Spinal Cord Stimulation with Activity-Based Training: Effect on Spasticity.

Spasticity is common after a spinal cord injury (SCI). Pharmacological treatments for spasticity often have adverse effects on neurorehabilitation. Spinal cord transcutaneous stimulation (scTS) and activity-based training (ABT) have been shown to be useful tools for neurorehabilitation which can lead to improved function for people with SCI. Our preliminary data suggests that neuromodulation of the spinal circuitry may result in attenuating spasticity.Clinical Relevance- Spasticity effects 65-70% of individuals following SCI, this technique of using ABT with scTS may allow for improvements in limiting spasticity.

Small Random Angular Variations in Pelvic Tilt and Lower Extremity Can Cause Error in Static Image-based Preoperative Hip Arthroplasty Planning: A Computer Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Many THA simulation models rely on a limited set of preoperative static radiographs to replicate sagittal pelvic tilt during functional positions and to recommend an implant orientation that minimizes the risk of prosthetic impingement. However, possible random changes in pelvic or lower extremity angular motions and the effect of coronal and axial pelvic tilt are not included in these preoperative models. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Can prosthetic impingement occur if the pelvic tilt or lower extremity alignment randomly varies up to ± 5° from what is measured on a single preoperative static radiographic image? (2) Do changes in coronal and axial pelvic tilt or lower extremity alignment angles have a similar effect on the risk of prosthetic impingement? METHODS: A de-identified pelvis and lower-body CT image of a male patient without previous THA or lower extremity surgery was used to import the pelvis, femur, and tibia into a verified MATLAB computer model. The motions of standing, pivoting, sitting, sit-to-stand, squatting, and bending forward were simulated. THA implant components included a full hemispherical acetabular cup without an elevated rim, polyethylene liner without an elevated rim, femoral head (diameter: 28 mm, 32 mm, 36 mm, or 40 mm), and a triple-taper cementless stem with three different neck shaft angles (127°, 132°, or 135°) with a trapezoidal neck were used in this model. A static model (cup anatomical abduction 40°, cup anatomical anteversion 20°, stem anatomical anteversion 10°) with a predefined range of sagittal pelvic tilt and hip alignment (0° coronal or axial tilt, without random ± 5° change) was used to simulate each motion. We then randomly varied pelvic tilt in three different pelvic planes and hip alignments (flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, rotation) up to ± 5° and assessed the same motions without changing the implant's anatomical orientation. Prosthetic impingement as the endpoint was defined as mechanical abutment between the prosthetic neck and polyethylene liner. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate the effect of variation in pelvic tilt and hip alignment (predictors) on prosthetic impingement (primary outcome). RESULTS: The static-based model without the random variation did not result in any prosthetic impingement under any conditions. However, with up to ± 5° of random variation in the pelvic tilt and hip alignment angles, prosthetic impingement occurred in pivoting (18 possible combinations), sit-to-stand (106 possible combinations), and squatting (one possible combination) when a 28-mm or a 32-mm head was used. Variation in sagittal tilt (odds ratio 4.09 [95% CI 3.11 to 5.37]; p < 0.001), axial tilt (OR 3.87 [95% CI 2.96 to 5.07]; p < 0.001), and coronal tilt (OR 2.39 [95% CI 2.03 to 2.83]; p < 0.001) affected the risk of prosthetic impingement. Variation in hip flexion had a strong impact on the risk of prosthetic impingement (OR 4.11 [95% CI 3.38 to 4.99]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The combined effect of 2° to 3° of change in multiple pelvic tilt or hip alignment angles relative to what is measured on a single static radiographic image can result in prosthetic impingement. Relying on a few preoperative static radiographic images to minimize the risk of prosthetic impingement, without including femoral implant orientation, axial and coronal pelvic tilt, and random angular variation in pelvis and lower extremity alignment, may not be adequate and may fail to predict prosthetic impingement-free ROM. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Determining a safe zone for THA implant positioning with respect to impingement may require a dynamic computer simulation model to fully capture the range of possible impingement conditions. Future work should concentrate on devising simple and easily available methods for dynamic motion analysis instead of using a few static radiographs for preoperative planning.

Femoral stem neck geometry determines hip range of motion shape : a computer simulation study.

