Influence of tendon injuries on the clinical outcome of ankle and hindfoot fractures.

BACKGROUND: Associations of tendon injuries with ankle and hindfoot fractures is a current concern and recent research has linked specific fractures with specific tendon injuries, despite its functional impact being unknown. The purpose of this study is to assess that impact. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of patients with ankle and hindfoot fractures were reviewed for tendon injuries. Patients were clinically evaluated with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), via a telephonic interview. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included in the study. The mean age was of 49.9 ± 16.5 (14-80) years and there were 43 females (50,6%). Mean follow-up was of 43,7 ± 15,1 (24,4-82,2) months. Tendon injuries were identified in 23 patients (27,1%) and the most common lesion was tendon entrapment. The tibialis posterior tendon (TP) was injured in 18 patients (21,2%) and comprised 58,1% of all tendon injuries. Tendon injuries were mostly associated with pilon fractures, which was the most common fracture type (44,7%). There was no clinical difference between patients with a tendon injury [VAS of 4,3 ± 2,6 (0-8) and MOXFQ score of 35,1 ± 22,4 (5-80)], and those without [VAS of 3,9 ± 2,5 (0-10) and MOXFQ of 34,3 ± 26,0 (0-95), respectively (p = 0,281 and 0,689)]. CONCLUSION: Tendon injuries were present in 27% of patients with ankle and hindfoot injuries. The most frequently injured tendon was the TP in association with pilon fractures, with entrapment being the most common lesion. These lesions, however, do not seem to reflect in a worse functional outcome at two years of follow-up.

Prognostic factors in ankle sprains: a review.

Ankle sprains are one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries, being the most frequent musculoskeletal trauma among athletes.Most of these injuries are successfully treated conservatively; however, up to 70% of patients can develop long-lasting symptoms. Therefore, understanding prognostic factors for an ankle sprain could help clinicians identify patients with poor prognosis and choose the right treatment.A suggested approach will be presented in order to positively identify the factors that should warrant a more aggressive attitude in the initial conservative treatment.There are some prognostic factors linked to a better recovery and outcome; nevertheless, prognostic factors for full recovery after initial ankle sprain are not consistent. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:334-338. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200019.

The current state of orthopaedic residency in 18 European countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare differences in current orthopaedic and trauma training programs across Europe. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the FORTE (Federation of Orthopaedic Trainees in Europe) representatives of 25 different European countries, of which 18 responded. The questionnaire included demographic information and information concerning the structure of the training programs, including duration, selection, and mandatory training requirements. RESULTS: The number of trainees per specialist varied between countries from a ratio of 1:2 to 1:7. Residency was generally five to six years in all the countries. In more than half of the countries selection was interview-based. Nearly all countries utilized a logbook. About 80% of the participating countries had a final examination. When assessing the components of training it was found that only one country (the United Kingdom) had mandatory minimum requirements for (1) courses, (2) surgical procedures, (3) research and (4) leadership. Nearly 40% of the participating countries had only one or none of these four components as a mandatory training requirement. CONCLUSIONS: There are many similarities in training programs, but some important differences remain in overall requirements and final qualification. The main limitation of this study was that we were unable to get data from all the European countries. FORTE will continue to serve as a forum for sharing best practices with the ultimate goal of improving and harmonizing the level of orthopaedic training across Europe. Future studies should aim to include further details about training programs as well as to include data from more countries.

Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: simpler, faster and more accurate than standard instrumentation-a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) to standard instrumentation regarding efficacy to achieve a good coronal alignment and differences in surgical time, blood loss and length of stay. METHODS: Ninety-five of 100 randomized patients eligible for total knee arthroplasty were analysed. PSI with magnetic resonance and long-leg radiograph was performed in 47 patients, while 48 patients received standard instrumentation. Primary outcome measure was coronal alignment, evaluated with long-leg radiograph. Deviation >3° varus/valgus was considered an outlier. Surgical time was compared from skin to skin. Length of stay was a post hoc analysis. Blood loss was evaluated comparing the number of blood units spent, fall in haemoglobin and haematocrit levels. RESULTS: Standard instrumentation had a higher number of outliers in the coronal alignment with a relative risk of 3.015, compared to PSI. Surgical time was reduced by 18 min (24.8 %) with the PSI, as well as length of stay, with a half-day reduction. Number of blood units spent was significantly less in the PSI group. Relative risk of transfusion was 7.09 for patients in the standard instrumentation group. Difference in Hg and Htc levels were not significant. No patient had to abandon PSI. Minor changes to preoperative plan occurred in 14.9 % of the patient: cut review in 4.3 % and insert change in 10.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is able to provide important advantages over standard instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: it lowers the risk of outliers and transfusion, is a faster procedure and enables a shorter length of stay with a low rate of intraoperative adjustments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.