014; 3(1):662.
7
4. Held MF, Hoppe S, Laubscher M, Mears S, Dix-Peek
8
S, Zar HJ, et al. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal
9
tuberculosis in an area with high disease prevalence.
10
Asian Spine J. 2017; 11(3):405-11.
11
5. World Health Organization. World malaria report
12
2015. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
13
6. Johansen IS, Nielsen SL, Hove M, Kehrer M, Shakar S,
14
Wøyen AV, et al. Characteristics and clinical outcome
15
of bone and joint tuberculosis from 1994 to 2011: a
16
retrospective register-based study in Denmark. Clin
17
Infect Dis. 2015; 61(4):554-62.
18
7. Peto HM, Pratt RH, Harrington TA, LoBue PA,
19
Armstrong LR. Epidemiology of extrapulmonary
20
uberculosis in the United States, 1993-2006. Clin
21
Infect Dis. 2009; 49(9):1250-7.
22
8. Malaviya AN, Kotwal PP. Arthritis associated with
23
tuberculosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2003;
24
17(2):319-43.
25
9. Gharehdaghi M, Hassani M, Ghodsi E, Khooei A,
26
Moayedpour A. Bacille Calmette-Guérin Osteomyelitis.
27
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2015; 3(4):291-5.
28
10. Elmi A, Tabrizi A, Tolouei FM. Skeletal tuberculosis
29
presenting as a small cystic lesion in the medial
30
femoral condyle. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2013; 1(2):112-5.
31
11. Yadav S, Rawal G. Primary extrapulmonary
32
extensively drug resistant tuberculosis of the hip in an
33
immunocompetent female-a case report. J Clin Diagn
34
Res. 2017; 11(1):LD01-3.
35
12. Agarwal SP, Chauhan LS. Tuberculosis control in India.
36
New Delhi: Directorate General of Health Services,
37
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; 2005.
38
13. Lešić AR, Pešut DP, Marković-Denić L, Maksimović J,
39
Čobeljić G, Milosevic I, et al. The challenge of osteoarticular
40
tuberculosis in the twenty-first century: a
41
15-year population-based study. Int J Tuberc Lung
42
Dis. 2010; 14(9):1181-6.
43
14. Mazloumi SM, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Kachooei AR.
44
Evolution in diagnosis and treatment of Legg-
45
Calve-Perthes disease. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014;
46
2(2):86-92.
47
15. De Backer AI, Vanhoenacker FM, Sanghvi DA.
48
Imaging features of extraaxial musculoskeletal
49
tuberculosis. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;
50
19(3):176-86.
51
16. Robben SG. Ultrasonography of musculoskeletal
52
infections in children. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14(4):L65-
53
17. Ai JW, Ruan QL, Liu QH, Zhang WH. Updates on the
54
risk factors for latent tuberculosis reactivation and
55
their managements. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2016;
56
18. Kumar V, Garg B, Malhotra R. Total hip replacement
57
for arthritis following tuberculosis of hip. World J
58
Orthop. 2015; 6(8):636-40.
59
19. Restrepo BI, Fisher-Hoch SP, Pino PA, Salinas A, Rahbar
60
MH, Mora F, et al. Tuberculosis in poorly controlled
61
type 2 diabetes: altered cytokine expression in
62
peripheral white blood cells. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;
63
47(5):634-41.
64
20. Dooley KE, Chaisson RE. Tuberculosis and diabetes
65
mellitus: convergence of two epidemics. Lancet Infect
66
Dis. 2009; 9(12):737-46.
67
21. Smieja MJ, Marchetti CA, Cook DJ, Smaill FM.
68
Isoniazid for preventing tuberculosis in non‐HIV
69
infected persons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;
70
1(2):CD001363.
71
22. Stagg HR, Zenner D, Harris RJ, Muñoz L, Lipman
72
MC, Abubakar I. Treatment of latent tuberculosis
73
infection: a network meta-analysis. Ann Internal Med.
74
2014; 161(6):419-28.
75
23. Rangaka MX, Wilkinson KA, Glynn JR, Ling D, Menzies
76
D, Mwansa-Kambafwile J, et al. Predictive value
77
of interferon-γ release assays for incident active
78
tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
79
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012; 12(1):45-55.
80
24. Diel R, Goletti D, Ferrara G, Bothamley G, Cirillo D,
81
Kampmann B, et al. Interferon-γ release assays for
82
the diagnosis of latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis
83
infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur
84
Respir J. 2011; 37(1):88-99.
85
25. Ha KY, Chung YG, Ryoo SJ. Adherence and biofilm
86
formation of Staphylococcus epidermidis and
87
Mycobacterium tuberculosis on various spinal
88
implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(1):38-43.
89
26. Neogi DS, Yadav CS, Ashok Kumar SA, Rastogi S. Total
90
hip arthroplasty in patients with active tuberculosis
91
of the hip with advanced arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat
92
Res. 2010; 468(2):605-12.
93
27. Yoon TR, Rowe SM, Santosa SB, Jung ST, Seon JK.
94
Immediate cementless total hip arthroplasty for the
95
treatment of active tuberculosis. J Arthroplasty. 2005;
96
20(7):923-6.
97
28. Santavirta S, Eskola A, Konttinen YT, Tallroth
98
K, Lindholm ST. Total hip replacement in old
99
tuberculosis: a report of 14 cases. Acta Orthop Scand.
100
1988; 59(4):391-5.
101
29. Tan SM, Chin PL. Total hip arthroplasty for surgical
102
management of advanced tuberculous hip arthritis:
103
case report. World J Orthop. 2015; 6(2):316-21.
104
30. Ö ztürkmen Y, Karamehmetoğlu M, Leblebici C, Gökçe
105
A, Caniklioğlu M. Cementless total hip arthroplasty
106
for the management of tuberculosis coxitis. Arch
107
Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010; 130(2):197-203.
108
31. Johnson R, Barnes KL, Owen R. Reactivation of
109
tuberculosis after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint
110
Surg Br. 1979; 61(2):148-50.
111
32. Kim YH, Han DY, Park BM. Total hip arthroplasty for
112
tuberculous coxarthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;
113
69(5):718-27.
114
33. Li L, Chou K, Deng J, Shen F, He Z, Gao S, et al. Twostage
115
total hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced
116
active tuberculosis of the hip. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;
117
34. Oga M, Arizono T, Takasita M, Sugioka Y. Evaluation of
118
the risk of instrumentation as a foreign body in spinal
119
tuberculosis: clinical and biologic study. Spine. 1993;18(13):1890-4.
120
35. Tiwari V, Khan SA, Kumar A, Poudel R, Kumar VS.
121
Functional improvement after hip arthroscopy in
122
cases of active paediatric hip joint tuberculosis:
123
a retrospective comparative study vis-à-vis
124
conservative management. J Child Orthop. 2015;
125
9(6):495-503.
126
36. Hardinge K, Cleary J, Charnley J. Low-friction
127
arthroplasty for healed septic and tuberculous
128
arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1979; 61-B(2):144-7.
129
37. Jupiter JB, Karchmer AW, Lowell JD, Harris WH. Total
130
hip arthroplasty in the treatment of adult hips with
131
current or quiescent sepsis. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
132
1981; 63(2):194-200.
133
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The clinical Outcome of One-stage High Tibial Osteotomy and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. A Current Concept Systematic and Comprehensive Review
Background: Patients with an anterior cruciate ligament-deficient varus-angulated knee may need not only an isolated high tibial osteotomy (HTO), but also an additional anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). A number of prospective clinical trials have been published considering the combination of HTO and ACL reconstruction. Our aim was to investigate whether one-stage combined HTO and ACL reconstruction is an effective, well-established technique with long-term results in the treatment of varus-angu lated knees with ACL deficiency. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by two independent reviewers by searching the MEDLINE/PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These databases were queried with the term ‘combined high tibial osteotomy anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction’ and ‘simultaneous high tibial osteotomy anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction’. Results: From the initial 41 studies we finally chose and assessed 6 studies were eligible according to our inclusion-exclusion criteria. The vast majority of the patients were treated with hamstrings autograft (85.6% of the patients), whereas a small minority had a patellar Bone-to-Bone autograft (12.8% of the patients) and 3 patients received a patellar allograft. High tibial open wedge osteotomy was performed in 116 patients (57.4%) and closed wedge in 86 patients (42.6%). The mean pre-operative angle of the patients included in our review was 6.6º varus, while the mean final post-operative angle was found to be 1.3º valgus. All 6 studies illustrated improved post-operative IKDC with the use of one-stage HTO and ACLR, whereas the reoperation rate was very low. Conclusion: Despite the lack of high quality studies, it seems that one-stage HTO and ACLR is a safe and effective procedure for treatment of patients suffering from symptomatic varus osteoarthritis in combination with anterior knee instability. Level of evidence: II
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10732_f745e492df9c568fa3943276ab8649d9.pdf
2018-05-01
161
168
10.22038/abjs.2018.28821.1744
Combined HTO ACL reconstruction
One-stage high tibial osteotomy and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Simultaneous HTO ACL reconstruction
Systematic review
Michael
Alexander Malahias
alexandermalahias@yahoo.gr
1
ATOS Private Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
AUTHOR
Omid
Shahpari
omidshahparidr@gmail.com
2
Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad university of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Maria
Kyriaki Kaseta
kaseta12@hotmail.com
3
Orthopaedic Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece
AUTHOR
1. Coventry MB. Osteotomy of the upper portion of
1
the tibia for degenerative arthritis of the knee.
2
A preliminary report. J Bone Surg Am. 1965;
3
47(1):984-90.
4
2. Amendola A, Bonasia DE. Results of HTO in medial
5
OA of the knee. In: Amendola A, Bellemans J, Bonnin
6
M, MacDonald S, Menetrey J, editors. Paris: Springer;
7
3. Insall JN, Joseph DM, Msika C. High tibial osteotomy
8
for varusgonarthrosis. A long-term follow-up study. J
9
Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984; 66(7):1040-8.
10
4. Amendola A, Bonasia DE. Results of high tibial
11
osteotomy: review of the literature. Int Orthop. 2010;
12
34(2):155-60.
13
5. Akizuki S, Shibakawa A, Takizawa T, Yamazaki I,
14
Horiuchi H. The long-term outcome of high tibial
15
osteotomy: a ten- to 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint
16
Surg Br. 2008; 90(5):592-6.
17
6. Sprenger TR, Doerzbacher JF. Tibial osteotomy for the
18
treatment of varus gonarthrosis: survival and failure
19
analysis to twenty-two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
20
2003; 85-A(3):469-74.
21
7. Griffin T, Rowden N, Morgan D, Atkinson R, Woodruff P,
22
Maddern G. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for
23
the treatment of unicompartmental OA: a systematic
24
study. ANZ J Surg. 2007; 77(4):214-21.
25
8. Sisto DJ, Blazina ME, Heskiaoff D, Hirsh LC.
26
Unicompartment arthroplasty for osteoarthrosis of
27
the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 286(1):149-53.
28
9. Santoso MB, Wu L. Unicompartmental knee
29
arthroplasty, is it superior to high tibial osteotomy in
30
treating unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A metaanalysis
31
and systemic review. J Orthop Surg Res.
32
2017; 12(1):50.
33
10. Pfitzner T, Perka C, von Roth P. unicompartmental vs.
34
total knee arthroplasty for medial osteoarthritis. Z
35
Orthop Unfall. 2017; 155(5):527-33.
36
11. O’Neill DF, James SL. Valgus osteotomy with anterior
37
cruciate ligament laxity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;
38
278(1):153-9.
39
12. Stein BE, Williams RJ 3rd, Wickiewicz TL. Arthritis
40
and osteotomies in anterior cruciate ligament
41
reconstruction. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;
42
34(1):169-81.
