Value of arthroscopy in the management of acute lesions of the distal tibiofibular joint.

PURPOSE: Managing the distal tibiofibular (DTF) joint remains a challenge despite recent developments. Ankle arthroscopy is emerging as a diagnostic and therapeutic means. Our study aimed to compare preoperative imaging data and arthroscopic data, with the hypothesis that imaging alone is insufficient to evaluate acute laxity, and with arthroscopy as the reference examination. METHODS: All patients treated in 2023 in our department for an acute isolated DTF lesion were included prospectively. Preoperative radiographic and MRI imaging were compared with arthroscopic data. RESULTS: Ten patients were treated. For five patients, the instability was doubtful after carrying out an appropriate imaging assessment (X-rays of both ankles, MRI). For four of these five patients, instability was confirmed by arthroscopy. Arthroscopy was useful for suturing the anterior bundle of the DTF joint for two patients and allowed for verifying the reduction in the sagittal and coronal planes for two patients. No complications were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopy in isolated acute DTF lesions seems to provide a diagnostic and therapeutic advantage. Its use may allow for exhaustive assessment and complete repair of lesions. It must be offered as soon as possible; a delay in specialized imaging may delay therapeutic care.

Surgical Management of Unstable U-Shaped Sacral Fractures and Tile C Pelvic Ring Disruptions: Institutional Experience in Light of a Narrative Literature Review.

Unstable U-shaped sacral fractures and vertical shear Tile C pelvic ring disruptions are characterized by rare lesions occurring in patients with severe trauma. Because the initial damage-control resuscitation primarily aims to stop life-threatening bleeding, emergency treatment often includes an anterior external pelvic fixator. Delayed surgery is mandatory to allow early mobilization, reduce mortality, and improve functional outcomes. Regarding U-shaped sacral fractures, although Roy-Camille type 1 U-shaped sacral fractures can be treated with iliosacral screws, types 2 (posteriorly displaced, equivalent to AO Spine C3) and 3 (anteriorly displaced, equivalent to AO Spine C3) fractures require spinopelvic triangular fixation. Besides, proper reduction of type 2 and some type 3 sacral fractures is mandatory to prevent wound complications. In patients with neurological deficits, the need for sacral laminectomy is left at the discretion of the surgeon, given the indirect decompression already obtained with fracture reduction. Tile C pelvic disruptions with posterior ring injury located lateral to the sacral foramen can be treated with either iliosacral screws or triangular spinopelvic fixation, combined with anterior pelvic fixation. Conversely, Tile C pelvic disruptions with posterior ring injury located at, or medial, to the sacral foramen (Denis zone II or III) induce vertical lumbosacral instability and thus require spinopelvic triangular fixation with anterior pelvic osteosynthesis. Although minimally invasive techniques have been developed, open surgeries are still required for inexperienced operators and in case of major displacement. The complication rate reaches approximately 33.33% of the cases, and complications include hardware malposition, wound infection or dehiscence, hardware prominence, and sometimes hardware failure.

Revision hip arthroplasty dislocation risk calculator: when to select dual mobility, large heads, constrained liners, or a standard head size? Testing one hundred thousand hip revisions with artificial intelligence.

PURPOSE: Preventing dislocation with large head (≥ 36 mm), dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner is another option than a standard (≤ 32 mm). Many other dislocations risk factors than size of the femoral head exist after hip arthroplasty revision. Predicting dislocation with a calculator according to the implant, to the indication of revision, and to patient's risks could allow a better surgery decision. METHODS: Our search method covers the period from 2000 to 2022. A total of 470 relevant citations on hip major revision (cup or stem or both revisions) were identified with artificial intelligence comprising 235 publications of 54,742 standard heads comprising 142 publications of 35,270 large heads, comprising 41 publications of 3945 constrained acetabular components, and 52 publications of 10,424 dual mobility implants. We considered four implant types (standard, large head, dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner) as the entry layer of the artificial neural network (ANN). Indication for revision THA was the second hidden layer. Demographics, spine surgery, and neurologic disease were the third layer. Implant revision, reconstruction process as next input (hidden layer). Surgery-related factors, and so on. The output was a postoperative dislocation or not. RESULTS: Of the 104,381 hips that underwent a major revision, a second revision for dislocation was performed for 9234 hips. In each implant group, dislocation remained the first cause of revision. The rate of second revision for dislocation as a percentage of first revision procedures was significantly higher in the standard head group (11.8%) than in the constrained acetabular liner group (4.5%), the dual mobility group (4.1%), and the large head group (6.1%). Instability of a previous THA, infection, or periprosthetic fracture as the indication for revision was increased risk factors as compared with aseptic loosening. One hundred variables were used to create the calculator with the best parameter combination of data and ranking the different factors, according to the four implant types (standard, large head, dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner). CONCLUSION: The calculator can be used as a tool to identify patients at risk for dislocation after hip arthroplasty revision and individualize recommendations to select another option than a standard head size.

Emergency Cranial Surgeries Without the Support of a Neurosurgeon: Experience of the French Military Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: Unlike orthopedic or visceral surgeons, French military neurosurgeons are not permanently deployed on the conflict zone. Thus, craniocerebral war casualties are often managed by general surgeons in the mobile field surgical team. The objective of the study was to provide the feedback of French military surgeons who operated on craniocerebral injuries during their deployment in a role 2 surgical hospital without a neurosurgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted by phone in March 2020, involving every military surgeon currently working in the French Military Training Hospitals, with an experience of cranial surgery without the support of a neurosurgeon during deployment. We strived to obtain contextual, clinical, radiological, and surgical data. RESULTS: A total of 33 cranial procedures involving 64 surgeons were reported from 1993 to 2018. A preoperative CT scan was not available in 18 patients (55%). Half of the procedures consisted in debridement of craniocerebral wounds (52%, n = 17), followed by decompressive craniectomies (30%, n = 10), craniotomy with hematoma evacuation (15%, n = 5), and finally one (3%) surgery with exploratory burr holes were performed. The 30-day survival rate was 52% (n = 17) and 50% (n = 10/20) among the patients who sustained severe traumatic brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates the feasibility and the plus-value of a neurosurgical damage control procedure performed on the field by a surgeon nonspecialized in cranial surgery. The stereotyped neurosurgical techniques used by the in-theater surgeon were learned during a specific predeployment training course. However, the use of a live telemedicine neurosurgical support seems indispensable and could benefit the general surgeon in strained resources setting.