Search

Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis is the main indication for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is now accepted that cementless implantation of the femoral component provides equivalent results to cemented one, however, the optimal fixation method of the tibial component remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship of cemented versus cementless tibial baseplate in primary total knee arthroplasty. Materials and methods: We carried out a retrospective, monocentric study, including 109 TKA (Zimmer® Natural Knee II ultra-congruent mobile-bearing) implanted between 2004 and 2010 for primary osteoarthritis, comparing 2 groups depending on tibial component fixation method, one cemented (n = 68) and one cementless (n = 41). Clinical (Knee Society Rating System (KSS), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores, range of motion) and radiodiological outcomes were assessed at last follow-up with a minimal follow-up of 5 years. Results: Mean follow-up were 8.14 [5.31–12.7] and 8.06 [5.22–12.02] years, respectively, in cemented and cementless groups. The tibial component survival rate was 100% [95CI: 91.4–100] in the cementless group and 97.1% [95CI: 89.78–99.42] in the cemented group (2 aseptic loosenings) (p = 0.27). Radiolucent lines were present in 31.7% (n = 13) of the cementless and 44.1% (n = 30) of the cemented baseplates (p = 0.2). The postoperative KSS knee score was higher in the cementless group (99 ± 3 vs. 97 ± 7.5; p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in KSS function, global KSS and HSS scores. Mean range of flexion was 120 ± 10° in the cementless group and 122.5 ± 15° in the cemented group (p = 0.37). No significant differences were found on the radiographic data or on complications. Conclusion: In this study, the survival rate of the tibial component is not influenced by its fixation method at a mean follow-up of 8 years in osteoarthritis, which confirms the reliability of cementless fixation in primary TKA.

Introduction: Acetabular fractures account for 7% of osteoporotic fractures, with an epidemiological peak between 75 and 80 years of age. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of treatment of these fractures in a population aged over 65., Hypothesis: Surgical treatment would lead to better survival and functional outcomes in the management of acetabular fractures in subjects aged over 65., Material and Methods: Patients over 65 years of age treated for acetabular fracture between January 2017 and May 2020 were included in this retrospective single-center study and divided into three treatment groups: osteosynthesis, osteosynthesis-THA (Osteosynthesis-THA) and orthopedic treatment. The choice of treatment was made according to an algorithm that considered the patient's co-morbidities, autonomy and bone lesions. The primary endpoint was patient survival at 12 and 24 months' follow-up., Results: 94 patients (mean age 78.5 +/-8.4 years) were included: 29 patients treated with orthopedic therapy, 46 patients with osteosynthesis and 19 patients with osteosynthesis-THA. Mean follow-up was 32.7+/-14.9 months. Mortality rates were higher in the orthopedic and osteosynthesis-THA groups (20.7% and 21.1% respectively). Patients in the orthopedic and osteosynthesis-THA groups showed excess mortality, with hazard ratios (HR) of 3.4 ([1.02; 11.3], p < 0.05) and 3.3 ([0.9; 12.3], p = 0.08) respectively, compared with those treated with osteosynthesis. Mean PMA at 2 years, mean Harris score at 2 years and Parker score were significantly higher in the operated groups. The rate of conversion to THA (THA) was higher in the orthopedic treatment group (27.6%). The complication rate was 24% (11/46) for the osteosynthesis group, 42% (8/19) for the osteosynthesis-THA group., Discussion: Applying our decision algorithm, orthopedic treatment is inferior to surgical treatment in terms of survival and functional results, with a higher re-intervention rate for THA than treatment with osteosynthesis. This study confirms the place of osteosynthesis, with higher functional scores, lower complication and revision rates, and a positive effect on mortality., Level of Evidence: IV; Retrospective cohort study., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Pierre Martz: consultant for SERF, NEWCLIP and ORTHOFIX, designer for Xnov, member of the advisory board for Depuy Synthes Emmanuel Baulot: consultant and designer for SERF, ASTON, XO and consultant for XNov. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to the content of this article., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Several studies have reported a strength deficit in internal rotation (IR) following a Latarjet procedure, which can persist for months or even years. The arthroscopic Trillat procedure does not require splitting the subscapularis muscle, potentially making it less damaging., Hypothesis: The arthroscopic Trillat procedure does not cause any atrophy or strength deficit in the subscapularis muscle., Methods: This was a single center, retrospective study of patients treated between 2013 and 2021. Included were patients who had chronic anterior shoulder instability with an indication for surgical stabilization using an arthroscopic Trillat procedure and who underwent a CT scan before surgery and a second one at 6 months postoperative. The following morphological parameters were measured on