43
13. Lewek M, Rudolph K, Axe M, Snyder-Mackler L. The
44
effect of insufficient quadriceps strength on gait
45
after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin
46
Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002; 17(1):56-63.
47
14. Webster KE, Feller JA, Wittwer JE. Longitudinal changes
48
in knee joint biomechanics during level walking
49
following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
50
surgery. Gait Posture. 2012; 36(2):167-71.
51
15. Kessler MA, Behrend H, Henz S, Stutz G, Rukavina
52
A, Kuster MS. Function, osteoarthritis and activity
53
after ACL-rupture: 11 years follow-up results of
54
conservative versus reconstructive treatment. Knee
55
Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008; 16(5):442-8.
56
16. McNamara I, Birmingham TB, Fowler PJ, Giffin JR. High
57
tibial osteotomy: evolution of research and clinical
58
applications--a Canadian experience. Knee Surg Sport
59
Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013; 21(1):23-31.
60
17. Giffin JR, Shannon FJ. The role of the high tibial
61
osteotomy in the unstable knee. Sport Med Arthrosc
62
Rev. 2007; 15(1):23-31.
63
18. Rudan JF, Simurda MA. High tibial osteotomy. A
64
prospective clinical and roentgenographic review.
65
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; 255(1):251-6.
66
19. Dejour H, Neyret P, Boileau P, Donell ST. Anterior
67
cruciate reconstruction combined with valgus
68
tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;
69
299(1):220-8.
70
20. Marriott K, Birmingham TB, Kean CO, Hui C, Jenkyn
71
TR, Giffin JR. Five-year changes in gait biomechanics
72
after concomitant high tibial osteotomy and ACL
73
reconstruction in patients with medial knee
74
osteoarthritis. Am J Sport Med. 2015; 43(9):2277-85.
75
21. Bonin N, Ait Si Selmi T, Donell ST, Dejour H, Neyret
76
P. Anterior cruciate reconstruction combined with
77
valgus upper tibial osteotomy: 12 years follow-up.
78
Knee. 2004; 11(6):431-7.
79
22. Mehl J, Paul J, Feucht MJ, Bode G, Imhoff AB, Südkamp
80
NP, et al. ACL deficiency and varus osteoarthritis:
81
high tibial osteotomy alone or combined with ACL
82
reconstruction? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;
83
137(2):233-40.
84
23. Herman BV, Giffin JR. High tibial osteotomy in the ACLdeficient
85
knee with medial compartment osteoarthritis.
86
J Orthop Traumatol. 2016; 17(3):277-85.
87
24. Mancuso F, Hamilton TW, Kumar V, Murray DW,
88
Pandit H. Clinical outcome after UKA and HTO in ACL
89
deficiency: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports
90
Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24(1):112-22.
91
25. Li Y, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li X, Song G, Feng H. Clinical
92
outcome of simultaneous high tibial osteotomy
93
and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
94
for medial compartment osteoarthritis in young
95
patients with anterior cruciate ligament-deficient
96
knees: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2015;
97
31(3):507-19.
98
26. Schuster P, Schulz M, Richter J. Combined biplanar
99
high tibial osteotomy, anterior cruciate ligament
100
reconstruction, and abrasion/microfracture in
101
severe medial osteoarthritis of unstable varus knees.
102
Arthroscopy. 2016; 32(2):283-92.
103
27. Arun GR, Kumaraswamy V, Rajan D, Vinodh K, Singh
104
AK, Kumar P, et al. Long-term follow up of singlestage
105
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and
106
high tibial osteotomy and its relation with posterior
107
tibial slope. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;
108
136(4):505-11.
109
28. Vaishya R, Vijay V, Jha GK, Agarwal AK. Prospective
110
study of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
111
associated with high tibial opening wedge osteotomy
112
in knee arthritis associated with instability. J Clin
113
Orthop Trauma. 2016; 7(4):265-71.
114
29. Trojani C, Elhor H, Carles M, Boileau P. Anterior
115
cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with
116
valgus high tibial osteotomy allows return to sports.
117
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014; 100(2):209-12.
118
30. Zaffagnini S, Bonanzinga T, Grassi A, Marcheggiani
119
Muccioli GM, Musiani C, Raggi F, et al. Combined ACL
120
reconstruction and closing-wedge HTO for varus
121
angulated ACL-deficient knees. Knee Surg Sports
122
Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013; 21(4):934-41.
123
31. Noyes FR, Schipplein OD, Andriacchi TP, Saddemi SR,
124
Weise M. The anterior cruciate ligament-deficient
125
knee with varus alignment. An analysis of gait
126
adaptations and dynamic joint loadings. Am J Sport
127
Med. 1992; 20(6):707-16.
128
32. Shahpari O, FallahKezabi M, Kalati HH, Bagheri F,
129
Ebrahimzadeh MH. Clinical outcome of anatomical
130
transportal arthroscop-ic anterior cruciate ligament
131
reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft.
132
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018; 6(2):130-9.
133
33. van de Pol GJ, Arnold MP, Verdonschot N, van Kampen
134
A. Varus alignment leads to increased forces in the
135
anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sport Med. 2009;
136
37(3):481-7.
137
34. Kean CO, Birmingham TB, Garland JS, Jenkyn TR,
138
Ivanova TD, Jones IC, et al. Moments and muscle
139
activity after high tibial osteotomy and anterior
140
cruciate ligament reconstruction. Med Sci Sports
141
Exerc. 2009; 41(3):612-9.
142
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Titanium Elastic Nails Versus Spica Cast in Pediatric Femoral Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 1012 Patients
Background: There is a general consensus on the management of femoral fractures in children younger than two years and adolescents older than sixteen years. The best treatment for patients younger than sixteen years of age is still debatable. Titanium Elastic Nails (TEN), is widely used with some evidence, nonetheless, we undertook a systematic meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of TEN compared to Spica cast for the management of femoral shaft fracture in children aged between 2 to 16 years old. Methods: A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central was conducted using relevant keywords. We included clinical trials and observational studies that compared TEN versus Spica cast; Records were screened for eligible studies and data were extracted and synthesized using Review Manager version 5.3 for Windows. Our search found 573 unique articles. After screening the abstract and relevant full text, 12 studies with a total of 1012 patients were suitab le for the final analysis Results: In terms terms of union (in weeks), the reported effect sizes favoured the TEN group in two included studies only. Moreover, the overall standardized mean difference in sagittal (SMD -0.48, 95% CI [-0.70 to -0.26], P<0.001) and coronal angulations (SMD -0.66, 95% CI [-1.00 to -0.31], P<0.001) favored TEN fixation in management of femoral fractures younger than 16 years. The reported length of hospital stay was not consistent across studies. The overall risk ratio of malalignment (RR=0.39, 95% CI [0.27 to 0.57], P<0.001) favored the TEN as well as walking independently. Based on our analysis, TEN treatment is superior to traction and hip spica for femoral fractures in patients younger than 16 years old. Conclusion: Based on our analysis we recommend the use of TEN fixation in management of pediatric femoral fractures in patients younger than 16 years. Level of evidence: II
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10292_b14484ca64e794845056959f6f61344d.pdf
2018-05-01
176
188
10.22038/abjs.2018.24096.1630
Femoral fractures
Flexible nails
Spica cast
Titanium elastic nails
Mohamed A.
Imam
mohamed.imam@aol.com
1
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Egypt Ashford and St Peters NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ahmed S.
Negida
ahmed01251@medicine.zu.edu.eg
2
Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, El-Sharkia, Egypt
AUTHOR
Ahmed
Elgebaly
ahmedelgebaly94@gmail.com
3
Faculty of Medicine, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
AUTHOR
Amr
Hussein
amre_sami@hotmail.com
4
Warwick University Hospitals, Warwick, UK
AUTHOR
Lukas
Ernstbrunner
lukas.ernstbrunner@alumni.pmu.ac.at
5
Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Paracelsus Medical University, Muellner Hauptstrasse, Salzburg, Austria
AUTHOR
Saqib
Javed
shehzada50@doctors.org.uk
6
Wrightington Hospital Appley Bridge, UK
AUTHOR
Joshua
Jacob
joshua.jacob@asph.nhs.uk
7
Ashford and St Peters NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK
AUTHOR
Mark
Churchill
mark.churchill@esth.nhs.uk
8
Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust, Carshalton, UK
AUTHOR
Paul
Trikha
trikha@me.com
9
Ashford and St Peters NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK
AUTHOR
Kevin
Newman
kevinnewmanortho@mac.com
10
Ashford and St Peters NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK
AUTHOR
David
Elliott
david.elliott@asph.nhs.uk
11
Ashford and St Peters NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK
AUTHOR
Arshad
Khaleel
arshad.khaleel@asph.nhs.uk
12
Ashford and St Peters NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK
AUTHOR
1. Bahuaud C, Beneteau M, Dorr MF. [Treatment of
1
fractures of the femoral diaphysis in children]. Soins
2
Chir. 1993(150-151):36-42.
3
2. Rewers A, Hedegaard H, Lezotte D, Meng K, Battan
4
FK, Emery K, et al. Childhood femur fractures,
5
associated injuries, and sociodemographic risk
6
factors: a population-based study. Pediatrics.
7
2005;115(5):e543-52.
8
3. Sanzarello I, Calamoneri E, D’Andrea L, Rosa MA.
9
Algorithm for the management of femoral shaft
10
fractures in children. Musculoskeletal surgery.
11
2014;98(1):53-60.
12
4. Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Moraleda L, Gomez-Cardero
13
P. Injuries associated with femoral shaft fractures
14
with special emphasis on occult injuries. Arch Bone Jt
15
Surg. 2013; 1(2):59-63.
16
5. Dalton HJ, Slovis T, Helfer RE, Comstock J, Scheurer
17
S, Riolo S. Undiagnosed abuse in children younger
18
than 3 years with femoral fracture. American
19
journal of diseases of children (1960). 1990;144(8):
20
6. Hinton RY, Lincoln A, Crockett MM, Sponseller P, Smith
21
G. Fractures of the femoral shaft in children. Incidence,
22
mechanisms, and sociodemographic risk factors. The
23
Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume.
24
1999;81(4):500-9.
25
7. Flynn JM, Schwend RM. Management of pediatric
26
femoral shaft fractures. The Journal of the
27
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
28
2004;12(5):347-59.
29
8. Sanders JO, Browne RH, Mooney JF, Raney EM, Horn
30
BD, Anderson DJ, et al. Treatment of femoral fractures
31
in children by pediatric orthopedists: results of
32
a 1998 survey. Journal of pediatric orthopedics.
33
2001;21(4):436-41.
34
9. Aslani H, Tabrizi A, Sadighi A, Mirbolook AR.
35
Treatment of pediatric open femoral fractures with
36
external fixator versus flexible intramedullary nails.
37
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2013; 1(2):64-7.
38
10. Andalib A, Sheikhbahaei E, Andalib Z, Tahririan
39
MA. Effectiveness of minimally invasive plate
40
osteosynthesis (MIPO) on comminuted tibial
41
or femoral fractures. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017;
42
5(5):290-5.
43
11. Buckley SL. Current trends in the treatment of
44
femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents.
45
Clinical orthopaedics and related research.
46
1997(338):60-73.
47
12. Buehler KC, Thompson JD, Sponseller PD, Black BE,
48
Buckley SL, Griffin PP. A prospective study of early
49
spica casting outcomes in the treatment of femoral
50
shaft fractures in children. Journal of pediatric
51
orthopedics. 1995;15(1):30-5.
52
13. Curtis JF, Killian JT, Alonso JE. Improved treatment
53
of femoral shaft fractures in children utilizing the
54
pontoon spica cast: a long-term follow-up. Journal of
55
pediatric orthopedics. 1995;15(1):36-40.
