Search

Purpose To determine whether additional stem extension for stability is necessary, we performed mid-term follow-up of patients who had been managed with 5-mm metal block augmentation for a tibial defect, where tibial prosthesis was fixed using bone cement without stem extension. Also, we evaluated clinical and radiologic results including survival rate of patients without stem extension. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients with tibial bone defect, had undergone primary total knee arthroplasty, and had been treated with 5-mm metal block augmentation without stem extension between March 2003 and September 2013. Among 74 patients (80 cases), 47 patients (52 cases) were followed up for at least 5 years. Results Mean flexion contracture improved from 8.8° (0–40°) preoperatively to 0.4° (−5° to 15°) at final follow-up (P P = 0.488). Mean range of motion improved from 115.8° (35–150°) preoperatively to 125.5° (90–145°) at final follow-up (P P P P P = 0.748) and in the mean δ-angle, which was 86.2° (81.3–90.0°) immediately postoperative and 87.2° (83.1–96.5°) at final follow-up (P = 0.272). Radiolucent lines (RLL) were observed in ten cases (26.3%), and the mean RLL scores at final follow-up were 0.34 points (0–3 points) in the anteroposterior view and 0.42 points (0–6 points) in the lateral view. Scores for the RLL were ≤ 4 points in 36 cases, 5–9 points in two cases. Revision surgery due to aseptic loosening (three cases) is rarely required, and the Kaplan–Meier survival rate at 10 postoperative years was 96.4% Conclusion When performing 5-mm metal block augmentation for a proximal tibial defect, no additional tibial stem extension can be a good surgical option for the stability of tibial prosthetic construct and mid-term clinical and radiologic results. Level of evidence IV.

Purpose To assess the effect of a preoperative virtual reality (VR) experience of 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructed magnetic resonance images (MRIs) on anxiety reduction in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery. Methods Patients in the VR group watched a 3D model of their own MRI through a VR headset describing the anatomy of the knee as well as their own lesion of interest for an arthroscopic procedure. Patients in the non-VR (NR) group received standard preoperative information about their MRI. The primary outcome for analysis was the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale score to measure level of anxiety and the need for information in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery. Secondary outcomes were rated with visual analog scale (VAS) scores measuring patient pain, preparedness, satisfaction, and stress. Results Regarding the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale score, the sum S (surgery-related anxiety) and sum C (combined anxiety component) subscales showed significantly better outcomes in the VR group (median [interquartile range] for sum S = 2.0 [2.0-4.0], median [quartile 1-quartile 3] sum C = 4.0 [4.0-8.5]) than in the NR group (median [interquartile range] for sum S = 4.9 [3.0-5.0], median [quartile 1-quartile 3] sum C = 8.0 [5.3-9.8]) (P = .014 and P = .005, respectively). Regarding VAS scores, preoperative measures showed significantly better outcomes in satisfaction among VR group patients (95 [90.0-100.0]) in comparison to NR group patients (85 [70.0-96.0]) (P = .010). For postoperative VAS measures, the VR group (satisfaction score = 95 [90.0-100.0], stress score = 15 [2.5-37.5]) showed significantly better outcomes in satisfaction and stress in comparison to the NR group (satisfaction score = 85 [70.0-97.5], stress score = 30 [30.0-50.0]). Conclusions Application of preoperative VR experience of 3D reconstructed knee MRIs in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery reduces anxiety around surgical encounters. The VR patient group was more satisfied overall and less stressed postoperatively. However, perioperative pain and preparedness were not affected by VR exposure. Level of Evidence Level I, randomized controlled trial.