AIMS: In computer simulations, the shape of the range of motion (ROM) of a stem with a cylindrical neck design will be a perfect cone. However, many modern stems have rectangular/oval-shaped necks. We hypothesized that the rectangular/oval stem neck will affect the shape of the ROM and the prosthetic impingement. METHODS: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) motion while standing and sitting was simulated using a MATLAB model (one stem with a cylindrical neck and one stem with a rectangular neck). The primary predictor was the geometry of the neck (cylindrical vs rectangular) and the main outcome was the shape of ROM based on the prosthetic impingement between the neck and the liner. The secondary outcome was the difference in the ROM provided by each neck geometry and the effect of the pelvic tilt on this ROM. Multiple regression was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The stem with a rectangular neck has increased internal and external rotation with a quatrefoil cross-section compared to a cone in a cylindrical neck. Modification of the cup orientation and pelvic tilt affected the direction of projection of the cone or quatrefoil shape. The mean increase in internal rotation with a rectangular neck was 3.4° (0° to 7.9°; p < 0.001); for external rotation, it was 2.8° (0.5° to 7.8°; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study shows the importance of attention to femoral implant design for the assessment of prosthetic impingement. Any universal mathematical model or computer simulation that ignores each stem's unique neck geometry will provide inaccurate predictions of prosthetic impingement. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):780-789.

How much change in pelvic sagittal tilt can result in hip dislocation due to prosthetic impingement? A computer simulation study.

Developing spinal pathologies and spinal fusion after total hip arthroplasty (THA) can result in increased pelvic retroversion (e.g., flat back deformity) or increased anterior pelvic tilt (caused by spinal stenosis, spinal fusion or other pathologies) while bending forward. This change in sagittal pelvic tilt (SPT) can result in prosthetic impingement and dislocation. Our aim was to determine the magnitude of SPT change that could lead to prosthetic impingement. We hypothesized that the magnitude of SPT change that could lead to THA dislocation is less than 10° and it varies for different hip motions. Hip motion was simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting and pivoting in Matlab software. The implant orientations and SPT angle were modified by 1° increments. The risk of prosthetic impingement in pivoting caused by increased pelvic retroversion (reciever operating characteristic [ROC] threshold as low as 1-3°) is higher than the risk of prosthetic impingement with increased pelvic anteversion (ROC threshold as low as 16-18°). Larger femoral heads decrease the risk of prosthetic impingement (odds ratio {OR}: 0.08 [932 mm head]; OR: 0.01 [36 mm head]; OR: 0.002 [40 mm head]). Femoral stems with a higher neck-shaft angle decrease the prosthetic impingement due to SPT change in motions requiring hip flexion (OR: 1.16 [132° stem]; OR: 4.94 [135° stem]). Our results show that overall, the risk of prosthetic impingement due to SPT change is low. In particular, this risk is very low when a larger diameter head is used and femoral offset and length are recreated to prevent bone on bone impingement.

Is Combined Anteversion Equally Affected by Acetabular Cup and Femoral Stem Anteversion?

BACKGROUND: To create a safe zone, an understanding of the combined femoral and acetabular mating during hip motion is required. We investigated the position of the femoral head inside the acetabular liner during simulated hip motion. We hypothesized that cup and stem anteversions do not equally affect hip motion and combined hip anteversion. METHODS: Hip implant motion was simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting, and pivoting positions using the MATLAB software. A line passing through the center of the stem neck and the center of the prosthetic head exits at the polar axis (PA) of the prosthetic head. When the prosthetic head and liner are parallel, the PA faces the center of the liner (PA position = 0, 0). By simulating hip motion in 1-degree increments, the maximum distance of the PA from the liner center and the direction of its movement were measured (polar coordination system). RESULTS: The effect of modifying cup and stem anteversion on the direction and distance of the PA's change inside the acetabular liner was different. Stem anteversion influenced the PA position inside the liner more than cup anteversion during sitting, sit-to-stand, squatting, and bending forward (P = .0001). This effect was evident even when comparing stems with different neck angles (P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Cup anteversion, stem anteversion, and stem neck-shaft angle affected the PA position inside the liner and combined anteversion in different ways. Thus, focusing on cup orientation alone when assessing hip motion during different daily activities is inadequate.