56
14. Miller ME, Bramlett KW, Kissell EU, Niemann KM.
57
Improved treatment of femoral shaft fractures in
58
children. The “pontoon” 90-90 spica cast. Clinical
59
orthopaedics and related research. 1987(219):
60
15. Rasool MN, Govender S, Naidoo KS. Treatment of
61
femoral shaft fractures in children by early spica
62
casting. S Afr Med J. 1989;76(3):96-9.
63
16. Al-Habdan I. Diaphyseal femoral fractures in children:
64
should we change the present mode of treatment? Int
65
Surg. 2004;89(4):236-9.
66
17. Krettek C, Haas N, Walker J, Tscherne H. Treatment
67
of femoral shaft fractures in children by external
68
fixation. Injury. 1991;22(4):263-6.
69
18. Aronson J, Tursky EA. External fixation of femur
70
fractures in children. Journal of pediatric orthopedics.
71
1992;12(2):157-63.
72
19. Kirschenbaum D, Albert MC, Robertson WW, Jr.,
73
Davidson RS. Complex femur fractures in children:
74
treatment with external fixation. Journal of pediatric
75
orthopedics. 1990;10(5):588-91.
76
20. Mostafa MM, Hassan MG, Gaballa MA. Treatment of
77
femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents.
78
The Journal of trauma. 2001;51(6):1182-8.
79
21. Kregor PJ, Song KM, Routt ML, Jr., Sangeorzan BJ,
80
Liddell RM, Hansen ST, Jr. Plate fixation of femoral
81
shaft fractures in multiply injured children. The
82
Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume.
83
1993;75(12):1774-80.
84
22. Beaty JH, Austin SM, Warner WC, Canale ST, Nichols
85
L. Interlocking intramedullary nailing of femoralshaft
86
fractures in adolescents: preliminary results
87
and complications. Journal of pediatric orthopedics.
88
1994;14(2):178-83.
89
23. Beaty JH. Operative treatment of femoral shaft
90
fractures in children and adolescents. Clinical
91
orthopaedics and related research. 2005(434):114-
92
24. Buford D, Jr., Christensen K, Weatherall P.
93
Intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures in
94
adolescents. Clinical orthopaedics and related
95
research. 1998(350):85-9.
96
25. Momberger N, Stevens P, Smith J, Santora S, Scott
97
S, Anderson J. Intramedullary nailing of femoral
98
fractures in adolescents. Journal of pediatric
99
orthopedics. 2000;20(4):482-4.
100
26. Galpin RD, Willis RB, Sabano N. Intramedullary nailing
101
of pediatric femoral fractures. Journal of pediatric
102
orthopedics. 1994;14(2):184-9.
103
27. Keeler KA, Dart B, Luhmann SJ, Schoenecker
104
PL, Ortman MR, Dobbs MB, et al. Antegrade
105
intramedullary nailing of pediatric femoral fractures
106
using an interlocking pediatric femoral nail and a
107
lateral trochanteric entry point. Journal of pediatric
108
orthopedics. 2009;29(4):345-51.
109
28. Lee MC. Luau Limbo and the Age for Rigid Nailing
110
of Pediatric Femoral Fractures: How Low Can
111
You Go? Commentary on an article by Samuel N.
112
Crosby Jr., MD, et al.: “Twenty-Year Experience
113
with Rigid Intramedullary Nailing of Femoral Shaft
114
Fractures in Skeletally Immature Patients”. The
115
Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume.
116
2014;96(13):e116.
117
29. Allar BG, Hedequist DJ, Miller PE, Glotzbecker
118
MP, Spencer SA, Shore BJ. Treatment outcomes
119
after insufficiency femoral diaphyseal fractures in
120
nonambulatory children. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2016.
121
30. Cosma D, Vasilescu DE. Elastic Stable Intramedullary
122
Nailing for Fractures in Children - Specific
123
Applications. Clujul Med. 2014;87(3):147-51.
124
31. Kaiser SP, Holland T, Baidoo PK, Coughlin RC, Konadu
125
P, Awariyah D, et al. An observational cohort study of
126
the adoption of elastic stable intramedullary nailing
127
for the treatment of pediatric femur fractures in
128
Kumasi, Ghana. World J Surg. 2014;38(11):2818-24.
129
32. Till H, Huttl B, Knorr P, Dietz HG. Elastic stable
130
intramedullary nailing (ESIN) provides good longterm
131
results in pediatric long-bone fractures. Eur J
132
Pediatr Surg. 2000;10(5):319-22.
133
33. Ligier JN, Metaizeau JP, Prevot J, Lascombes P. Elastic
134
stable intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft
135
fractures in children. The Journal of bone and joint
136
surgery British volume. 1988;70(1):74-7.
137
34. Heinrich SD, Drvaric DM, Darr K, MacEwen GD.
138
The operative stabilization of pediatric diaphyseal
139
femur fractures with flexible intramedullary nails: a
140
prospective analysis. Journal of pediatric orthopedics.
141
1994;14(4):501-7.
142
35. Flynn JM, Luedtke LM, Ganley TJ, Dawson J, Davidson
143
RS, Dormans JP, et al. Comparison of titanium elastic
144
nails with traction and a spica cast to treat femoral
145
fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-
146
A(4):770-7.
147
36. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-
148
Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of
149
nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J
150
Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603-5.
151
37. Altman DG, Bland JM. Standard deviations and
152
standard errors. Bmj. 2005;331(7521):903.
153
38. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials
154
revisited. Contemporary clinical trials. 2015;45(Pt
155
A):139-45.
156
39. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity
157
in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine.
158
2002;21(11):1539-58.
159
40. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG.
160
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj.
161
2003;327(7414):557-60.
162
41. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, Olkin I. Adjusting for
163
publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat
164
Med. 2003;22(13):2113-26.
165
42. Heffernan MJ, Gordon JE, Sabatini CS, Keeler KA,
166
Lehmann CL, O’Donnell JC, et al. Treatment of femur
167
fractures in young children: a multicenter comparison
168
of flexible intramedullary nails to spica casting in
169
young children aged 2 to 6 years. Journal of pediatric
170
orthopedics. 2015;35(2):126-9.
171
43. Assaghir Y. The safety of titanium elastic nailing
172
in preschool femur fractures: a retrospective
173
comparative study with spica cast. J Pediatr Orthop B.
174
2013;22(4):289-95.
175
44. Saseendar S, Menon J, Patro DK. Treatment of femoral
176
fractures in children: is titanium elastic nailing an
177
improvement over hip spica casting? J Child Orthop.
178
2010;4(3):245-51.
179
45. Shemshaki HR, Mousavi H, Salehi G, Eshaghi MA.
180
Titanium elastic nailing versus hip spica cast in
181
treatment of femoral-shaft fractures in children. J
182
Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12(1):45-8.
183
46. Soleimanpour J, Ganjpour J, Rouhani S, Goldust M.
184
Comparison of titanium elastic nails with traction
185
and spica cast in treatment of children’s femoral shaft
186
fractures. Pakistan journal of biological sciences :
187
PJBS. 2013;16(8):391-5.
188
47. Sela Y, Hershkovich O, Sher-Lurie N, Schindler
189
A, Givon U. Pediatric femoral shaft fractures:
190
treatment strategies according to age--13 years
191
of experience in one medical center. J Orthop Surg
192
Res. 2013;8:23.
193
48. Say F, Gurler D, Inkaya E, Yener K, Bulbul M.
194
Which treatment option for paediatric femoral
195
fractures in school-aged children: elastic nail or
196
spica casting? European journal of orthopaedic
197
surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie.
198
2014;24(4):593-8.
199
49. Buechsenschuetz KE, Mehlman CT, Shaw KJ, Crawford
200
AH, Immerman EB. Femoral shaft fractures in
201
children: traction and casting versus elastic stable
202
intramedullary nailing. The Journal of trauma.
203
2002;53(5):914-21.
204
50. Nascimento FP, Santili C, Akkari M, Waisberg G,
205
Braga Sdos R, Fucs PM. Flexible intramedullary
206
nails with traction versus plaster cast for treating
207
femoral shaft fractures in children: comparative
208
retrospective study. Sao Paulo Med J. 2013;131(1):
209
51. Clinkscales CM, Peterson HA. Isolated closed
210
diaphyseal fractures of the femur in children:
211
comparison of effectiveness and cost of several
212
treatment methods. Orthopedics. 1997; 20(12):
213
52. Hsu AR, Diaz HM, Penaranda NR, Cui HD, Evangelista
214
RH, Rinsky L, et al. Dynamic skeletal traction spica
215
casts for paediatric femoral fractures in a resourcelimited
216
setting. Int Orthop. 2009;33(3):765-71.
217
53. Kasser JR. Femur fractures in children. Instructional
218
course lectures. 1992;41:403-8.
219
54. Benum P, Ertresvag K, Hoiseth K. Torsion deformities
220
after traction treatment of femoral fractures
221
in children. Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.
222
1979;50(1):87-91.
223
55. Karn MA, Ragiel CA. The psychologic effects of
224
immobilization on the pediatric orthopaedic
225
patient (continuing education credit). Orthop Nurs.
226
1986;5(6):12-7.
227
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Novel Suture Button Construct for Acute Ankle Syndesmotic Injuries; A Prospective Clinical and Radiological Analysis.
Background: The importance of the syndesmosis in ankle stability is well recognized. Numerous means of fixation have been described for syndesmotic injuries including the suture button technique. Significant cost limits the use the commercially available options. We, therefore, designed a cheap and readily available alternative construct. We aim to assess the results of using a novel suture-button construct in treatment of syndesmotic ankle injuries. Methods: Fifty-two patients (34 males and 18 females) fulfilled our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Five patients were lost to follow-up. The remaining 47 patients were successfully followed up for a minimum of 24 months. The pre and post-surgery American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society scores (AOFAS) together with reported complications and post-operative radiological analysis were assessed. In this innovative construct, we utilized polyester braided surgical sutures jointly with double mini two- holed plates, a No.2 polygalactin 910 suture, a 4 mm drill bit, together with a 15 cm long suture needle with slotted end. This technique was supported with the use of the image intensifier. Results: The AOFAS score improved significantly from a mean of 32.4 to 94.2 (P˂0.004). Radiologically, the medial clear space (MCS), tibio-fibular clear space (TFCS) (P=0.05) and tibio-fibular overlap (TFO) measurements showed a significant improvement postoperatively (P=0.02). Patients reported good satisfaction rates with a 96% success rate (95% CI: 94.0% to 99.3%). Conclusion: We have observed that this low cost suture button construct is a simple, safe and cost effective treatment option for acute syndesmotic injuries. Level of evidence: IV
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10309_c9d42075a89d633a7ed236878335632d.pdf
2018-05-01
189
195
10.22038/abjs.2017.18837.1485
Suture button
Ankle
Syndesmosis
Injury
Mohamed A.
Imam
mohamed.imam@aol.com
1
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Egypt
AUTHOR
James
Holton
holton1404@gmail.com
2
Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK
LEAD_AUTHOR
Abdel
Hassan
hassanana@hotmail.com
3
Ashford and St Peters Hospital, Chertsey, UK
AUTHOR
Ahmed
Matthana
dr.ahmed-youssef@hotmail.com
4
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Egypt
AUTHOR
1. Lin CF, Gross ML, Weinhold P. Ankle syndesmosis
1
injuries: anatomy, biomechanics, mechanism of
2
injury, and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and
3
intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;
4
36(6):372–84.
5
2. Salamon A, Salamon T, Nikolic V, Radic R, Nikolic T,
6
Jo-Osvatic A. Holistic approach to functional anatomy
7
of the injured ankle joint. Coll Antropol. 2003;
8
27(2):645–51.
9
3. Schepers T. Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis
10
injury: a systematic review of suture-button versus
11
syndesmotic screw repair. Int Orthop. 2012;
12
36(6):1199–206.
13
4. Miller TL, Skalak T. Evaluation and treatment
14
recommendations for acute injuries to the ankle
15
syndesmosis without associated fracture. Sports Med.
