Does Approach Matter in Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Comparison of Early Reoperations Between Direct Anterior and Postero-Lateral Approach.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on whether direct anterior approach (DAA) or postero-lateral approach (PLA) total hip arthroplasty (THA) confers a lower risk of postoperative complications. Robotic assistance in THA results in a more consistently accurate component position compared to manual THA. The objective of this study was to compare rates of dislocation, reoperation, revision, and patient-reported outcome measures between patients undergoing DAA and PLA robotic-assisted primary THA. METHODS: We identified 2,040 consecutive robotic-assisted primary THAs performed for primary osteoarthritis, using DAA (n = 497) or PLA (n = 1,542) between 2017 and 2020. The mean follow-up was 18 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated survivorship free of dislocation, reoperation, and revision. Achievement of patient acceptable symptom state and minimum clinically important difference were used to compare changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS JR) and Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Dislocation was rare in this series (14 in 2,040, 0.7%), including 1 of 497 (0.2%) in the DAA cohort and 13 of 1,542 (0.8%) in the PLA cohort (P = .210). There was no difference in 2-year reoperation-free survivorship (97.8 versus 98.6%, P = .59) or revision-free survivorship (98.8 versus 99.0%, P = .87) at any time point. After controlling for age, sex, and body mass index, there was no difference in dislocation, reoperation, or revision. At 6-week follow-up, after controlling for age, sex, and body mass index, patients in the DAA cohort had higher odds of achieving HOOS JR minimum clinically important difference (odds ratio = 2.01, P = .012) and HOOS JR patient acceptable symptom state (odds ratio = 1.72, P = .028). There were no differences in patient-reported outcome measures by 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: For robotic-assisted primary THA, DAA may confer enhanced early (<6 weeks) functional recovery compared to the PLA, but there was no significant difference in postoperative dislocation, reoperation, or revision rates.

Anterolateral knee complex considerations in contemporary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

The anterolateral ligament (ALL) was first described in 1879 in the context of Segond fractures, which correlate with a 75-100% chance of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear or a 66-75% chance of a meniscal tear. The purpose of this paper is to provide an updated comprehensive review on the anterolateral ligament complex of the knee focusing on the: (1) anatomy of the ALL/ALC; (2) associated biomechanics/function; and (3) important surgical considerations in contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic review of studies on ALL was conducted on Pubmed/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases (May 7th, 2020 to February 1st, 2022), with 20 studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were anatomical/biomechanical studies assessing ALL function, cadaveric and computer simulations, and comparative studies on surgical outcomes of ALLR (concomitant with ACL reconstruction). Eight studies were included and graded by MINOR and Newcastle-Ottawa scale to identify potential biases. The anatomy of the ALL is part of the anterolateral ligament complex (ALC), which includes the superficial/deep iliotibial band (including the Kaplan fiber system), iliopatellar band, ALL, and anterolateral capsule. Multiple biomechanical studies have characterized the ALC as a secondary passive stabilizer in resisting tibial internal rotation. Given the role of the ALC in resisting internal tibial rotation, lateral extra-articular procedures including ALL augmentation may be considered for chronic ACL tears, ACL revisions, and a high-grade pivot shift test. In the context of TKA, in the event of injury to the ALC, a more constrained implant or soft-tissue reconstruction may be necessary to restore appropriate knee stability.

