Decreased Synovial Fluid Ghrelin Level Is Associated With Acute Cartilage Injury in Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear.

Background: Ghrelin, an amino acid hormone secreted primarily from the stomach, can regulate bone metabolism, regulate inflammation via suppressing proinflammatory cytokines, and suppress expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). Purpose: To measure synovial fluid levels of ghrelin in young patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear to assess the role of ghrelin as a potential biomarker for cartilage injury. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: This study included 120 patients who underwent ACL reconstructionbetween January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021. We categorized 60 patients with acute cartilage injury (International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society grade 2 or 3) as the acute group and 60 patients with no acute cartilage injury as the nonacute group, with the healthy contralateral knee of each patient acting as the control group (n = 120). Synovial fluid samples were collected from the knees in the operating room before ACL reconstruction. We assessed the inflammatory biomarkers interleukin (IL)-6, MMP-1, MMP-9, and MMP-13, as well as serum ghrelin level and Mankin score, and results were compared between the 3 study groups with the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Lower serum ghrelin levels in the synovial fluid were found in the acute group compared with the nonacute group and healthy controls (232.4 vs 434.4 vs 421.5 pg/mL, respectively; P < .001). Ghrelin level in the synovial fluid was significantly and positively correlated with IL-6 (r = 0.4223; P < .0001), MMP-13 (r = 0.3402; P < .0001), and Mankin score (r = 0.1453; P = .0244). Conclusion: In patients with ACL injury, ghrelin synovial fluid was significantly differently expressed in patients with cartilage injury and no cartilage injury. Clinical Relevance: Ghrelin synovial fluid has the potential to be a biomarker to predict acute cartilage injury in patients with ACL injury.

Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been more and more favored by spinal surgeons because of its advantages of low trauma, rapid recovery, high fusion rate and fewer complications. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effects of ULIF with those of conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case control study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Twenty-seven patients treated by ULIF and thirty-three patients treated by PLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES: The preoperative baseline and surgical technique-related outcomes (mean operation time, blood loss during operation, postoperative drainage, and postoperative hospital stay) were compared between the two groups. The clinical status of the two groups before and after surgery were also compared: visual analogue scale (VAS) score of the legs and back, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The clinical laboratory indexes of the two groups before and after the operation were compared: C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), creatine phosphokinase (CPK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), as well as the incidence of complications, such as dural tear, nerve root injury and infection. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent L3-S1 single level lumbar interbody fusion were included in the study. They were divided into a PLIF group and a ULIF group according to the type of surgery. This study comprised 60 cases: 27 cases in the ULIF group and thirty-three cases in the PLIF group. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in preoperative baseline between the two groups. The ULIF group experienced less blood loss, postoperative drainage and a shorter postoperative hospital stay than the PLIF group; however the ULIF group required a longer operation time than the PLIF group (p<.05). CRP, ESR, CPK, IL-6, and TNF-α levels of the PLIF group were all significantly higher than those of the ULIF group 5 days after surgery (p<.05). The improvements in the VAS scores for back pain, VAS scores for leg pain and JOA score in the ULIF group were all significantly better than those in the PLIF group at 5 days after surgery (p<.05). There was no significant difference in fusion rate at 6 months between the 2 groups (p>.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ULIF and PLIF were both effective surgical techniques for lumbar interbody fusion. However, ULIF caused less bleeding, reduced inflammatory reaction, less tissue damage and faster postoperative recovery compared with PLIF. Both long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to validate the clinical and radiological results of this surgery.

Treatment of lower part of glenoid fractures through a novel axillary approach: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Based on the location and size of the fracture block, open reduction and internal fixation can be employed or assisted for shoulder arthroscopy in the treatment of glenoid fractures. However, the treatment of lower part of glenoid fractures through a novel axillary approach has not been reported so far. CASE SUMMARY: A 22-year-old right-handed man was transferred to our outpatient clinic because of right shoulder injury during a traffic accident. X-ray examination after admission suggested the fracture of the lower part of the right glenoid and an ipiselial proximal humeral fracture. Three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) further suggested that the size of the fracture block of the lower part of the right glenoid was 3.4 mm × 16.2 mm. The patient was diagnosed as the fracture of the lower part of the glenoid, also known as bony Bankart lesion without shoulder dislocation. After general anesthesia, the patient was surgically treated with the open reduction internal fixation through a novel axillary approach. 3D CT and shoulder joint function were reexamined at 12 mo of follow-up, showing acceptable recovery. CONCLUSION: This case report describes a novel axillary approach adopted in an open reduction with cannulated screw and wire anchor internal fixation. After a follow-up for more than 12 mo, 3D CT and shoulder joint function examinations display a good recovery.