16
2014; 44(2):179–88.
17
5. Hsu YT, Wu CC, Lee WC, Fan KF, Tseng IC, Lee PC.
18
Surgical treatment of syndesmotic diastasis: emphasis
19
on effect of syndesmotic screw on ankle function. Int
20
Orthop. 2011; 35(3):359–64.
21
6. Egol KA, Pahk B, Walsh M, Tejwani NC, Davidovitch RI,
22
Koval KJ. Outcome after unstable ankle fracture: effect
23
of syndesmotic stabilization. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;
24
24(1):7–11.
25
7. Amendola A, Williams G, Foster D. Evidence-based
26
approach to treatment of acute traumatic syndesmosis
27
(high ankle) sprains. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2006;
28
14(4):232–6.
29
8. Forsythe K, Freedman KB, Stover MD, Patwardhan AG.
30
Comparison of a novel FiberWire-button construct
31
versus metallic screw fixation in a syndesmotic injury model. Foot Ankle Int. 2008; 29(1):49–54.
32
9. Soin SP, Knight TA, Dinah AF, Mears SC, Swierstra
33
BA, Belkoff SM. Suture-button versus screw fixation
34
in a syndesmosis rupture model: a biomechanical
35
comparison. Foot Ankle Int. 2009; 30(4):346–52.
36
10. Klitzman R. Views and experiences of IRBs
37
concerning research integrity. J Law Med Ethics.
38
2011; 39(3):513–28.
39
11. Teramoto A, Suzuki D, Kamiya T, Chikenji T, Watanabe
40
K, Yamashita T. Comparison of different fixation
41
methods of the suture-button implant for tibiofibular
42
syndesmosis injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2011;
43
39(10):2226–32.
44
12. Harper MC, Keller TS. A radiographic evaluation
45
of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle. 1989;
46
10(3):156–60.
47
13. Gardner MJ, Demetrakopoulos D, Briggs SM, Helfet
48
DL, Lorich DG. Malreduction of the tibiofibular
49
syndesmosis in ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;
50
27(10):788–92.
51
14. Miller RS, Weinhold PS, Dahners LE. Comparison of
52
tricortical screw fixation versus a modified suture
53
construct for fixation of ankle syndesmosis injury:
54
a biomechanical study. J Orthop Trauma. 1999;
55
13(1):39–42.
56
15. Seitz WH Jr, Bachner EJ, Abram LJ, Postak P, Polando
57
G, Brooks DB, et al. Repair of the tibiofibular
58
syndesmosis with a flexible implant. J Orthop Trauma.
59
1991; 5(1):78–82.
60
16. Bava E, Charlton T, Thordarson D. Ankle fracture
61
syndesmosis fixation and management: the current
62
practice of orthopedic surgeons. Am J Orthop (Belle
63
Mead NJ). 2010; 39(5):242–6.
64
17. Thornes B, Shannon F, Guiney AM, Hession P,
65
Masterson E. Suture-button syndesmosis fixation:
66
accelerated rehabilitation and improved outcomes.
67
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 431(1):207–12.
68
18. Naqvi GA, Shafqat A, Awan N. Tightrope fixation
69
of ankle syndesmosis injuries: clinical outcome,
70
complications and technique modification. Injury.
71
2012; 43(6):838–42.
72
19. Schepers T. To retain or remove the syndesmotic
73
screw: a review of literature. Arch Orthop Trauma
74
Surg. 2011; 131(7):879–83.
75
20. Schepers T, Van Lieshout EM, de Vries MR, Van der
76
Elst M. Complications of syndesmotic screw removal.
77
Foot Ankle Int. 2011; 32(11):1040–4.
78
21. Degroot H, Al-Omari AA, El Ghazaly SA. Outcomes
79
of suture button repair of the distal tibiofibular
80
syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2011; 32(3):250–6.
81
22. Storey P, Gadd RJ, Blundell C, Davies MB. Complications
82
of suture button ankle syndesmosis stabilization with
83
modifications of surgical technique. Foot Ankle Int.
84
2012; 33(9):717–21.
85
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Multimodal Pain Management Protocol Versus Patient Controlled Narcotic Analgesia for Postoperative Pain Control after Shoulder Arthroplasty
Background: Our institution’s traditional pain management strategy after shoulder arthroplasty has involved the utilization of postoperative patient-controlled narcotic analgesia. More recently, we have implemented a protocol (TLC) that utilizes a multimodal approach. The purpose of this study was to determine whether this change has improved pain control and decreased narcotic utilization. Methods: Patients undergoing primary total shoulder or reverse arthroplasty were retrospectively studied. All patients underwent interscalene brachial plexus blockade. “Traditional” patients were provided a patient-controlled analgesic pump postoperatively. TLC patients were given preoperative and postoperative multimodal, non-narcotic analgesic medications and breakthrough narcotics. Morphine equivalent units (MEU) consumed and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain (0, 8, 16, and 24 hours) were considered. Results: There were 108 patients in each group. Total postoperative narcotic consumption in the first 24 postoperative hours was 38.5 +/- 81.1 MEU in the “Traditional group” compared to 59.3 +/- 59.1 MEU in the TLC group (P<0.001). Of patients in the TLC group, 88% utilized breakthrough narcotics. VAS pain was significantly higher in the “Traditional group” at 16 hours (4.1 +/- 2.9 vs 3.2 +/- 2.7, P=0.020) and 24 hours (4.8 +/- 2.7 vs 3.7 +/- 2.6, P=0.004). Conclusion: Those treated with the TLC protocol had greater narcotic utilization but better VAS pain scores at 24 hours after surgery. Both groups experienced rebound pain. While the TLC protocol led to an improved pain experience, further modification of the currently protocol may be necessary to reduce overall narcotic utilization. Level of evidence: III
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10296_ffc526b74bbae319fd5eadefe5bca8c8.pdf
2018-05-01
196
202
10.22038/abjs.2017.23831.1627
Arthroplasties
Multimodal pain management
Pain management
Pain-postoperative
Shoulder Arthroplasty
Thema
Nicholson
thema.nicholson@rothmaninstitute.com
1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute- Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
AUTHOR
Mitchell
Maltenfort
mitchell.maltenfort@rothmaninstitute.com
2
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute- Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
AUTHOR
Charles
Getz
charlie.getz@rothmaninstitute.com
3
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute- Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
AUTHOR
Mark
Lazarus
mark.lazarus@rothmaninstitute.com
4
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute- Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
AUTHOR
Gerald
Williams
5
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute- Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
AUTHOR
Surena
Namdari
surena.namdari@rothmaninstitute.com
6
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute- Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
LEAD_AUTHOR
1. Halawi MJ, Grant SA, Bolognesi MP. Multimodal
1
analgesia for total joint arthroplasty. Orthopedics.
2
2015; 38(7):e616-25.
3
2. Parvizi J, Bloomfield MR. Multimodal pain
4
management in orthopedics: implications for joint
5
arthroplasty surgery. Orthopedics. 2013; 36(2
6
Suppl):7-14.
7
3. Bohl DD, Louie PK, Shah N, Mayo BC, Ahn J, Kim TD,
8
et al. Multimodal versus patient-controlled analgesia
9
after an anterior cervical decompression and fusion.
10
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(12):994-8.
11
4. Rajpal S, Gordon DB, Pellino TA, Strayer AL, Brost
12
D, Trost GR, et al. Comparison of perioperative oral
13
multimodal analgesia versus IV PCA for spine surgery.
14
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010; 23(2):139-45.
15
5. Stempniak M. The opioid epidemic. Hosp Health Netw.
16
2016; 90(3):22-4.
17
6. Rasche S, Koch T. [Regional anaesthesia versus
18
general anaesthesia--pathophysiology and clinical
19
implications]. Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2004; 29(2):30-8.
20
7. Brown AR, Weiss R, Greenberg C, Flatow EL, Bigliani
21
LU. Interscalene block for shoulder arthroscopy:
22
comparison with general anesthesia. Arthroscopy.
23
1993; 9(3):295-300.
24
8. D’Alessio JG, Rosenblum M, Shea KP, Freitas DG. A
25
retrospective comparison of interscalene block and
26
general anesthesia for ambulatory surgery shoulder
27
arthroscopy. Reg Anesth. 1995; 20(1):62-8.
28
9. Hadzic A, Williams BA, Karaca PE, Hobeika P, Unis G,
29
Dermksian J, et al. For outpatient rotator cuff surgery,
30
nerve block anesthesia provides superior same-day
31
recovery over general anesthesia. Anesthesiology.
32
2005; 102(5):1001-7.
33
10. Wu CL, Rouse LM, Chen JM, Miller RJ. Comparison of
34
postoperative pain in patients receiving interscalene
35
block or general anesthesia for shoulder surgery.
36
Orthopedics. 2002; 25(1):45-8.
37
11. Conroy BP, Gray BC, Fischer RB, Del Campo LJ, Kenter
38
K. Interscalene block for elective shoulder surgery.
39
Orthopedics. 2003; 26(5):501-3.
40
12. Ilfeld BM, Morey TE, Wright TW, Chidgey LK, Enneking
41
FK. Continuous interscalene brachial plexus block for
42
postoperative pain control at home: a randomized,
43
double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesth
44
Analg. 2003; 96(4):1089-95.
45
13. Williams G Jr, Kraeutler MJ, Zmistowski B, Fenlin JM Jr.
46
No difference in postoperative pain after arthroscopic
47
versus open rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
48
2014; 472(9):2759-65.
49
14. Kane-Gill SL, Rubin EC, Smithburger PL, Buckley
50
MS, Dasta JF. The cost of opioid-related adverse
51
drug events. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2014;
52
28(3):282-93.
53
15. McCarthy M. US needs $1.1bn to treat opioid addiction.
54
BMJ. 2016; 352:i694.
55
16. Takada M, Fukusaki M, Terao Y, Yamashita K,
56
Takada M, Ando Y, et al. Postoperative analgesic
57
effect of preoperative intravenous flurbiprofen in
58
arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Anesth. 2009;
59
23(4):500-3.
60
17. Chechik O, Dolkart O, Mozes G, Rak O, Alhajajra F,
61
Maman E. Timing matters: NSAIDs interfere with
62
the late proliferation stage of a repaired rotator cuff
63
tendon healing in rats. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.
64
2014; 134(4):515-20.
65
18. Connizzo BK, Yannascoli SM, Tucker JJ, Caro AC,
66
Riggin CN, Mauck RL, et al. The detrimental effects
67
of systemic Ibuprofen delivery on tendon healing
68
are time-dependent. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;
69
472(8):2433-9.
70
19. Ahn S, Byun SH, Park K, Ha JL, Kwon B, Kim JC. Analgesic
71
efficacy of preemptive pregabalin administration
72
in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomized
73
controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2016; 63(3):283-9.
74
20. Cohen SM. Extended pain relief trial utilizing
75
infiltration of Exparel(®), a long-acting multivesicular
76
liposome formulation of bupivacaine: a Phase IV
77
health economic trial in adult patients undergoing
78
open colectomy. J Pain Res. 2012; 5:567-72.
79
21. Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Mallory TH, Dodds KL,
80
Adams JB. Soft tissue and intra-articular injection
81
of bupivacaine, epinephrine, and morphine has a
82
beneficial effect after total knee arthroplasty. Clin
83
Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 428:125-30.
84
22. Marcet JE, Nfonsam VN, Larach S. An extended paIn
85
relief trial utilizing the infiltration of a long-acting
86
Multivesicular liPosome foRmulation Of bupiVacaine,
87
EXPAREL (IMPROVE): a Phase IV health economic
88
trial in adult patients undergoing ileostomy reversal.
89
J Pain Res. 2013; 6:549-55.
