Search

Objective: Dynamic horizontal instability is considered to be the main reason for poor outcome after treatment for acromioclavicular (AC) joint instability. In this study, we describe a simple technique to quantify this pathology via sonography. Methods: Thirty‐six shoulders from 18 patients with ac joint instabilities were examined using modified Alexander views and a standardized sonographic examination. On the Alexander views, overlap of acromion and clavicle (OLAC), glenoid center to posterior clavicle distance (GCPC), and lateral extension (LE) were measured. Afterwards, the results were analyzed and compared with sonography. Posterior translation of the clavicle and the difference of translation between healthy and injured shoulder were evaluated. Results: The mean age of the patients was 39 ± 14 years (range 19–61 years). We included 4 (22%) Rockwood type 3, 1 (6%) Rockwood type 4, and 13 (72%) Rockwood type 5 lesions. Four (22%) patients were female and 14 (78%) male patients. Posterior clavicle translation of the injured shoulder correlated strongly between OLAC and sonography (r = −0.514, P =.029), and the difference of translation between healthy and injured shoulder correlated very strongly between LE and sonography (r = 0.737, P <.001). Conclusion: The sonographic measurement technique for horizontal instability presented in this work could help detect horizontal instabilities. While the observation of dynamic horizontal displacement is a strength of this technique, measurements are hindered in cases of high coracoclavicular distances. Level of Evidence: Level III—retrospective cohort study. Access the CME test here and search by article title. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective In this study, we hypothesized that standing and supine X‐rays lead to different preoperative planning results. Methods: The present study included 168 pictures from 81 patients who were treated surgically with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) for varus deformity between January 2017 and February 2018. Each patient underwent whole leg X‐ray examinations in both standing and supine position. On both images, the following parameters were measured: degree of axis deviation (DAD), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), width of medial (MJS) and lateral joint space (LJS), and the correction angle (CA). The results were correlated with the patients' age and body mass index (BMI). To analyze intra‐observer reliability, the same researcher, blinded to the previous measurements, remeasured all X‐rays from 10 patients 8 weeks after the initial measurements were carried out. Results: While mLDFA (P = 0.075), mMPTA (P = 0.435), and MJS (P = 0.119) did not show any differences between the two modalities, LJS (P = 0.016) and DAD (P < 0.001) differed significantly, leading to different correction angles (P < 0.001). The mean difference of the CA was 1.7° ± 2.2° (range, −2.6° to−15.4°). In 14 legs (17%), the standing X‐ray led to a correction angle that was at least 3° larger than the calculation revealed in the supine X‐ray; in 4 legs (5%), it was at least 5° larger. Increased BMI (r = 0.191, P = 0.088) and older age (r = 0.057 , P = 0.605) did not show relevant correlation with DAD differences. However, more severe varus malalignment in the supine radiograph did correlate moderately with differences of correction angles between supine and weight‐bearing radiographs (r = 0.414, P < 0.001). The analysis of the intra‐rater reliability revealed mediocre to excellent intercorrelation coefficients between the measurements of the observer. Conclusion: The use of supine and standing X‐ray images leads to different planning results when performing high tibial osteotomies for varus gonarthrosis. To avoid potential overcorrection, surgeons might consider increased lateral joint spaces on standing radiographs in osteoarthritic knees with varus deviation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]