High Prevalence of Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders and Limited Evidence-based Ergonomics in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control defines work-related musculoskeletal disorders as disorders of the nerves, muscles, tendons, joints, spinal discs, and cartilage that are caused or exacerbated by the environment or nature of work. Previous meta-analyses have characterized work-related musculoskeletal disorders among interventionists, general surgeons, and other surgical subspecialties, but prevalence estimates, prognosis, and ergonomic considerations vary by study and surgical specialty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the career prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (2) What is the treatment prevalence associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (3) What is the disability burden of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (4) What is the scope of orthopaedic surgical ergonomic assessments and interventions? METHODS: A systematic review of English-language studies from PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was performed in December 2022 and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that presented prevalence estimates of work-related musculoskeletal disorders or assessed surgical ergonomics in orthopaedic surgery were included. Reviews, case reports, gray literature (conference abstracts and preprints), and studies with mixed-surgeon (nonorthopaedic) populations were excluded. The search yielded 5603 abstracts; 24 survey-based studies with 4876 orthopaedic surgeons (mean age 48 years; 79% of surgeons were men) were included for an analysis of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, and 18 articles were included for a descriptive synthesis of ergonomic assessment. Quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Tool revealed that studies had a low to moderate risk of bias, largely because of self-reporting survey-based methodology. Because of considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias, prevalence outcomes were not pooled and instead are presented as ranges (mean I 2 = 91.3%). RESULTS: The career prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons ranged from 37% to 97%. By anatomic location, the prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the head and neck ranged from 4% to 74%; back ranged from 9% to 77%; forearm, wrist, and hand ranged from 12% to 54%; elbow ranged from 3% to 28%; shoulder ranged from 3% to 34%; hip and thigh ranged from 1% to 10%; knee and lower leg ranged from 1% to 31%; and foot and ankle ranged from 4% to 25%. Of orthopaedic surgeons reporting work-related musculoskeletal disorders, 9% to 33% had a leave of absence, practice restriction or modification, or early retirement, and 27% to 83% received some form of treatment. Orthopaedic surgeons experienced biomechanical, cardiovascular, neuromuscular, and metabolic stress during procedures. Interventions to improve orthopaedic surgical ergonomics have been limited, but have included robotic assistance, proper visualization aids, appropriate use of power tools, and safely minimizing lead apron use. In hip and knee arthroplasty, robotic assistance was the most effective in improving posture and reducing caloric expenditure. In spine surgery, proper use of surgical loupes was the most effective in improving posture. CONCLUSION: Although the reported ranges of our main findings were wide, even on the low end of the reported ranges, work-related musculoskeletal disability among orthopaedic surgeons appears to be a substantial concern. We recommend that orthopaedic residency training programs incorporate surgical ergonomics or work injury lectures, workshops, and film review (alongside existing film review of surgical skills) into their curricula. We suggest hospitals engage in shared decision-making with surgeons through anonymous needs assessment surveys to implement wellness programs specific to surgeons' musculoskeletal needs. We urge institutions to assess surgeon ergonomics during routine quality assessment of novel surgical instruments and workflows. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Early Periprosthetic Femur Fractures After Primary Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: High Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Subsequent Reoperation.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a leading cause of early reoperation. The objective of this study was to compare rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and reoperation following PFFs occurring early postoperatively to those that occurred late. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 173 consecutive surgically managed PFFs following primary THA. Cases were categorized as "early" if they occurred within 90 days of THA (n = 117) or "late" if they occurred following the initial 90 days (n = 56). Mean age at time of PFF was 68 years (range, 26 to 96) and 60% were women. Mean body mass index was 29 (range, 16 to 52). Mean follow-up was 2 years (range, 0 to 13). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis estimated cumulative incidences of PJI and reoperation. RESULTS: Early PFFs had higher 2-year cumulative incidence of PJI (11% versus 0%, P < .001) and reoperation (24% versus 13%, P = .110). Following early PFF, 27 patients required reoperation (ie, 13 for PJI, 5 for instability, 2 for re-fracture, 2 for painful hardware, 2 for non-union, 1 for adverse local tissue reaction, 1 for aseptic loosening, and 1 for leg-length discrepancy). Following late PFF, 5 patients required reoperation (ie, 3 for instability, 1 for re-fracture, and 1 for non-union). CONCLUSIONS: There are greater incidences of PJIs and overall reoperations following early PFFs compared to late PFFs after THA. In addition to focusing efforts on prevention of early PFFs, surgeons should consider antiseptic interventions to mitigate the increased risk of PJI after treatment of early PFF.

Social media may cause emergent SARMs abuse by athletes: a content quality analysis of the most popular YouTube videos.

OBJECTIVES: Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs) social media interest is at an all-time high. The aim of this study is to analyze the: (1) quality; (2) educational content; and (3) reliability of the most relevant YouTube videos on SARMs to explain growing SARMs abuse by recreational and professional athletes. METHODS: 'SARMs' was queried (28 November 2021) through the YouTube video library. The top 100 videos filtered by relevance were categorized by source, type of content, educational quality by Global Quality Score (GQS), reliability by Journal of American Medicine Association (JAMA) criteria, YouTube tags, attitude toward SARMs use, and whether the video provided specific support on how to use SARMs. For all outcome variables, descriptive statistics and comparison among source types and category types were performed. RESULTS: Mean JAMA score was 1.6 ± 0.7 out of 4. Mean GQS score was 2.5 ± 1.1 out of 5. Patient videos were of lower educational quality than athletic trainer videos (GQS: 2.11 ± 0.95 vs. 2.95 ± 1.00, p < 0.01), and videos categorized as user experience were of lower educational quality than videos categorized as general SARMs information (GQS: 1.92 ± 0.90 vs. 2.72 ± 1.07, p < 0.05). User experience and dosing recommendation videos were statistically significantly more positive in attitude than both general SARMs information and SARMS vs. other PEDs. CONCLUSION: Quality, content, and reliability of SARMs YouTube videos was low. Social media likely causes SARMs abuse through disseminating biased SARMs misinformation. These results serve to educate public health oversight bodies, healthcare providers, and sports team members to better identify signs of SARMs abuse, and promote discussion to discourage SARMs abuse.

Selective PP2A Enhancement through Biased Heterotrimer Stabilization.

Impairment of protein phosphatases, including the family of serine/threonine phosphatases designated PP2A, is essential for the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cancer. The ability of PP2A to dephosphorylate hundreds of proteins is regulated by over 40 specificity-determining regulatory "B" subunits that compete for assembly and activation of heterogeneous PP2A heterotrimers. Here, we reveal how a small molecule, DT-061, specifically stabilizes the B56α-PP2A holoenzyme in a fully assembled, active state to dephosphorylate selective substrates, such as its well-known oncogenic target, c-Myc. Our 3.6 Å structure identifies molecular interactions between DT-061 and all three PP2A subunits that prevent dissociation of the active enzyme and highlight inherent mechanisms of PP2A complex assembly. Thus, our findings provide fundamental insights into PP2A complex assembly and regulation, identify a unique interfacial stabilizing mode of action for therapeutic targeting, and aid in the development of phosphatase-based therapeutics tailored against disease specific phospho-protein targets.