90
23. Abdallah FW, Halpern SH, Aoyama K, Brull R. Will the
91
real benefits of single-shot interscalene block please
92
stand up? A Systematic review and meta-analysis.
93
Anesth Analg. 2015; 120(5):1114-29.
94
24. Kim CW, Kim JH, Kim DG. The factors affecting pain
95
pattern after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Clin
96
Orthop Surg. 2014; 6(4):392-400.
97
25. Cuff DJ, O’Brien KC, Pupello DR, Santoni BG. Evaluation
98
of factors affecting acute postoperative pain levels
99
after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy.
100
2016; 32(7):1231-6.
101
26. Premkumar A, Samady H, Slone H, Hash R, Karas S,
102
Xerogeanes J. Liposomal bupivacaine for pain control
103
after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a
104
prospective, double-blinded, randomized, positivecontrolled
105
trial. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44(7):1680-6.
106
27. Surdam JW, Licini DJ, Baynes NT, Arce BR. The
107
use of exparel (liposomal bupivacaine) to manage
108
postoperative pain in unilateral total knee arthroplasty
109
patients. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(2):325-9.
110
28. Vendittoli PA, Makinen P, Drolet P, Lavigne M,
111
Fallaha M, Guertin MC, et al. A multimodal analgesia
112
protocol for total knee arthroplasty. A randomized,
113
controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;
114
88(2):282-9.
115
29. Rennick A, Atkinson T, Cimino NM, Strassels SA,
116
McPherson ML, Fudin J. Variability in opioid equivalence
117
calculations. Pain Med. 2016; 17(5):892-8.
118
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy for Painful Degenerative Meniscal Tears in the Presence of Knee Osteoarthritis in Patients Older than 50 Years of Age: Predictors of an Early (1 to 5 Years) Total Knee Replacement
Background: The role of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for painful degenerative meniscal tears (PDMT) is currently controversial. To define the rate of early (1 to 5 years) conversion to total knee replacement (TKR) and their predictors after APM for PDMT in patients with knee osteoarthritis and more than 50 years of age. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients more than 50 years of age with the diagnosis of PDMT, treated by means of APM. Patients were classified in two groups: Patients that required an early (between 1 and 5 years after APM) TKR (TKR group) after its failure and patients that did not require a TKR (non-TKR group). Patient demographics, general characteristics, Kellgren & Lawrence (KL) classification, Outerbridge classification, and other characteristics were analyzed. Postoperative variables were also analyzed: pain, use of walking aids and use of intra-articular injections (hyaluronic acid or corticosteroids) at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. Results: A total of 356 patients (356 APMs) were included. Forty-nine patients (13.7%) required an early (1.8 years on average) TKR and 307 did not. The main predictor of early TKR was the grade of the KL classification. After APM, the presence of pain and the need of walking aids also were predictors of an early TKR. Conclusion: In patients older than 50 years with PDMT, APM should be cautiously indicated in case of KL grade of 1 or more. Postoperative pain and prolonged need of walking aids were also predictors of an early (mean 1.8 years) TKR. Level of evidence: IV
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10287_c6f3c84844900bb98a2b0aa11bde3651.pdf
2018-05-01
203
211
10.22038/abjs.2017.24523.1646
Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy
Degenerative meniscal tear
Failure
knee
Total knee replacement
E. Carlos
Rodriquez-Merchan
ecrmerchan@hotmail.com
1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain
LEAD_AUTHOR
Jose
Garcia-Ramos
abenjatima@hotmail.com
2
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain
AUTHOR
Norma
Padilla-Eguiluz
normapadilla@gmail.com
3
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain
AUTHOR
Enrique
Gomez-Barrena
egomezbarrena@gmail.com
4
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain.
AUTHOR
1. Alipour M, Tabari M. Effect of dexmedetomidine on
1
postoperative pain in knee arthroscopic surgery; a
2
randomized controlled clinical trial. Arch Bone Jt
3
Surg. 2014; 2(1):52.
4
2. Nahravani M, Tekye SM, Alipour M, Makhmalbaf
5
H, Aghaee MA. Analgesia following arthroscopy–a
6
comparison of intra-articular bupivacaine and/or
7
midazolam and or fentanyl. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017;
8
3. Howell R, Kumar NS, Patel N, Tom J. Degenerative
9
meniscus: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment
10
options. World J Orthop. 2014; 5(5):597-602.
11
4. Katz JN, Brophy RH, Chaisson CE, de Chaves L, Cole BJ,
12
Dahm DL, et al. Surgery versus physical therapy for a
13
meniscal tear and osteoarthritis. N Engl J Med. 2013;
14
368(18):1675-84.
15
5. Skedros JG, Knight AN, Thomas SC, Paluso AM, Bertin
16
KC. Dilemma of high rate of conversion from knee
17
arthroscopy to total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop
18
(Belle Mead NJ). 2014; 43(7):E153-8.
19
6. Thorlund JB, Juhl CB, Roos EM, Lohmander LS.
20
Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee:
21
systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and
22
harms. Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49(19):1229-35.
23
7. Bollen SR. Is arthroscopy of the knee completely
24
useless? Meta-analysis--a reviewer’s nightmare. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B(12):1591–2.
25
8. Bailey O, Gronkowski K, Leach WJ. Effect of body
26
mass index and osteoarthritis on outcomes following
27
arthroscopic meniscectomy: a prospective nationwide
28
study. Knee. 2015; 22(2):95-9.
29
9. Meniscus consensus. ESSKA. Available at: URL: www.
30
esska/org/education/projects; 2017.
31
10. Monk P, Garfjeld Roberts P, Palmer AJ, Bayliss L,
32
Mafi R, Beard D, et al. The urgent need for evidence
33
in arthroscopic meniscal surgery. Am J Sports Med.
34
2016; 45(4):965-73.
35
11. Kise NJ, Risberg MA, Stensrud S, Ranstam J,
36
Engebretsen L, Roos EM. Exercise therapy versus
37
arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for degenerative
38
meniscal tear in middle aged patients: randomised
39
controlled trial with two year follow-up. BMJ. 2016;
40
354:i3740.
41
12. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment
42
of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957; 16(4):
43
13. Outerbridge RE. The etiology of chondromalacia
44
patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1961; 43-B:752-7.
45
14. Sihvonen R, Englund M, Turkiewicz A, Järvinen TL.
46
Mechanical symptoms as an indication for knee
47
arthroscopy in patients with degenerative meniscus
48
tear: a prospective cohort study. Osteoarthritis
49
Cartilage. 2016; 24(8):1367-75.
50
15. Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ,
51
Brody BA, Kuykendall DH, et al. A controlled trial of
52
arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N
53
Engl J Med. 2002; 347(2):81-8.
54
16. Herrlin S, Hållander M, Wange P, Weidenhielm L,
55
Werner S. Arthroscopic or conservative treatment
56
of degenerative medial meniscal tears: a prospective
57
randomised trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol
58
Arthrosc. 2007; 15(4):393-401.
59
17. Kirkley A, Birmingham TB, Litchfield RB, Giffin JR,
60
Willits KR, Wong CJ, et al. A randomized trial of
61
arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N
62
Engl J Med. 2008; 359(11):1097-107.
63
18. Sihvonen R, Englund M, Turkiewicz A, Järvinen TL;
64
Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study Group.
65
Mechanical symptoms and arthroscopic partial
66
meniscectomy in patients with degenerative meniscus
67
tear: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Ann
68
Intern Med. 2016; 164(7):449-55.
69
19. Yim JH, Seon JK, Song EK, Choi JI, Kim MC, Lee KB,
70
et al. A comparative study of meniscectomy and
71
nonoperative treatment for degenerative horizontal
72
tears of the medial meniscus. Am J Sports Med. 2013;
73
41(7):1565-70.
74
20. Englund M, Roemer FW, Hayashi D, Crema MD,
75
Guermazi A. Meniscus pathology, osteoarthritis and
76
the treatment controversy. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2012;
77
8(7):412-9.
78
21. Herrlin SV, Wange PO, Lapidus G, Hållander M,
79
Werner S, Weidenhielm L. Is arthroscopic surgery
80
beneficial in treating non traumatic, degenerative
81
medial meniscal tears? A five year follow-up. Knee
82
Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013; 21(2):358-64.
83
22. Khan M, Evaniew N, Bedi A, Ayeni OR, Bhandari M.
84
Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative tears of the
85
meniscus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
86
CMAJ. 2014; 186(14):1057-64.
87
23. Petersen W, Achtnich A, Lattermann C, Kopf S. The
88
treatment of non-traumatic meniscus lesions. Dtsch
89
Arztebl Int. 2015; 112(42):705-13.
90
24. Demange MK, Gobbi RG, Camanho GL. “Fatigue
91
meniscal tears”: a description of the lesion and the
92
results of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Int
93
Orthop. 2016; 40(2):399-405.
94
25. Roemer FW, Kwoh CK, Hannon MJ, Hunter DJ, Eckstein
95
F, Grago J, et al. Partial meniscectomy is associated with
96
increased risk of incident radiographic osteoarthritis
97
and worsening cartilage damage in the following year.
98
Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(1):404-13.
99
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Results of Open Bankart Surgery for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Dislocation with Glenoid Bone Defect and Concomitant Hill-Sachs Lesion
Background: Open Bankart surgery is the main treatment procedure in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation, especially in cases with glenoid bone defect. The goal of this study was to determine the outcomes after open Bankart surgery in cases of recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with glenoid bone defects and concomitant Hill-Sachs lesions. Methods: Between 2006 and 2010, 89 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation and concomitant glenoid bone defects (10-30%) and Hill-Sachs lesions undergoing open Bankart surgery were reviewed. The mean follow-up after surgery was 7 years (5.5-9.5 years). The recurrence rate as well as the degree of shoulder pain and daily activity level was determined subjectively based on the visual analogue scale (VAS) and activity daily living scale (ADLs). Shoulder range of motion (ROM) in abduction and external rotation was compared with contralateral side; and finally, the American shoulder and elbow score (ASES) and constant-Murley score (CMS) were calculated. Results: Over 7 years of follow-up, a total of 15 patients (16.8%) undergoing surgery were found to have instability (3 patients (3.3%) with dislocation and 12 patients with (13.4%) subluxation). Patients with postsurgical instability had significantly larger glenoid bone defects (P=0.0001) and Hill-Sachs lesions (P=0.019) compared to those without instability. The mean loss of forward flexion compared with the normal contralateral side was 4º while the mean loss of external rotation between both sides was 5º. At the final visit, the average VAS was 0.4 (out of 10); ADL was 28.97 (range: 25-30); ASES was 96.1(range: 78.3-100); and the mean CMS value was 93.9(range: 82-100). Conclusion: Open Bankart surgery with anteroinferior capsular shift for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with up to 30% glenoid bone defect and Hill-Sachs lesion provided desirable results in terms of shoulder function and recurrence rate. Bankart surgery is a successful and practical option in these patients and can be considered as an alternative to other procedures. Level of evidence: IV
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10286_0b28cf261f097e1347182b6fd780fba3.pdf
2018-05-01
212
218
10.22038/abjs.2017.24636.1656
Hill-sachs lesion
Glenoid bone defect
Open Bankart surgery
Recurrent shoulder dislocation
Morteza
Nakhaie Amroodi
drmna@yahoo.com
1
Bone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shafa Orthopedic Hospital, Iran university of medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
Davod
Jafari
jafariortho@gmail.com
2
Bone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shafa Orthopedic Hospital, Iran university of medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
Ali Asghar
Kousari
dr.kousari57@gmail.com
3
Bone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shafa Orthopedic Hospital, Iran university of medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
1. Rowe CR, Patel D, Southmayd WW. The Bankart
1
procedure: a long-term end-result study. J Bone Joint
2
Surg Am. 1978; 60(1):1-16.
