Search

Study Design: Retrospective.Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of body mass index (BMI) on pain and disability in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain (LBP) treated with multimodal rehabilitation.Summary Of Background Data: Despite being a well-known risk factor for developing LBP, there is minimal data on the effect of BMI on pain and disability in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain (LBP) treated with multimodal rehabilitation.Methods: Data from patients with chronic mechanical LBP who underwent multimodal rehabilitation treatment at a chain of spine rehabilitation outpatient clinics in one of the three BMI groups-1564 patients in normal body weight (BMI ≥18.5-24.9), 1990 patients in overweight (BMI ≥25-29.9), and 891 patients in obese (BMI ≥ 30) groups-were retrospectively analyzed. Pre- and post-treatment Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and final treatment outcomes were compared between the three groups. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the association between pre-treatment covariates and post-treatment clinical outcomes.Results: Post-treatment, the mean NPRS (P = 0.005) and mean ODI (P < 0.001) scores were significantly higher with a significantly lower percentage of full success outcome (P = 0.009) in the obese group when compared to normal and overweight groups. However, multivariate analysis showed a significant correlation between age, the number of treatment sessions, pre-treatment NPRS and ODI scores, and post-treatment NPRS and ODI scores and treatment failure, and no correlation with patient BMI.Conclusion: Patient BMI may not affect pain and disability outcomes in patients undergoing a multimodal rehabilitation treatment for chronic LBP. In contrast to BMI, other covariates such as age, treatment sessions, and pre-treatment NPRS and ODI scores may be associated with increased risk for poor treatment outcome. Obese individuals can expect clinical outcomes similar to normal or overweight individuals with multimodal physical rehabilitation for chronic LBP.Level of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The weightbearing axis of the limb goes from the pelvis to the ground and includes the hindfoot. However, the influence of hindfoot alignment on mechanical axis and overall limb alignment after TKA is unclear. Questions/purposes: We therefore addressed the following questions: (1) Does hindfoot alignment change after TKA for knee osteoarthritis? (2) What factors influence hindfoot alignment after TKA? (3) Does deviation of the mechanical axis from the center of the knee vary when the hindfoot is considered (ground mechanical axis) as compared with when it is not (conventional mechanical axis) after TKA? Patients and Methods: We prospectively reviewed the radiographs of 125 patients who underwent 165 TKAs. We evaluated the preoperative and postoperative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, conventional mechanical axis deviation, ground mechanical axis (mechanical axis which included the hindfoot) deviation, and tibiocalcaneal angle. Results: The preoperative hindfoot valgus alignment decreased after TKA. Preoperative hindfoot alignment was the only factor that influenced hindfoot alignment after TKA. The conventional mechanical axis showed less deviation from the center of the knee when compared with ground mechanical axis which showed lateral deviation after TKA. Despite limb alignment being restored to within 3° of neutral of the conventional mechanical axis after TKA, 29% of limbs had a postoperative ground mechanical axis deviation of 10 mm or greater. Conclusions: Accurate restoration of limb alignment after TKA may be associated with persistent hindfoot valgus alignment with the ground mechanical axis passing lateral to the center of the knee. This could have implications on long-term survival of the implant owing to possible excessive loading laterally and needs further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Distraction-resisting forces that are generated during distraction osteogenesis can be responsible for complications, including a lag effect on fibular distraction leading to a tibiofibular distraction difference, tibial axial deviation, and distraction at the proximal and distal tibiofibular joints. We investigated the nature of distraction-resisting forces by studying their correlation with these parameters.Methods: One hundred and eleven tibial lengthening procedures in sixty-three patients were chosen. Seventy-six segments underwent lengthening with an Ilizarov ring fixator, and thirty-five segments had lengthening over an intramedullary nail. Serial radiographs were evaluated with regard to the amounts of tibiofibular distraction difference, proximal tibiofibular joint distraction, distal tibiofibular joint distraction, tibial axial deviation, and heel malalignment. Clinically, laxity at the knee was evaluated and fibular head instability was assessed. Variations in all of these parameters were evaluated with respect to tibiofibular joint fixation, etiology, skeletal maturity, lengthening over an intramedullary nail, and amount of lengthening.Results: The mean tibiofibular distraction difference was 19.1 +/- 10.6 mm (range, 2 to 51 mm), the mean proximal tibiofibular joint distraction was 10.1 +/- 6.8 mm (range, 0 to 33 mm), and the mean tibial valgus angulation was 8.7 degrees +/- 4.4 degrees . At the time of the latest follow-up, twenty-eight segments (25%) had lateral knee joint laxity at 30 degrees of knee flexion and eight segments (7%) had fibular head subluxation at 90 degrees of knee flexion. Twenty-four (86%) of the twenty-eight cases of knee laxity were observed in skeletally immature patients. The tibiofibular distraction difference, proximal tibiofibular joint distraction, and tibial valgus angulation were significantly greater in the group without fixation of the proximal tibiofibular joint. A significant decrease in the tibial valgus angulation and knee laxity was found in patients with lengthening over an intramedullary nail. In the intramedullary nail group, after fixation of the proximal tibiofibular joint, the tibiofibular distraction difference and the proximal tibiofibular joint distraction decreased; however, the proportion of cases with clinically important tibial valgus angulation (>10 degrees ) increased significantly.Conclusions: Fixing both tibiofibular joints with a single Ilizarov wire decreases proximal tibiofibular joint distraction; however, more secure fixation would help to decrease the prevalence of delayed knee laxity. When tibial lengthening is performed over an intramedullary nail, avoiding proximal tibiofibular joint fixation will limit tibial valgus angulation. Limiting lengthening to <25% will decrease the proportion of cases with knee laxity, and limiting lengthening to <50% will significantly limit tibial valgus angulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]