Acromioclavicular joint dislocation Rockwood type III and V show no difference in functional outcome and 91% recovered well without the need for surgery.

PURPOSE: Acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations are common injuries, but the indication for and timing of surgery is debated. The objective of the study was to evaluate the results after acute AC joint dislocations Rockwood type III and V treated nonsurgically with the option of delayed surgical intervention. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study with clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcome assessment at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after acute AC joint dislocation. Patients aged 18-60 with acute AC joint dislocation and a baseline panorama (Zanca) radiograph with an increase in the coracoclavicular distance of >25% compared to the uninjured side were eligible for inclusion. All patients were treated nonsurgically with 3 months of home-based training and with the option of delayed surgical intervention. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Secondary outcomes were surgery yes/no and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included. Fifty-seven patients were Rockwood type III and 38 patients were type V. There were no statistically significant differences in WOSI and SPADI between patients with type III and V injuries at any time point. Nine patients (9.5%) were referred for surgery; seven type III and two type V (ns). CONCLUSION: Ninety-one percent of patients with acute AC joint dislocation Rockwood type III and V recovered without surgery and there were no differences in outcome scores between type III and V at any time point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Are There Differences in Micromotion on Radiostereometric Analysis Between Bicruciate and Cruciate-retaining Designs in TKA? A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Bicruciate-retaining TKA has been proposed to improve clinical outcomes by maintaining intrinsic ACL function. However, because the unique design of the bicruciate-retaining tibial component precludes a tibial stem, fixation may be compromised. A radiostereometric analysis permits an evaluation of early migration of tibial components in this setting, but to our knowledge, no such analysis has been performed. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a randomized controlled trial using a radiostereometric analysis and asked, at 2 years: (1) Is there a difference in tibial implant migration between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? In a secondary analysis, we asked: (2) Is there a difference in patient-reported outcomes (Oxford Knee Score [OKS] and Forgotten Joint Score [FJS] between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? (3) What is the frequency of reoperations and revisions for the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? METHODS: This parallel-group trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01966848) randomized 50 patients with an intact ACL who were eligible to undergo TKA to receive either a bicruciate-retaining or cruciate-retaining TKA. Patients were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the tibial component measured with model-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) at 2 years postoperatively. The MTPM is a translation vector defined as the point in the RSA model that has the greatest combined translation in x-, y- and z-directions. A 1-year postoperative mean MTPM value of 1.6 mm has been suggested as a threshold for unacceptable increased risk of aseptic loosening after both 5 and 10 years. The repeatability of the MTPM was found to be 0.26 mm in our study. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively with the OKS (scale of 0-48, worst-best) and FJS (scale of 0-100, worst-best). Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. At 2 years postoperatively, RSA images were available for 22 patients who underwent bicruciate-retaining and 23 patients who underwent cruciate-retaining TKA, while patient-reported outcome measures were available for 24 patients in each group. The study was powered to detect a 0.2-mm difference in MTPM between groups (SD = 0.2, significance level = 5%, power = 80%). RESULTS: With the numbers available, we found no difference in MTPM between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining groups. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) MTPM was 0.52 mm (0.35 to 1.02) and 0.42 mm (0.34 to 0.70) in the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining groups, respectively (p = 0.63). There was no difference in the magnitude of improvement in the OKS from preoperatively to 2 years postoperative between the groups (median delta [IQR] for bicruciate-retaining 18 [14 to 23] versus cruciate-retaining 18 [15 to 21], difference of medians 0; p = 0.96). Likewise, there was no difference in the magnitude of improvement in the FJS score from preoperatively to 2 years postoperative between the groups (mean ± SD for bicruciate-retaining 46 ± 32 versus cruciate-retaining 48 ± 16, mean difference, 2; p = 0.80). Three patients in the bicruciate-retaining group underwent arthroscopically assisted manipulation at 3 to 4 months postoperatively, and one patient in the bicruciate-retaining group sustained a tibial island fracture during primary surgery and underwent a revision procedure after 6 months. There were no reoperations or revisions in the cruciate-retaining group. CONCLUSIONS: With the numbers available, we found no differences between the bicruciate-retaining and the cruciate-retaining implants in terms of stable fixation on RSA or patient-reported outcome measure scores at 2 years, and must therefore recommend against the routine clinical use of the bicruciate-retaining device. The complications we observed with the bicruciate-retaining device suggest it has an associated learning curve and the associated risks of novelty with no demonstrable benefit to the patient; it is also likely to be more expensive in most centers. Continued research on this implant should only be performed in the context of controlled trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Sensitivity and specificity of post-operative interference gap assessment on plain radiographs after cementless primary THA.

INTRODUCTION: Implant performance of cementless THA is often evaluated by radiolucency on plain radiographs, often classified as interference gaps on direct post-operative radiographs. However, the diagnostic performance is unknown. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiographic assessment of post-operative gaps after primary THA by comparing it with CT confirmed gaps, and secondary to define optimal cut-off criteria for assessing gaps on plain radiographs compared with CT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients (N = 40) with a primary cementless THA performed between July 2015 and March 2016 were enrolled in the study. Radiolucency was assessed on post-operative AP pelvic digital radiographs by two observers independently. Maximum width and percentage of coverage per zone were reported. Gap volume was measured by manual segmentation on CT images. RESULTS: When defining a gap as a radiolucency extending through >50% of a zone, the interrater agreement Kappa was 0.241. Sensitivity was 65.8% for observer 1 (Kappa = 0.432), and 86.8% for observer 2 (Kappa = 0.383). When defining a gap as a radiolucency with a width >1 mm, the interrater agreement Kappa was 0.302. Sensitivity was 55.3% and 50% for observer 1 and observer 2, respectively. The ROC-curve resulted in an optimal threshold of 0.65 mm (AUROC = 0.888) and 0.31 mm (AUROC = 0.961) for the two observers. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of observers detecting interference gaps on radiographs showed low sensitivity. Further on, the inter-rater agreement is too low to do a general recommendation about thresholds for defining gaps. Evaluating progression of radiolucency on radiographs should be performed in the light of these findings.