3
2. Lenters TR, Franta AK, Wolf FM, Leopold SS, Matsen
4
FA 3nd. Arthroscopic compared with open repairs for
5
recurrent anterior shoulder instability. A systematic
6
review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Bone
7
Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(2):244-54.
8
3. Neer CS 2nd, Foster CR. Inferior capsular shift for
9
involuntary inferior and multidirectional instability
10
of the shoulder: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint
11
Surg Am. 1980; 62(6):897-908.
12
4. Kim SH, Ha KI, Cho YB, Ryu BD, Oh I. Arthroscopic
13
anterior stabilization of the shoulder: two to sixyear
14
follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-
15
A(8):1511-8.
16
5. Aslani H, Zafarani Z, Ebrahimpour A, Salehi S, Moradi
17
A, Sabzevari S. Early clinical results of arthroscopic
18
remplissage in patients with anterior shoulder
19
instability with engaging hill-sachs lesion in Iran.
20
Arch Bone Joint Surg. 2014; 2(1):43-6.
21
6. Boileau P, Villalba M, Hery JY, Balg F, Ahrens P, Neyton
22
L. Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability
23
after arthroscopic Bankart repair. J Bone Joint Surg
24
Am. 2006; 88(8):1755-63.
25
7. Freedman KB, Smith AP, Romeo AA, Cole BJ, Bach BR
26
Jr. Open Bankart repair versus arthroscopic repair
27
with transglenoid sutures or bioabsorbable tacks for
28
recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder: a metaanalysis.
29
Am J Sports Med. 2004; 32(6):1520-7.
30
8. Bigliani LU, Newton PM, Steinmann SP, Connor PM,
31
Mcllveen SJ. Glenoid rim lesions associated with
32
recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Am J
33
Sports Med. 1998; 26(1):41-5.
34
9. Burkhart SS, De Beer JF. Traumatic glenohumeral
35
bone defects and their relationship to failure of
36
arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the
37
inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-
38
Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy. 2000; 16(7):677-94.
39
10. Hovelius L, Sandström B, Sundgren K, Saebö M.
40
One hundred eighteen Bristow-Latarjet repairs
41
for recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder
42
prospectively followed for fifteen years: study
43
I-clinical results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;
44
13(5):509-16.
45
11. Burkhart SS, De Beer JF, Barth JR, Cresswell T,
46
Roberts C, Richards DP. Results of modified Latarjet
47
reconstruction in patients with anteroinferior
48
instability and significant bone loss. Arthroscopy.
49
2007; 23(10):1033-41.
50
12. Griesser MJ, Harris JD, McCoy BW, Hussain WM, Jones
51
MH, Bishop JY, et al. Complications and re-operations
52
after Bristow-Latarjet shoulder stabilization: a
53
systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;
54
22(2):286-92.
55
13. Barchilon VS, Kotz E, Barchilon Ben-Av M. A simple
56
method for quantitative evaluation of the missing
57
area of the anterior glenoid in anterior instability
58
of the glenohumeral joint. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;
59
37(8):731-6.
60
14. Keats TE, Sistrom C. Atlas of radiologic measurement.
61
7th ed. London: Mosby Incorporated; 2001. P. 181-2.
62
15. Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ,
63
Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, et al. A standardized
64
method for the assessment of shoulder function. J
65
Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994; 3(6):347-52.
66
16. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of
67
functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop
68
Relat Res. 1987; 214(1):160-4.
69
17. Pelet S, Jolles BM, Farron A. Bankart repair for
70
recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability: results
71
at twenty-nine years’ follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow
72
Surg. 2006; 15(2):203-7.
73
18. Moroder P, Odorizzi M, Pizzinini S, Demetz E, Resch
74
H, Moroder P. Open Bankart repair for the treatment
75
of anterior shoulder instability without substantial
76
osseous Glenoid defects: results after a minimum
77
follow-up of twenty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;
78
97(17):1398-405.
79
19. Strahovnik A, Fokter SK. Long-term results after open
80
Bankart operation for anterior shoulder instability.
81
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2006; 118(Suppl 2):58-61.
82
20. Uhorchak JM, Arciero RA, Huggard D, Taylor
83
DC. Recurrent shoulder instability after open
84
reconstruction in athletes involved in collision and
85
contact sports. Am J Sports Med. 2000; 28(6):794-9.
86
21. Berendes TD, Wolterbeek R, Pilot P, Verburg H, te Slaa
87
RL. The open modified Bankart procedure: outcome
88
at follow-up of 10 to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
89
2007; 89(8):1064-8.
90
22. Magnusson L, Ejerhed L, Rostgard L, Sernert N,
91
Kartus J. Absorbable implants for open shoulder
92
stabilization. A 7-8-year clinical and radiographic
93
follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.
94
2006; 14(2):182-8.
95
23. Virk MS, Manzo RL, Cote M, Ware JK, Mazzocca AD,
96
Nissen CW, et al. Comparison of time to recurrence of
97
instability after open and arthroscopic Bankart repair
98
techniques. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016; 4(6):2325967.
99
24. Zimmermann SM, Scheyerer MJ, Farshad M,
100
Catanzaro S, Rahm S, Gerber C, et al. Long-term
101
restoration of anterior shoulder stability: a
102
retrospective analysis of arthroscopic Bankart
103
repair versus open Latarjet procedure. J Bone Joint
104
Surg Am. 2016; 98(23):1954-61.
105
25. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Moradi A, Zarei AR. Minimally
106
invasive modified latarjet procedure in patients with
107
traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Asian J Sports
108
Med. 2015; 6(1):e26838.
109
26. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A, Golhasani F,
110
Moradi A, Vahedi E, Kachooei AR. Cross-cultural
111
adaptation, validation, and reliability testing of the
112
Shoulder Pain and Disability Index in the Persian
113
population with shoulder problems. Int J Rehabil Res.
114
2015; 38(1):84-7.
115
27. Mizuno N, Denard PJ, Raiss P, Melis B, Walch G. Longterm
116
results of the Latarjet procedure for anterior
117
instability of the shoulder. J Should Elbow Surg Am.
118
2014; 23(11):1691-9.
119
28. Hovelius L, Vikerfors O, Olofsson A, Svensson O, Rahme
120
H. Bristow-Latarjet and Bankart: a comparative study
121
of shoulder stabilization in 185 shoulders during a
122
seventeen-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.
123
2011; 20(7):1095-101.
124
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
High Serum Alpha-2-Macroglobulin Level in Patients with Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head
Background: Diagnosis of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) is complicated due to the lack of reliable serum biomarkers. Up-regulation of alpha-2-macroglobulin (A2M) gene has been reported in glucocorticoid-induced ANFH rat model. This study aimed to investigate whether the serum level of alpha-2-macroglobulin (A2M) can be used for ONFH diagnosis. Methods: Serum protein capillary electrophoresis was performed on the sera of 36 ONFH patients. Also, human enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was performed to evaluate the serum levels of A2M. Results: Alpha-2 subunit level, composed of alpha-2-macroglobulin, ceruloplasmin and 2-2 haptoglobin phenotype, was increased significantly as compared to healthy subjects (P=0.0001). Moreover, ELISA assay confirmed significant elevation in the A2M (P=0.037). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that avascular necrotic femur head presumably directly or indirectly elevates A2M in the bloodstream. Thus, serum level of A2M might be used as a reliable diagnostic tool in clinical practice. Level of evidence: II
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10280_14372147a556ba2581f034a97c923ff3.pdf
2018-05-01
219
224
10.22038/abjs.2017.25310.1668
Alpha-2-macroglobulin
Avascular necrosis of femoral head
Femur
Osteonecrosis
Zari
Naderi Ghale-Noie
z.naderi1388@yahoo.com
1
Medical Genetics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran Department of Medical Genetics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Mohammad
Hassani
drmhasani57@sbmu.ac.ir
2
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Amir R.
Kachooei
3
Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Mohammad A.
Kerachian
kerachianma@mums.ac.ir
4
Department of Medical Genetics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
1. Pouya F, Kerachian MA. Avascular necrosis of the
1
femoral head: are any genes involved? Arch Bone Jt
2
Surg. 2015; 3(3):149-55.
3
2. Mazloumi SM, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Kachooei AR.
4
Evolution in diagnosis and treatment of Legg-Calve-
5
Perthes disease. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014; 2(2):86-92.
6
3. Doheny R. Avascular necrosis of femoral head. New
7
York: Surgical Technologist; 2006.
8
4. Bose VC, Baruah BD. Resurfacing arthroplasty of
9
the hip for avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a
10
minimum follow-up of four years. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
11
2010; 92(7):922-8.
12
5. Kelly DM. Congenital and developmental anomalies
13
of the hip and pelvis. In: Canale ST, Beaty JH,
14
editors. Campbell’s operative orthopaedics. 12th ed.
15
Philadelphia: Elsevier-Mosby; 2013. P. 1079-118.
16
6. Candinas R, Jakob M, Buckingham TA, Mattmann
17
H, Amann FW. Vibration, acceleration, gravitation,
18
and movement: activity controlled rate adaptive
19
pacing during treadmill exercise testing and daily
20
life activities. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997;
21
20(7):1777-86.
22
7. Bejar J, Peled E, Boss JH. Vasculature deprivation--
23
induced osteonecrosis of the rat femoral head as a
24
model for therapeutic trials. Theor Biol Med Model.
25
2005; 2(5):24.
26
8. Chen WM. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head: surgical
27
perspective. Formosan J Surg. 2011; 44(4):131-5.
28
9. Ali YM, Sarwar JM, Sarker MC, Hossain MS, Kayes
29
MN, Rahman MM, et al. Core decompression by laser
30
osteoperforation: a preliminary report of new and
31
minimally invasive modality for the treatment of
32
avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Malaysian J
33
Med Biol Res. 2014; 1(1):9-17.
34
10. Hadjigeorgiou G, Dardiotis E, Dardioti M, Karantanas
35
A, Dimitroulias A, Malizos K. Genetic association
36
studies in osteonecrosis of the femoral head: mini
37
review of the literature. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;
38
37(1):1-7.
39
11. Taheriazam A, Saeidinia A. Conversion of failed
40
hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: a shortterm
41
follow-up study. Medicine. 2017; 96(40):e8235.
42
12. Strimbu K, Tavel JA. What are biomarkers? Curr Opin
43
HIV AIDS. 2010; 5(6):463-6.
44
13. Kerachian MA, Seguin C, Harvey EJ. Glucocorticoids
45
in osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a new
46
understanding of the mechanisms of action. J Steroid
47
Biochem Mol Biol. 2009; 114(3-5):121-8.
48
14. Kerachian MA, Cournoyer D, Harvey EJ, Chow TY,
49
Begin LR, Nahal A, et al. New insights into the
50
pathogenesis of glucocorticoid-induced avascular
51
necrosis: microarray analysis of gene expression in a
52
rat model. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010; 12(3):R124.
53
15. Lafforgue P. Pathophysiology and natural history of
54
avascular necrosis of bone. Joint Bone Spine. 2006;
55
73(5):500-7.
56
16. Carli AV, Harvey EJ, Azeddine B, Gao C, Li Y, Li A, et
57
al. Substrain-specific differences in bone parameters,
58
alpha-2-macroglobulin circulating levels, and
59
osteonecrosis incidence in a rat model. J Orthop Res.
60
2017; 35(6):1183-94.
61
17. Ramadori G, Knittel T, Schwogler S, Bieber F, Rieder
62
H, Meyer zum Buschenfelde KH. Dexamethasone
63
modulates alpha 2-macroglobulin and apolipoprotein
64
E gene expression in cultured rat liver fat-storing (Ito)
65
cells. Hepatology. 1991; 14(5):875-82.
66
18. Milosavljevic TS, Petrovic MV, Cvetkovic ID, Grigorov
67
II. DNA binding activity of C/EBPbeta and C/EBPdelta
68
for the rat alpha2-macroglobulin gene promoter
69
is regulated in an acute-phase dependent manner.
