Simple foot an ankle value: a simple evaluation correlated to the existing PROMs.

PURPOSE: The SFAV (Simple Foot and Ankle Value) consists in asking patients how they rate their joint function on the day of the examination, as a percentage of that of a normal joint (0-100% scale with 100% being normal). The main objective was to validate the SFAV by determining its correlation with validated foot and ankle function scores. METHODS: This was a prospective study. 90 patients were included in three groups: patients 16 to 54 years old with an acute or subacute ankle pathology (foot/ankle trauma patient group), patients more than 55 years old with ankle or foot osteoarthritis (foot/ankle degeneration patient group), and adults of any age without foot or ankle pathology (control group). A self-administered questionnaire with the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society, The European Foot and Ankle Society, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, the Visual Analogic Scale, and the SFAV was given at three different timepoints (enrollment, preoperative visit, and 6-month postoperative visit) to the patients. The validity of the SFAV was investigated by determining its correlation with the existing foot and ankle PROMs using Spearman's correlation; test-retest reliability, the responsiveness to change, and the discriminative ability of the SFAV were also analyzed. The significance threshold was set at 0.05. RESULTS: The SFAV was significantly correlated with the AOFAS, EFAS, and FAOS at all tested time points, with all p values below 0.033. SFAV scoring was reliable over time, as p values resulting from the comparison between initial and preoperative SFAV were all above the significance threshold. SFAV scoring was responsive to change, based on the comparison between pre- and postoperative SFAV (p < 0.05). Like for the AOFAS, EFAS, and FAOS, SFAV provides good discrimination between a healthy subject and a patient. The control group scores and initial consultation scores of the pooled patient's groups were statistically correlated (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The SFAV is a valid outcome measure correlated with the AOFAS, EFAS, FAOS, and VAS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level of evidence III.

Is subtalar arthroereisis a good procedure in adult-acquired flatfoot? A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present systematic literature review was to determine results and complications in subtalar arthroereisis for stage-2 adult-acquired flatfoot. METHOD: A search of the PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and Embase databases used MeSH terms "arthroereisis" AND "flatfoot" OR "adult-acquired flatfoot" OR "pes planovalgus" OR "pes planus". Two of the authors analyzed 125 articles. After reading titles and Abstracts, 105 articles were read in full text and their references were analyzed. Finally, 12 articles were selected and divided into 2 groups: isolated and associated arthroereisis. RESULTS: Improvement in functional scores was greater in associated arthroereisis. Whether isolated or associated, arthroereisis achieved radiologic correction. However, the rate of complications was high, mainly concerning tarsal sinus pain. CONCLUSION: Subtalar arthroereisis for stage-2 adult-acquired flatfoot is rarely performed in isolation. When it is associated to other procedures, good radiologic and clinical results can be expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Type 1 Complex Regional Pain Syndrome After Subacromial Shoulder Surgery: Incidence and Risk Factor Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome type 1 (CRPS1) is a potential complication, affecting the prognosis of functional joint recovery. Its incidence ranges from 2 to 40% depending on the series and the joints involved. Very few studies have evaluated the incidence of CRPS after shoulder surgery. The objective of our study was to determine the incidence of CRPS1 and to identify any pre-operative risk factors associated with its emergence after extra-articular subacromial space surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective single-centre study of patients who underwent surgery for a subacromial extra-articular shoulder pathology from January 2016 to December 2016 and included a follow-up period of at least 6 months. The primary inclusion criterion was developing a CRPS1 as defined by Veldman. A pre- and post-operative clinical assessment was performed based on the Constant (Cst) score. RESULTS: Among the 287 patients, with an average follow-up period of 6.5 months, included in the study, 38 (13%) presented with post-operative CRPS1. Treated hypothyroidism (OR = 3.79; 95% CI 1.58;9.07; p = 0.003), open surgery (OR = 2.92; 95% CI 1.35-6.32; p = 0.007) and the level of daily physical activity from the Cst score (OR = 0.088; 95% CI 0.79;0.97; p = 0.015) were found to be significantly associated with the onset of CRPS1. CONCLUSION: CRPS1 affected more than 10% of patients who underwent surgery for a subacromial shoulder pathology. The current study identified hypothyroidism, open surgery, and pre-operative clinical status as risk factors for the onset of this complication. These parameters should, therefore, be taken into consideration during the patient's pre-operative consultation.

