Is Routine Hardware Removal Following Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Tarsometatarsal Joint Fracture/Dislocation Necessary?

Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) is an accepted treatment for displaced tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) fracture dislocations. In general, hardware is routinely removed after 4 months to allow restoration of joint motion and avoid complications of hardware failure. Because few studies report outcomes of TMTJ fractures with retained hardware, there is little consensus regarding the optimal time for hardware removal or if hardware retention leads to adverse outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed the radiographic outcomes of retained hardware after ORIF of TMTJ fractures/dislocations in 61 patients. The mean age at the time of operation was 37.3 ± 14.9 years. ORIF was performed with 3.5 fully threaded cortical screws. Assessment of clinical and radiographic results was performed at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgical treatment. Out of the 61 patients that were included in this study, only 2 demographic variables demonstrated a trend for an adverse outcome. Older age correlated with lost reduction and elevated body mass index correlated with hardware failure. The presence of diabetes was correlated with an increased risk of postoperative infection but not hardware failure. During our follow-up period there were 49 patients (80.3 %) without failure of fixation. In conclusion, our study suggests that routine removal of hardware following open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc injuries in patients may not be necessary.

Modern Day Bicruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Short-Term Review of 146 Knees.

BACKGROUND: Bicruciate retaining (BCR) implants were first proposed in the 1960s with the polycentric knee. Given the technical difficulty of implanting these devices, and the mixed results at the time, the BCR concept had stalled, until recently. This study seeks to provide a short-term review of the BCR implant design, describe patient-reported outcomes, and discuss key aspects to ensure successful implantation of the modern-day BCR implant design. METHODS: Between October 2014 and December 2016, the senior author performed 146 primary total knee arthroplasties using BCR implants. Arthritic knees, with minimal soft tissue damage and an intact anterior cruciate ligament, were the general indications used for this cohort. All patients implanted with the BCR device were included in this analysis. One hundred forty-six (100%) BCR knees were available for follow-up at an average of 12 months (range, 1-33 months) postoperatively. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of respondents reported their knee always or sometime feels normal, with only 9% of respondents reporting their knee never feels normal. Our study reports 94% of patients reported neutral satisfaction or higher, with only 6% of patients reporting dissatisfaction and 1% reported being very dissatisfied. Of all 146 BCR devices implanted, there were 2 (1.4%) revisions and 1 (0.7%) reoperation, a manipulation under anesthesia. CONCLUSION: This is the largest consecutive series of BCR total knee arthroplasties using the modern-day implant design with 1-year follow-up in the United States. The results of our study show great patient-reported satisfaction, function, and short-term outcomes for patients implanted with the new BCR design.

Increasing Liner Anteversion Decreases the Interfacial Strength of Polyethylene Liners Cemented Into Titanium-Alloy Acetabular Shells.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular component positioning during revision total hip arthroplasty can be suboptimal. Cementation of an acetabular liner into a well-fixed acetabular shell can allow surgeons to correct component version and inclination without the need for extensive revision surgery and progressive pelvic bone loss. However, to date, it is unknown what degree of version can be corrected without sacrificing fixation strength of the construct. In this study, cemented liners were biomechanically evaluated at increasing degrees of liner anteversion. METHODS: Twenty-five commercially available liners were cemented into acetabular shells at 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, and 40° of liner anteversion, relative to the acetabular shell (n = 5 per group). Components were then fixed to a materials testing frame and evaluated via an established lever-out testing protocol. Test data were collected via test frame software for calculation of yield and maximum moments during biomechanical testing. RESULTS: When liners were cemented at 20°, 30°, and 40° of liner anteversion, a significant decrease in maximum fixation moment was found when compared liners cemented at both 0° and 10° (P < .05). A significant negative correlation was noted for both yield and maximum moments and increasing liner angle (r = -0.566; P = .011 and r = -0.604; P = .006, respectively). CONCLUSION: Biomechanical data from our study suggest that a threshold of acceptable anteversion during revision total hip arthroplasty is <20°. However, further studies are warranted to continue evaluation of the potential clinical impact and long-term device performance in this setting.