A prospective outcome and cost-effectiveness comparison between two ligament reattachment techniques using suture anchors for chronic ankle instability.

BACKGROUND: There are various ligament reattachment techniques for the modified Brostrom procedure. There have been few comparative studies on recently developed techniques. This prospective study was performed to compare the functional outcomes of 2 different ligament reattachment techniques using suture anchors. We furthermore evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the suture bridge technique. METHODS: Forty-five amateur athletes under 30 years of age were followed for more than 2 years. Twenty-four procedures with the suture anchor technique and 21 procedures with the suture bridge technique were performed by one surgeon. The functional evaluation consisted of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Karlsson score, Sefton grading system, and the period to return to various forms of exercise (jogging, spurt running, jumping, one leg standing for >1 minute, walking on uneven ground, and going down stairs). Measurement of talar tilt angle and anterior talar translation was obtained from stress radiographs to evaluate mechanical stability. RESULTS: There were no significant differences on AOFAS score, FAOS, Karlsson score, Sefton grade, and stress radiographs. There were no significant differences on the return to exercises, except for jumping. As the most common complication, there were 3 cases of skin irritation by suture materials in the suture anchor group and 2 cases of intraoperative breakage of the suture anchor in suture bridge group. CONCLUSIONS: Both ligament reattachment techniques using suture anchors showed similar functional outcomes. Considering the additional medical expenses incurred by more suture anchors, the modified Brostrom procedure using the suture bridge technique had low cost-effectiveness. Proper indication and clinical usefulness of suture bridge technique for chronic ankle instability will be addressed in further studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: prospective comparative study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of low-dose and standard-dose computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of ureteral stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Unenhanced helical CT was performed with both a standard dose (260 mAs, pitch 1.5) and a low dose (50 mAs, pitch 1.5) in 121 patients suspected of having acute renal colic. The two studies were prospectively and independently interpreted for the presence and location of ureteral stones, abnormalities unrelated to stone disease, identification of secondary signs, i.e. hydronephrosis and perinephric stranding, and tissue rim sign. The standard-dose CT images were interpreted by one reviewer and the low-dose CT images independently by two reviewers unaware of the standard-dose CT findings. The findings of the standard and low-dose CT scans were compared with the exact McNemar test. Interobserver agreements were assessed with kappa analysis. The effective radiation doses resulting from two different protocols were calculated by means of commercially available software to which the Monte-Carlo phantom model was given. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of standard-dose CT for detecting ureteral stones were 99%, 93%, and 98%, respectively, whereas for the two reviewers the sensitivity of low-dose CT was 93% and 95%, specificity 86%, and accuracy 92% and 94%. We found no significant differences between standard-dose and low-dose CT in the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing ureter stones (P >0.05 for both). However, the sensitivity of low-dose CT for detection of 19 stones less than or equal to 2 mm in diameter was 79% and 68%, respectively, for the two reviewers. Low-dose CT was comparable to standard-dose CT in visualizing hydronephrosis and the tissue rim sign. Perinephric stranding was far less clear on low-dose CT. Low-dose CT had the same diagnostic performance as standard-dose CT in diagnosing alternative diseases. Interobserver agreement between the two low-dose CT reviewers in the diagnosis of ureter stones and alternative diseases, the identification of secondary signs, and tissue rim sign were high, with kappa values ranging from 0.769 to 0.968. On standard-dose CT scans, the calculated mean effective radiation dose was 7.30 mSv for males and 10.00 mSv for females. On low-dose CT scans, the calculated mean effective radiation dose was 1.40 mSv for males and 1.97 mSv for females. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard scans using 260 mAs, low-dose unenhanced helical CT using a reduced tube current of 50 mAs results in a concomitant decrease in the radiation dose of 81%. Although low-dose CT was limited in its ability to depict small-sized calculi less than or equal to 2 mm, it is still comparable to standard-dose CT for the diagnosis of ureter stones and alternative disease.