all the rotator cuff muscles: cross-sectional area (CSA), thickness and fatty infiltration using the mean muscle attenuation (MMA) measurement. Isokinetic tests were done 1 year post-surgery., Results: One hundred seventeen patients underwent arthroscopic Trillat surgery between 2013 and 2021; 58 were included, 30 were analyzed and 17 patients underwent isokinetic testing. The CSA of the subscapularis was significantly smaller by 5.3% (17.0 vs. 16.1; p = 0.03). None of the other rotator cuff muscles had a smaller CSA. The MMA of the subscapularis increased significantly while the MMA of the external rotators decreased postoperatively. No strength deficit was found at 1 year postoperative in the internal and external rotators., Discussion: The arthroscopic Trillat procedure produces minor atrophy of the subscapularis muscle at 6 months, with no strength deficit at 1 year postoperative. Several studies have reported a deficit in internal rotation strength after a Latarjet procedure, ranging from 6% to 19% depending on the study., Level of Evidence: IV., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Purpose: Only 50-65% of patients return to their previous sporting level after ACL rupture. The literature reports a reduced rate of graft rupture when an anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) is associated with ACL reconstruction. ACL reconstruction combined with ALL allows a higher return to sport at pre-injury level than isolated reconstruction in patients playing pivot-contact sports., Methods: A retrospective, single-centre study between 2012 and 2020 comparing reconstruction by hamstring tendon technique, isolated ACLR vs ACL with ALLR. An isokinetic test was performed at 6 months post-operatively and patients were re-contacted at a minimum 2-year follow-up to assess their level and delay to return to sport, graft rupture rate and functional evaluation., Results: 83 patients were included, 42 in ACLR group and 41 in ACL + ALLR group. Four patients were lost to follow-up and 79 patients were analysed. No significant difference was found on the level of return to sport (28.2% vs. 42.5%; p = 0.18), return to competition (43% vs. 60%; p = 0.18), delay to sports return, isokinetic assessment, functional scores, but a significant difference was found on graft rupture rate in favour of ALLR (12.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.02)., Conclusion: In our study, the addition of an ALL to ACL reconstruction did not improve pre-injury sports recovery or return to competition., Study Design: Cohort study, level of evidence 4., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Hip dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement are pathologies whose impact on the function and survival of the hip joint is no longer debated. Labral tears may be present and impact the prognosis of the causal pathology. Labral tear management lacks consensus and still raises several questions, thus we conducted a systematic analysis to clarify: 1) What is its prevalence in hip dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement? 2) Does it modify the symptomatology of the causal pathology? 3) Is its repair better than resection or abstention?, Material and Method: A systematic literature review was carried out following the PRISMA guidelines, using the Medline and Embase databases and including all articles in French or English, written until June 2022 referring to labral tears in hip dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement. The articles were analyzed by 2 surgeons in order to select them according to a predefined algorithm. 1) Articles were selected by title from the search results. 2) A selection based on the abstract was then made. 3) A final selection was made upon complete reading. 4) In the event of a discrepancy during the selection, a third co-author was contacted for a final decision. 5) Data extraction was then carried out by the two readers using a preformatted sheet., Results: Of the 1177 articles identified, 43 articles were kept for the final analysis. The prevalence of labral tears was on average 78.80±4.7% [17 to 100%] in dysplasia and 93.8±16.8% [33% to 100%] in impingement. The review did not reveal any symptomatology specific to the labral tear. In dysplasia, 5 comparative studies were analyzed. A single study on shelf arthroplasties demonstrated the negative impact of a labral tear in the event of resection on survival compared to no tear (83% versus 15.2% (p=0.048)). Regarding impingements, 8 comparative studies were analyzed. At 7 years of follow-up, only one study found a significant and clinically relevant functional gain in terms of MCID (minimal clinically important difference) for labral repair compared to debridement on the mHHS score (p=0.008), SF-12 score (p=0.012), and pain scale (p=0.002). One study showed superiority of repair over labral debridement in terms of 10-year survival (78% 95% CI [64-92%] vs 46% 95% CI [26-66%] (p=0.009))., Discussion: The literature analysis was heterogeneous with a few comparative studies and predominantly short periods of follow-up. Understanding labral pathology and its impact requires differentiating between the different tear categories and proposing treatment to restore or preserve the biomechanical properties of the joint., Level of Evidence: IV, Systematic Review of Level 1-4 Evidence., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)