APP-guided assessment of acetabular defects in hip revision arthroplasty: a structured approach to a complex situation.

INTRODUCTION: Acetabular defect recognition and classification remains a challenging field of practice for orthopedic surgeons. Recently, the Acetabular Defect Classification (ADC) has been introduced to provide a reliable, reproducible and intuitive classification system. In order to improve ease of use and efficiency of the ADC, a browser-based application has been created. We hypothesized that the ADC application can improve rating performance of non-specialists (medical students) to achieve good inter- and intra-rater agreement and will compare favorable to the results of specialists (experienced surgeons) without the help of the application. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ADC is based on the integrity of the acetabular rim and the supporting structures. It consists of four main types of defects ascending in severity. These defects are further subdivided in A-C, narrowing down defect location. 80 randomized radiographs were graded according to ADC by three non-specialists (medical students) with help of the ADC application and by three specialists (orthopedic surgeons) without help of the application to evaluate the difference in inter-rater agreement between groups. To account for intra-rater agreement, the rating process was repeated after a reasonable wash-out period. RESULTS: Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement within the non-specialist group rated lower when compared to the specialist group while still falling into the good agreement range. The student group presented with k values of 0.61 for inter-rater agreement and 0.68 for intra-rater agreement, while the surgeon group displayed k values of 0.72 for inter-rater agreement and 0.83 for intra-rater agreement. CONCLUSION: The app-guided assessment of acetabular defects offers a promising innovative approach to simplify complex situations. It makes the challenging field of acetabular revision arthroplasty more approachable especially for less experienced surgeons and offers insight and guidance in the planning stage as well as intra-operative setting.

[Obesity in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty - a Systematic Review and Legal Assessment]. / Adipositas in der Revisionsendoprothetik des Kniegelenks ­ eine systematische Literaturübersicht und rechtliche Bewertung.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the incidence of overweight and obesity has increased in the German population. Thus the number of obese patients treated with primary total joint arthroplasty has also increased. It is therefore predicted that the number of obese patients undergoing revision total joint arthroplasty will also increase. Nevertheless almost every manufacturer of commercially available revision arthroplasty implants states in his product safety guarantee that obesity is a relative or absolute contraindication. Data on revision total joint arthroplasty in obese patients are sparse. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current literature on re-revision rate, infection rate, postoperative clinical outcome, and implant survival rate in obese patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty. Moreover, potential legal consequences and aspects are discussed which are essential for the surgeon. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the online databases PubMed and identified clinical studies on obesity and overweight in revision total knee arthroplasty. Study quality was assessed using levels of evidence and the modified Jadad score. We also included descriptive data on case numbers, age, gender, height, weight and follow-up time. Current legal aspects were also analysed. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. The average Jadad score was 1, the average level of evidence 3. In two studies, infection and revision occured more often in obese patients. Patients with morbid obesity had a higher risk of wound revision and periprosthetic joint infections. Three studies showed that obese patients had significantly lower scores for clinical outcome measures in function and pain. The legal aspect was not discussed in any of the five studies. Overall, published data are sparse and very heterogeneous. Therefore comparing these five studies is difficult. However, the results of our review suggest that obesity in revision total knee arthroplasty may have a negative influence on reoperation rate, infection rate and postoperative functional outcome. From a legal point of view, potential weight limitations of the implants intented for use have to be part of the oral preoperative discussion. The patient's informed consent has to be received and documented prior to revision total joint arthroplasty.

[Burden and need for psychosocial intervention of glioblastoma patients]. / Belastung und psychosoziale Betreuungsbedürftigkeit von Glioblastompatienten.

Glioblastoma patients should be provided with a professional health care system that helps reduce their psychosocial burden. The aim of this study was to identify patients in need of psychosocial intervention. In addition, it was examined whether physicians' assessments adequately address the burden patients are under and their need for intervention. During their visit to one of two neurosurgery outpatient departments, n = 49 glioblastoma patients filled out the short version of the Hornheider questionnaire (HFK). Consulting physicians also rated their patients' burdens in a specially adapted version of the questionnaire (HFK-F). The results of the psychometric evaluation with both instruments were satisfactory. The majority of the patients (76 %) were identified as in need of psychosocial intervention. All of them were correctly categorized with the physicians' ratings. Physicians overestimated some aspects of the patients' burden, particularly in regard to their problems with relaxing and fear of living with the illness. The patients' ratings concerning the quality of the information physicians provided and their overall state of health only corresponded with the physicians' ratings in roughly half of the cases.