Botulinum toxin injections as salvage therapy is beneficial for management of patellofemoral pain syndrome.

PURPOSE: Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a common pathology usually presenting with anterior or retropatellar pain. It is associated with a relative imbalance between the vastus medialis oblique (VMO) and the vastus lateralis (VL) muscles. This can lead to considerable morbidity and reduced quality of life (QOL). This study aims to assess the long-term functional outcome of PFPS treated with VL muscle botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) injection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 26 consecutive patients (31 knees) with a mean age of 50.1 years (± 19.7 years) who were treated with BoNT-A injections to the VL muscle followed by physiotherapy between 2008 and 2015. Pre- and post-treatment pain levels (numerical rating scale, NRS), QOL (SF-6D), and functional scores (Kujala and Lysholm questionnaires) were measured. Demographics, physical therapy compliance, previous surgeries, perioperative complications, and patient satisfaction levels were collected. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 58.8 ± 36.4 months. There were significant improvements in all the examined domains. The average pain score (NRS) decreased from 7.6 to 3.2 (P < 0.01), and the Kujala, Lysholm, and SF-6D scores improved from 58.9 to 82.7 (P < 0.001), 56.2 to 83.2 (P < 0.001), and 0.6 to 0.8 (P < 0.001), respectively. Similar delta improvement was achieved irrespective of gender, age, compliance to post-treatment physical therapy, or coexisting osteoarthritis. Patients who presented with a worse pre-treatment clinical status achieved greater improvement. Prior to BoNT-A intervention, 16 patients (18 knees) were scheduled for surgery, of whom 12 (75%, 13 knees) did not require further surgical intervention at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A single intervention of BoNT-A injections to the VL muscle combined with physiotherapy is beneficial for the treatment of patients with persistent PFPS. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study.

Proximal humeral nail for treatment of 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures in the elderly population: effective and safe in experienced hands.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment of 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) remains controversial. Although commonly recommended for less comminuted PHFs, the outcomes of treatment with proximal humerus nailing (PHN) are more equivocal. The purpose of this study was to report on radiographic and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PHN fixation of 3- and 4-part PHFs at minimum one-year follow-up. Our hypothesis was that the findings would demonstrate satisfactory radiographic and clinical outcomes, with low rates of complications and revision surgeries. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2016, 121 patients with comminuted, low-energy, osteoporotic, PHFs underwent fixation via Targon PHN (Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany). Of these, 60 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in this analysis (mean age 72; range 65-85). All completed a minimum 1-year follow-up (range 12.5-82 months). Patients with 3-part PHFs were compared to patients with 4-part PHFs. Clinical, radiographic, and functional outcomes were assessed at postoperative visits. Patient reported outcomes included pain, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Radiographic union and revision and complication rates were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 37 (62%) fractures were classified as Neer 3 and 23 (38%) were classified as Neer 4. Both groups achieved similar postoperative range of motion. Patients with 3-part fractures reported significantly lower postoperative pain (0.76 ± 1.8 vs. 1.65 ± 2.2, p = 0.0047). Patients with 3-part fractures reported significantly better ASES scores (82.4 ± 19.2 vs. 70.8 ± 21.9, p = 0.02) and non-statistically significant higher SST scores (8.4 ± 3.2 vs. 7.43 ± 3.8, p = 0.14). Adequate fracture union was achieved in 53 fractures (88.3%). Three patients (5%) had varus malunion or greater tuberosity displacement, one (1.7%) had mechanical failure, and three (5%) had radiographic evidence of avascular necrosis. Between groups, there was no difference in failure rates. CONCLUSION: Proximal humeral nails can successfully be used by experienced surgeons in fixation of comminuted and displaced proximal humeral fractures in selected patients with osteoporosis. While patients with both 3- and 4-part fractures demonstrate fracture union with satisfactory outcomes, patients with 3-part fractures demonstrate significantly higher postoperative functional scores.

Selective Component Retainment in the Treatment of Chronic Periprosthetic Infection After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic infections after a total hip arthroplasty (THA) are a devastating complication and are usually treated by a complete revision of components. Selective revision, with preservation of well-fixed components, has been previously reported. We did a systematic review to report on success rates of selective revision in chronic infections after THA. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database were systematically searched for studies reporting on partial-retaining revision for chronically infected THA. These were reviewed to determine success rates based on component revised, as well as infectious organism. RESULTS: Nine studies reported on 134 patients. The majority of the patients underwent femoral-retaining procedures (118), and the rest of the patients underwent acetabular-retaining procedures (16). Average follow-up was 60.56 months, and the success rates were 80% for femoral revision, 90.43% for acetabular revision, and overall success rate was 89.41%. DISCUSSION: In select patients, retainment of well-fixed components in chronically infected THA may be considered. Although reported success rates are high, and comparable with complete revision arthroplasty in cases of chronic infections, the quality of the studies included is poor. The studies lacked sufficient internal validity, sample size, methodological consistency, and standardization of protocols and outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of level IV studies.