Perineural dexamethasone attenuates liposomal bupivacaine-induced delayed neural inflammation in mice in vivo.

BACKGROUND: Liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel®) is a sustained-release formulation of bupivacaine for use in surgical infiltration anaesthesia. We analysed the histological nerve toxicity and clinical effectiveness of perineural Exparel® alone or with added dexamethasone in a mouse model. METHODS: We assigned 98 mice receiving a perineural sciatic nerve injection into seven groups: sham (n=14, perineural saline), B (n=14, perineural bupivacaine), BDIP (n=14, perineural bupivacaine + intraperitoneal dexamethasone), BDPN (n=14, perineural bupivacaine + perineural dexamethasone), E (n=14, perineural Exparel®), EDIP (n=14, perineural Exparel® + intraperitoneal dexamethasone), and EDPN (n=14, perineural Exparel® + perineural dexamethasone). The duration of thermoalgesic and motor block was evaluated in 49 mice (seven mice randomly selected by group) every 30 min until recovery. Mice were killed for sciatic nerve histological assessment at 14 or 28 days. RESULTS: The median duration of motor block was 90, 120, 120, 120, 180, and 180 min and the duration of thermoalgesic block was 240, 300, 360, 360, 360, and 420 min for groups B, BDIP, BDPN, E, EDIP, and EDPN, respectively. The B group mice showed mild neural inflammation at 14 days and the E group mice showed mild neural inflammation at 28 days. Addition (intraperitoneal or perineural) of dexamethasone reduced neural inflammation induced by bupivacaine, whereas only perineural dexamethasone reduced neural inflammation induced by Exparel®. CONCLUSIONS: Perineural or systemic dexamethasone had a protective effect against the neural inflammation induced by bupivacaine, and perineural dexamethasone attenuated delayed inflammation induced by perineural Exparel®.

Causes for early and late surgical re-intervention after radial head arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to describe the reasons for surgical re-intervention after radial head arthroplasty. The secondary objective was to analyze the radiographic and clinical outcomes after surgical re-intervention at the elbow with implant conservation. METHODS: Among the 70 radial head arthroplasties with bipolar radial head implant performed between 2002 and 2014, 29 required surgical re-interventions. Reasons for surgical re-intervention were gathered from operative notes and follow-up documentation. Patients who underwent re-intervention with implant retention were reassessed via clinical and radiographic examinations by an independent reviewer. RESULTS: Twenty nine re-operations were performed at a mean follow-up of 16 ± 11.7 months (0.2-36 months). The prosthesis was removed in 18 cases and retained in 11. There was a significant difference in mean time to re-intervention between the implant removal and preservation groups, 23.1 ± 8.3 months (7-36 months) and 4.4 ± 4.7 months (0.2-13 months), respectively (p < 0.001). The primary reason for surgical re-intervention was painful loosening (13 cases). Radio-capitellar instability was the most frequent reason for re-intervention with implant retention (5 cases). Midterm quickDASH and MEPS after surgical re-intervention with implant retention were 15.4 ± 5.4 and 82.27 ± 7.3, respectively. At least one degenerative lesion was reported in nine cases (81.8%) (i.e. 5 periprosthetic osteolysis, 5 capitellar wear, 5 periarticular heterotopic ossification). CONCLUSIONS: Painful loosening and capitellar instability are the primary reasons for surgical re-intervention with or without implant removal. Midterm clinical results are favourable despite an elevated rate of degenerative lesions after surgical re-intervention with implant retention.

Historical perspective on the "discovery" of the anterolateral ligament of the knee.