70
Biochemistry. 2002; 67(8):918-26.
71
19. Soyfoo MS, Watik A, Stordeur P, Gangji V. Cryofibrinogen
72
levels are increased in non-traumatic osteonecrosis: a
73
new pathogenic clue to osteonecrosis? Rheumatology
74
(Oxford). 2013; 52(9):1694-700.
75
20. Amdo TD, Welker JA. An approach to the diagnosis
76
and treatment of cryofibrinogenemia. Am J Med.
77
2004; 116(5):332-7.
78
21. Chen Y, Zeng C, Zeng H, Zhang R, Ye Z, Xing B, et al.
79
Comparative serum proteome expression of the
80
steroid-induced femoral head osteonecrosis in adults.
81
Exp Ther Med. 2015; 9(1):77-83.
82
22. Wu RW, Wang FS, Ko JY, Wang CJ, Wu SL. Comparative
83
serum proteome expression of osteonecrosis of the
84
femoral head in adults. Bone. 2008; 43(3):561-6.
85
23. Pineiro M, Alava MA, Gonzalez-Ramon N, Osada J,
86
Lasierra P, Larrad L, et al. ITIH4 serum concentration
87
increases during acute-phase processes in human
88
patients and is up-regulated by interleukin-6 in
89
hepatocarcinoma HepG2 cells. Biochem Biophys Res
90
Commun. 1999; 263(1):224-9.
91
24. Bauer J, Strauss S, Schreiter-Gasser U, Ganter U,
92
Schlegel P, Witt I, et al. Interleukin-6 and alpha-
93
2-macroglobulin indicate an acute-phase state
94
in Alzheimer’s disease cortices. FEBS Lett. 1991;
95
285(1):111-4.
96
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Bilateral Arm-Abduction Shoulder Radiography to Determine the Involvement of the Scapulothoracic Motion in Frozen Shoulder
Background: We hypothesize that there is no difference in the motion of the scapula with respect to the thoracic wall (scapulothoracic interface) between the affected versus non-affected shoulder on 0° and 90° standard arm abduction radiography. Methods: We enrolled 30 patients with the diagnosis of unilateral frozen shoulder after ruling out of other pathologies. Bilateral standard shoulder radiography was done in two position of 0° and 90° of arm abduction. Non-affected side was used as a control group. Results: The mean scapulothoracic angle of the affected side was significantly larger than the non-affected side in both 0° and 90°of abduction in spite that the scapulohumeral angles were comparable in 0°, indicating potential alteration in scapular positioning. Conclusion: Scapulothoracic motion and position can be affected in frozen shoulder along with other areas. All treatment modalities should be applied to this area as well if substantial difference was detected between the two sides. Level of evidence: I
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10735_501cdb2f97421cc889e0c99f46855995.pdf
2018-05-01
225
232
10.22038/abjs.2018.26961.1711
Center equator distance
Frozen shoulder
Radiography
Scapulohumeral angle
Scapulothoracic
Fei
Wu
puaiwufei@hotmail.com
1
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
AUTHOR
Amir R.
Kachooei
arkachooei@gmail.com
2
Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mohammad H.
Ebrahimzadeh
ebrahimzadehmh@mums.ac.ir
3
Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Farshid
Bagheri
bagherif@mums.ac.ir
4
Shahid Kamyab Emdadi Hospital, Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Ehsan
Hakimi
ehsanhakimii@gmail.com
5
Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Babak
Shojaie
6
Traumatology , Hand and Orthopedic Surgery Department, st. Marien Medical Campus, Friesoythe, Germany
AUTHOR
Ara
Nazarian
anazaria@bidmc.harvard.edu
7
Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
AUTHOR
1. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Moradi A, Pour MK, Moghadam
1
MH, Kachooei AR. Clinical outcomes after arthroscopic
2
release for recalcitrant frozen shoulder. Arch Bone Jt
3
Surg. 2014; 2(3):220-4.
4
2. Kachooei AR, Moradi A, Janssen SJ, Ring D. The
5
influence of dominant limb involvement on DASH and
6
QuickDASH. Hand (N Y). 2015; 10(3):512-5.
7
3. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A, Golhasani F,
8
Moradi A, Vahedi E, Kachooei AR. Cross-cultural
9
adaptation, validation, and reliability testing of the
10
Shoulder Pain and Disability Index in the Persian
11
population with shoulder problems. Int J Rehabil Res.
12
2015; 38(1):84-7.
13
4. Lehtinen JT, Tetreault P, Warner JJ. Arthroscopic
14
management of painful and stiff scapulothoracic
15
articulation. Arthroscopy. 2003; 19(4):E28.
16
5. Boneti C, Arentz C, Klimberg VS. Scapulothoracic
17
bursitis as a significant cause of breast and chest wall
18
pain: underrecognized and undertreated. Ann Surg
19
Oncol. 2010; 17(Suppl 3):321-4.
20
6. Warth RJ, Spiegl UJ, Millett PJ. Scapulothoracic
21
bursitis and snapping scapula syndrome: a critical
22
review of current evidence. Am J Sports Med. 2014;
23
43(1):236-45.
24
7. Chang WH, Im SH, Ryu JA, Lee SC, Kim JS. The effects
25
of scapulothoracic bursa injections in patients with
26
scapular pain: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
27
2009; 90(2):279-84.
28
8. Conduah AH, Baker CL 3rd, Baker CL Jr. Clinical
29
management of scapulothoracic bursitis and the
30
snapping scapula. Sports Health. 2010; 2(2):147-55.
31
9. Son SA, Lee DH, Lee YO, Lee SC, Kim KJ, Cho JY. Operative
32
management in a patient with scapulothoracic
33
bursitis. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;
34
46(6):486-9.
35
10. Noguchi M, Chopp JN, Borgs SP, Dickerson CR.
36
Scapular orientation following repetitive prone
37
rowing: implications for potential subacromial
38
impingement mechanisms. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.
39
2013; 23(6):1356-61.
40
11. Celik D. Comparison of the outcomes of two different
41
exercise programs on frozen shoulder. Acta Orthop
42
Traumatol Turc. 2010; 44(4):285-92.
43
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Validation of the Persian Version of the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS) Questionnaire
Background: American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS) is a reliable and reproducible measurement tool which is commonly used for the assessment of foot and ankle conditions. In this study we aimed to translate and assess the psychometric properties of the Persian version of AOFAS questionnaire. Methods: In this study, we enrolled 53 patients with ankle and hindfoot conditions. Our study was conducted according to five staged cross-cultural adaption steps including translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, and pretesting. After that reliability of the subjective parts calculated by Cronbach’s alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the reliability of the objective items estimated using Cohen’s kappa test. Also, construct validity was assessed by testing the Persian AOFAS against the SF-36 questionnaire. Results: Chronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.696, which was considered acceptable. Furthermore, the test-retest reliability measured by using the ICC for the subjective subscales was 0.853 (P<0.001). The reliability of testing the objective subscales was calculated by using Kappa, which indicated acceptable values. Pearson correlation coefficient between AOFAS and SF-36 was 0.415 (P=0.008). In addition, floor and ceiling effects were calculated 1.9% and 7.5% respectively. Conclusion: In our study, Persian translation of AOFAS demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability with no need to be culturally adapted. Level of evidence: II
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10736_8b86d5c58ade8d49de3d274bcc727a56.pdf
2018-05-01
233
239
10.22038/abjs.2018.28241.1729
AOFAS
Persian
Translation
Validation
Sayyed-Hadi
Sayyed-Hosseinian
shhoseinian@gmail.com
1
Orthopedic Research Center, Shahid Kamyab Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Golnaz
Ghayyem Hassankhani
golnazhassankhani@gmail.com
2
Orthopedic Research Center, Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Farshid
Bagheri
ebrahimih2@mums.ac.ir
3
Orthopedic Research Center, Shahid Kamyab Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Farshid
Bagheri
bagherif@mums.ac.ir
4
Orthopedic Research Center, Shahid Kamyab Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Niloofar
Alavi
alavi.niloofar@gmail.com
5
Orthopedic Research Center, Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Babak
Shojaie
6
Traumatology, Hand and Orthopedic Surgery Department, st. Marien Medical Campus, Friesoythe, Germany
AUTHOR
Alireza
Mousavian
mousavian.alireza@gmail.com
7
Orthopedic Research Center, Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
1. Ibrahim T, Beiri A, Azzabi M, Best AJ, Taylor GJ,
1
Menon DK. Reliability and validity of the subjective
2
component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and
3
Ankle Society clinical rating scales. J Foot Ankle Surg.
4
2007; 46(2):65-74.
5
2. Kachooei AR, Badiei Z, Zandinezhad ME,
6
Ebrahimzadeh MH, Mazloumi SM, Omidi-Kashani F,
7
et al. Influencing factors on the functional level of
8
haemophilic patients assessed by FISH. Haemophilia.
9
2014; 20(2):185-9.
10
3. Mousavian A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad
11
A, Omidi-Kashani F, Kachooei AR. Translation and
12
cultural adaptation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot
13
Questionnaire (MOXFQ) into Persian language. Foot
14
(Edinb). 2015; 25(4):224-7.
15
4. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Vahedi E, Baradaran A,
16
Birjandinejad A, Seyyed-Hoseinian SH, Bagheri F, et al.
17
Psychometric properties of the Persian Version of the
18
simple shoulder test (SST) questionnaire. Arch Bone
19
Jt Surg. 2016; 4(4):387-92.
20
5. Kachooei AR, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Erfani-Sayyar
21
R, Salehi M, Salimi E, Razi S. Short Form-McGill
22
Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2): a cross-cultural
23
adaptation and validation study of the persian version
24
in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Bone Jt
25
Surg. 2015; 3(1):45-50.
26
6. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A, Golhasani F,
27
Moradi A, Vahedi E, Kachooei AR. Cross-cultural
28
adaptation, validation, and reliability testing of the
29
shoulder pain and disability index in the Persian
30
population with shoulder problems. Int J Rehabil Res.
31
2015; 38(1):84-7.
32
7. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A, Kachooei AR.
33
Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability
34
of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire
35
among Persian population. Hand Surg. 2015;
36
20(1):25-31.
37
8. Baradaran A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A,
38
Kachooei AR. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation,
39
and reliability testing of the modified oswestry
40
disability questionnaire in Persian population with
41
low back pain. Asian Spine J. 2016; 10(2):215-9.
42
9. Moradi A, Menendez ME, Kachooei AR, Isakov A,
43
Ring D. Update of the quick DASH questionnaire to
44
account for modern technology. Hand (N Y). 2016;
45
11(4):403-9.
46
10. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Moradi A, Vahedi E, Kachooei AR,
47
Birjandinejad A. Validity and reliability of the persian
48
version of shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder
49
and hand questionnaire (Quick-DASH). Int J Prev Med.
50
2015; 6(1):59.
51
11. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Kachooei AR, Vahedi E, Moradi
52
A, Mashayekhi Z, Hallaj-Moghaddam M, et al. Validity
53
and cross-cultural adaptation of the persian version
54
of the oxford elbow score. Int J Rheumatol. 2014;
55
2014(10):381237.
56
12. Kachooei AR, Moradi A, Janssen SJ, Ring D. The
57
influence of dominant limb involvement on DASH and
58
quick DASH. Hand (N Y). 2015; 10(3):512-5.
59
13. Coster MC, Rosengren BE, Bremander A, Brudin L,
60
Karlsson MK. Comparison of the self-reported foot
61
and ankle score (SEFAS) and the American Orthopedic
62
foot and ankle society score (AOFAS). Foot Ankle Int.
63
2014; 35(10):1031-6.
