RESUMO
Background and Purpose: The choice between posterior approach (PA) and direct lateral approach (DLA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a contentious issue regarding clinical outcome optimization and restoring patient function. Previous studies have evaluated the postsurgical outcomes mostly in the form of Harris hip score (HHS), and the data to objectively measure the postoperative muscle power is scarce. We intend to objectively compare the hip abduction and extension strengths and other functional outcomes with a very simple tool in PA and DLA in the Indian population as most patients do not undergo as intensive rehabilitation in the postoperative period as in the western world. Materials and Methods: A total of 158 patients underwent THA during the study period, of which 48 met inclusion criteria and only 42 completed 6 months follow-up. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, postoperatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months follow-up. At each visit, muscle strength was tested using a customized sling device mounted on a pulling apparatus fitted on the wall, as well as a pain score (VAS), Harris hip score (HHS), and Short Form Survey (SF-36). Results: The study showed statistically significant better hip muscle strength at 2 weeks postoperative for leg press test and 2 weeks as well as 6 weeks postoperative for hip abduction strength in the PA. However, no differences were noted during the 3 or 6 months follow-up period among the DLA and PA. The surgical approach used has no effect on VAS, HHS, or SF-36 scorings. Conclusion: The weak abductor mechanism at 2 and 6 weeks and extension mechanism at 2 weeks in a cohort of DLA in contrast to the PA are seen in the early postoperative period and hence are short-lived muscle weakness. However, there is no effect on VAS, HSS, and SF-36 scores. Therefore, the surgical approach is to be chosen according to the surgeon's expertise.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) local injection has been recently proposed as a treatment of plantar fasciitis. The autologous PRP does not have much side effects compared to steroid injections. So far PRP injections have shown promising results in various studies. This study assessed the efficacy of a single local injection of PRP in chronic unilateral plantar fasciitis through a prospective case series. METHODOLOGY: A hospital-based prospective case series of 30 unilateral plantar fasciitis patients with symptom duration of 6 months or more were included in the study. All patients included in the study were assessed clinically and by visual analogue score for heel pain, AHS component of AOFAS and FADI scores before injection and at 6 and 12 week follow-up. USG measurement of plantar fascia thickness was done at pre-injection and at 12 weeks follow-up. All patients were observed for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The mean age was 39 years (range 20-55 years). The pre-injection VAS score for heel pain was 6.5 ± 1.1 which improved to 2.7 ± 0.5 and 1.8 ± 0.8 at 6 and 12 week respectively and difference was significant (p < 0.001). The baseline FADI and AHS component of AOFAS scores were 53.1 ± 9.0 and 72.2 ± 5.7 which improved to 65.5 ± 5.3 and 76.1 ± 4.5 at 6 weeks and, 77.9 ± 4.4 and 85.7 ± 4.6 at 12 weeks respectively which was significant (p < 0.001). The baseline mean plantar fascia thickness was 4.9 ± 0.3 mm which was significantly (p < 0.001) reduced to 3.9 ± 0.3 mm at 12 weeks post PRP injection. All pairwise comparisons by the post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank test with p-value adjustment were also significant. CONCLUSION: The short-term results of single dose PRP injections shows clinical and statistically significant improvements in VAS for heel pain, functional outcome scores and plantar fascia thickness measured by USG. This study concludes that local PRP injection is a viable management option for chronic plantar fasciitis.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess the role of 3D printing of actual size pelvis in the management and outcome of acetabular fractures. METHODS: Retrospective study with inclusion of acetabular fractures which were divided into two groups (traditional and 3D printing) was done over a 1 year period. The indices for comparison of both groups in this study were (a) operative time (from skin incision to suture), (b) intraoperative blood loss (noted from the anaesthetist notes), (c) times of intraoperative fluoroscopy, (d) postoperative complications, (e) quality of fracture reduction (good = < 2 mm displacement, fair = > 2 mm displacement) and (f) Harris hip score at final follow-up. RESULTS: 27 cases (traditional group = 15, 3D printing group = 12) meeting the study criteria were included in the study with a mean follow-up of 26.3 ± 11.2 months. There was a significant difference in the operative time, intraoperative blood loss and number of intraoperative fluoroscopy images. The mean operative time was shorter in the 3D printing group by 62 min. No difference was noted in the quality of reduction in either of the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: 3D imaging and printing helps in better understanding of the anatomy of acetabular fractures. It leads to reduced operative time, blood loss as well as exposure to radiation intraoperatively. There is no difference in functional outcome at final follow-up between 3D printing and traditional groups.