There is a lively debate about the existence, origins and discoverer of the anterolateral ligament of the knee. The complex anatomy of the lateral aspect of the knee has made it difficult to differentiate between various structures such as the iliotibial band, capsulo-osseous layer, Kaplan's fibres and the anterolateral capsule. The "discovery" of a new anterolateral structure in 2013 was the culmination of many historical studies. In 1879, Paul Ferdinand Segond described a tibial plateau fracture in which he noted a pearly band reinforcing the joint capsule. Other anatomists had their suspicions about this ligament; it was described by Vallois in 1914 in his thesis and extensively studied by Jost in 1921. References to it can be found in comparative anatomy studies. This historical review serves as a reminder that understanding and treating knee sprains is not something new. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Complications and revisions after semi-constrained total elbow arthroplasty: a mono-centre analysis of one hundred cases.

BACKGROUND: The complication rate after total elbow arthroplasties is higher than for other arthroplasties. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the complications and revision rate after 100 semi-constrained total elbow arthroplasties from various types of aetiologies performed in our university hospital. METHODS: One hundred linked semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasties were performed and were reviewed with 24-months minimum follow-up. Indications were rheumatoid arthritis (45), trauma (33), revisions (16) and others (6). RESULTS: At five years average follow-up (range, 2-11), the complication rate was 37 %. Most frequent complications were ulnar nerve involvement (9 %) and triceps insufficiency (7 %). Five implants were aseptically loosed. The infection rate was 4 % with loosening of the implant in two. Four fractures were observed, including three at the ulna and one at the humerus proximal or distal to the stem. The radial nerve was injured in two cases. Failure of the locking system of the prosthesis was noted in one case and a fracture of the ulnar component was found in another patient. A revision surgery was performed in 13 cases (13 %). At follow-up 94 prostheses were still in place and the survival rate was 98 % at five years and 86 % at ten years. CONCLUSION: Total elbow arthroplasty remains a difficult procedure with sometimes a high rate of complications necessitating revision procedures. Selection of the patients, a rigorous surgical technique, and a systematic follow-up are prerequisite to limit this incidence. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Reproducibility of radiographic assessment of femoral implant position after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a pilot study.

To determine whether femoral implant position can be reproducibly measured on plain digital radiographs, we prospectively studied 40 patients after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Three observers performed double blinded randomized analysis of calibrated digital radiographs meeting strict quality criteria. The implant stem-shaft angle and femoral anteversion angle were measured by the trapezoid method of axis determination using OsiriX software. The upper and lower offset and the anterior and posterior offset were measured. The statistical analysis was performed using Pearson correlation tests (intra-observer reproducibility) and Fisher F tests (inter-observer reproducibility). Intra-observer reproducibility was very good for all parameters and all observers. Inter-observer reproducibility was excellent except for superior offset measurement. Thus, this study validates a radiographic method for assessing the femoral implant position in hip resurfacing. We believe this could be useful for future studies on hip resurfacing devices.

Radiological validation of a fluoroscopic guided technique for femoral implant positioning during hip resurfacing.

PURPOSE: The positioning of the femoral cup in hip resurfacing is essential for the survival of the implant. We described a technique in 2005 to position the femoral cup guided by fluoroscopy independent of the approach performed. The main objectives were to study the positioning of the femoral components of the implant and the accuracy of the technique. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2011 we conducted a prospective study of 160 consecutive hip resurfacings all operated with this fluoroscopic-guided technique. Three independent observers performed a radiographic analysis at the pre-operative planning stage and on postoperative radiographs using OsiriX software. The statistical analysis was based on comparison of two groups by Student's t test. RESULTS: The entire implant was positioned in valgus, with an average of 7.816° valgus (p <0.001). All implants were positioned in neutral or anteverted with a mean of 1.98° (p <0.001). The risk of malpositioning on the antero-posterior plane was less than 1.41° with p <0.019. The risk of profile positioning error was lower than 0.80° with p <0.047. CONCLUSION: This study validates a technique of femoral implant positioning for resurfacing. It is simple, precise and independent of the approach performed.