64
14. Kostuj T, Krummenauer F, Schaper K, Stief F, Zettersten
65
K, Baums MH, et al. Analysis of agreement between the
66
German translation of the American Foot and Ankle
67
Society’s Ankle and Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS-AHS)
68
and the Foot Function Index in its validated German
69
translation by Naal et al. (FFI-D). Arch Orthop Trauma
70
Surg. 2014; 134(9):1205-10.
71
15. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz
72
MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural
73
adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;
74
25(24):3186-91.
75
16. Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and
76
reliability testing of questionnaires used in social
77
and health science researches. Niger Postgrad Med J.
78
2015; 22(4):195-201.
79
17. Bravo G, Potvin L. Estimating the reliability of
80
continuous measures with Cronbach’s alpha or
81
the intraclass correlation coefficient: toward the
82
integration of two traditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;
83
44(4-5):381-90.
84
18. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s
85
alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011; 2(1):53-5.
86
19. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt
87
DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were
88
proposed for measurement properties of health
89
status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;
90
60(1):34-42.
91
20. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic.
92
Biochem Med. 2012; 22(3):276-82.
93
21. Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B.
94
The short form health survey (SF-36): translation and
95
validation study of the Iranian version. Qual Life Res.
96
2005; 14(3):875-82.
97
22. Rodrigues RC, Masiero D, Mizusaki JM, Imoto AM,
98
Peccin MS, Cohen M, et al. Translation, cultural
99
adaptation and validity of the” American Orthopaedic
100
Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot
101
Scale”. Acta Ortop Bras. 2008; 16(2):107-11.
102
23. Leigheb M, Janicka P, Andorno S, Marcuzzi A, Magnani
103
C, Grassi F. Italian translation, cultural adaptation and
104
validation of the “American Orthopaedic Foot and
105
Ankle Society’s (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale”. Acta
106
Biomed. 2016; 87(1):38-45.
107
24. Analay Akbaba Y, Celik D, Ogut RT. Translation, crosscultural
108
adaptation, reliability, and validity of turkish
109
version of the american orthopaedic foot and ankle
110
society ankle-hindfoot scale. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;
111
55(6):1139-42.
112
25. Vosoughi AR, Roustaei N, Mahdaviazad H. American
113
orthopaedic foot and ankle society ankle–
114
hindfoot scale: a cross-cultural adaptation and
115
validation study from Iran. Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;
116
7731(17):30044-9.
117
26. Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating
118
scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid,
119
reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int. 2004;
120
25(8):521-5.
121
27. Ceccarelli F, Calderazzi F, Pedrazzi G. Is there a
122
relation between AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score and
123
SF-36 in evaluation of Achilles ruptures treated by
124
percutaneous technique? J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014;
125
53(1):16-21.
126
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Ilizarov Stump Lenthening Can Aggravate Phantom Limb Pain – a Case Report
Ilizarov is an accepted technique for lengthening short amputation stumps to improve prosthetic function andrehabilitation. The relation of stump lengthening and phantom limb pain (PLP) has not been reported in literature.We present here a case report of a transfemoral amputee who had a flare up of PLP following stump lengthening.He responded well to a combination of pharmacological therapy and soft tissue manipulative techniques and desiredlength was achieved. This report alerts the possibility of aggravation of PLP following stump lengthening and discussesits management.Level of evidence: V
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10295_147cb3807ab7b9a4f946ee184812d4ed.pdf
2018-05-01
240
242
10.22038/abjs.2017.23903.1626
Above knee amputation
Amputee rehabilitation
Ilizarov
Phantom limb pain
Stump lengthening
Konstantin
Igorevich Novikov
kinovikov@mail.ru
1
T&O Department, Russian Ilizarov Scientific Centre for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics, M.Ulianova, Kurgan, Russia
AUTHOR
Koushik
Subramanyam
drkoushik@hotmail.com
2
Department of Orthopaedics, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Prashanthigram, Puttaparthi, Andhra Pradesh, India
LEAD_AUTHOR
Sergey V.
Kolesnikov
kolesnikov09121955@mail.ru
3
T&O Department, Russian Ilizarov Scientific Centre for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics, M.Ulianova, Kurgan, Russia
AUTHOR
Oleg K.
Chegurov
too16@rncvto.ru
4
T&O Department, Russian Ilizarov Scientific Centre for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics, M.Ulianova, Kurgan, Russia
AUTHOR
Elina S.
Kolesnikova
kolesnikova.es@mail.ru
5
T&O Department, Russian Ilizarov Scientific Centre for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics, M.Ulianova, Kurgan, Russia
AUTHOR
Abhishek V.
Mundargi
mundargidrabhi@gmail.com
6
Department of Orthopaedics, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Prashanthigram, Puttaparthi, Andhra Pradesh, India
AUTHOR
1. Brown CA, Lido C. Reflexology treatment for patients
1
with lower limb amputations and phantom limb pain-
2
-an exploratory pilot study. Complement Ther Clin
3
Pract. 2008; 14(2):124-31.
4
2. Eldrige JC, Armstrong PF, Krajbich JI. Amputation
5
stump lengthening with the Ilizarov technique. A case
6
report. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; 256:76-9.
7
3. Horesh Z, Levy M, Stein H. Lengthening of an above
8
knee amputation stump with the Ilizarov technique-
9
-a case report. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998; 69(3):326-8.
10
4. Mertens P, Lammens J. Short amputation stump
11
lengthening with Ilizarov method: risks versus
12
benefits. Acta Orthop Belg. 2001; 67(3):274-8.
13
5. Rouhani A, Mohajerzadeh S. An epidemiological and
14
etiological report on lower extremity amputation
15
in northwest of Iran. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2013;
16
1(2):103-6.
17
6. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Knee fusion or abovethe-
18
knee amputation after failed two-stage
19
reimplantation total knee arthroplasty. Arch Bone Jt
20
Surg. 2015; 3(4):241-3.
21
7. Ehde DM, Czerniecki JM, Smith DG, Campbell KM,
22
Edwards WT, Jensen MP, et al. Chronic phantom
23
sensations, phantom pain, residual limb pain, and
24
other regional pain after lower limb amputation. Arch
25
Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 81(8):1039-44.
26
8. Lenggenhager B, Arnold CA, Giummarra MJ. Phantom
27
limbs: pain, embodiment, and scientific advances in
28
integrative therapies. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci.
29
2014; 5(2):221-31.
30
9. Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH, Stewart R, van der Schans CP.
31
Phantom pain and risk factors: a multivariate analysis.
32
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002; 24(6):578-85.
33
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Simultaneous Quadruple Joint Replacement (QJR) in Disabling Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis – a Case Report with Review of Literature
We wish to present a case of 47-year-old patient with Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis and ankylosis of both hips and bothknees treated by bilateral hip and knee arthroplasty in a single anaesthesia i.e. Quadruple joint replacement in singlesitting. He was back on his feet from his bed-ridden state within the fortnight following surgery. He has been followedup for four years and has been performing his activities of daily living independently. We discuss the preoperativeplanning, surgical details and post-operative rehabilitation and unique challenges pertaining to this case.Level of evidence: IV
https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_10276_79c64f26b02d1f5c2459900a02207003.pdf
2018-05-01
243
247
10.22038/abjs.2017.25837.1683
Bilateral hip and knee arthroplasty
Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis
Simultaneous quadruple joint replacement
Rajesh
Malhotra
rmalhotra62@gmail.com
1
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India
AUTHOR
Deepak
Gautam
cmcdeepak@yahoo.com
2
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India
LEAD_AUTHOR
Bhavuk
Garg
drbhavukgarg@gmail.com
3
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India
AUTHOR
Anjan
Trikha
anjantrikha@hotmail.com
4
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India
AUTHOR
1. Mulhall KJ, Saleh KJ, Thompson CA, Severson EP,
1
Palmer DH. Results of bilateral combined hip and
2
knee arthroplasty in very young patients with
3
juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma
4
Surg. 2008; 128(3):249–54.
5
2. Jolles BM, Bogoch ER. Juvenile arthritis patients report
6
favorable subjective outcomes of hip arthroplasty
7
despite poor standard outcome scores. J Arthroplasty.
8
2012; 27(9):1622–8.
9
3. Li XA, Iyer S, Cross MB, Figgie MP. Total joint
10
replacement in adolescents: literature review and
11
case examples. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2012; 24(1):57–63.
12
4. Kilgus DJ, Amstutz HC, Wolgin MA, Dorey FJ. Joint
13
replacement for ankylosed hips. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
14
1990; 72(1):45–54.
15
5. Siavashi B, Mohseni N, Zehtab MJ, Ramim T. Clinical
16
outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in patients with
17
ankylosed hip. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014; 2(1):25-30.
18
6. Hardinge K, Williams D, Etienne A, MacKenzie D,
19
Charnley J. Conversion of fused hips to low friction
20
arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1977; 59-B(4):
21
385–92.
22
7. Strathy GM, Fitzgerald RH Jr. Total hip arthroplasty in
23
the ankylosed hip. A ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint
24
Surg Am. 1988; 70(7):963–6.
25
8. Naranja RJ Jr, Lotke PA, Pagnano MW, Hanssen AD.
26
Total knee arthroplasty in a previously ankylosed
27
or arthrodesed knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;
28
331:234–7.
29
9. Scott RD. Total hip and knee arthroplasty in juvenile
30
rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;
31
259:83–91.
32
10. Aghayev E, Beck A, Staub LP, Dietrich D, Melloh
33
M, Orljanski W, et al. Simultaneous bilateral hip
34
replacement reveals superior outcome and fewer
35
complications than two-stage procedures: a
36
prospective study including 1819 patients and 5801
37
follow-ups from a total joint replacement registry.
38
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010; 11:245-55.
39
11. Johnston LR, Clift BA, Abboud RJ. Bilateral
40
simultaneous hip replacement versus bilateral
41
sequential hip replacement. A 7-year data review.
42
Orthop Nurs. 2011; 30(2):119–23.
43
12. Pfeil J, Höhle P, Rehbein P. Bilateral endoprosthetic
44
total hip or knee arthroplasty. Dtsch Ä rztebl Int. 2011;
45
108(27):463–8.
46
13. Schwarzkopf R, Olivieri P, Jaffe WL. Simultaneous
47
bilateral total hip arthroplasty with hydroxyapatitecoated
48
implants: a 20-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty.
49
2012; 27(7):1364–9.
50
14. Malviya A, Foster HE, Avery P, Weir DJ, Deehan DJ.
51
Long term outcome following knee replacement
52
in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Knee.
53
2010; 17(5):340–4.
54
15. Pakos EE, Paschos NK, Xenakis TA. Long term
55
outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in young patients
56
under 30. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014; 2(3):157-62.
57
16. Bangjian H, Peijian T, Ju L. Bilateral synchronous total
58
hip arthroplasty for ankylosed hips. Int Orthop. 2012;
59
36(4):697–701.
60
17. Jolles BM, Bogoch ER. Quality of life after TKA for
61
patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Clin
62
Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(1):167–78.
63
18. Bhan S, Eachempati KK, Malhotra R. Primary
64
cementless total hip arthroplasty for bony ankylosis
65
in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Arthroplasty.
66
2008; 23(6):859–66.
67
19. Bhan S, Rath S. Modified posterior soft tissue release
68
for management of severe knee flexion contracture.
69
Orthopedics. 1989; 12(5):703–8.
70
20. Yoshino S, Fujimori J, Morishige T, Uchida S. Bilateral
71
joint replacement of hip and knee joints in patients
72
with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.
73
1984; 103(1):1–4.
74
21. Jergesen HE, Poss R, Sledge CB. Bilateral total hip and
75
knee replacement in adults with rheumatoid arthritis:
76
an evaluation of function. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;
77
137:120–8.
78
22. Ranawat CS, Bryan WJ, Inglis AE. Total knee
79
arthroplasty in juvenile arthritis. Arthritis Rheum.
80
1983; 26(9):1140–4.
81