Do spacer blocks accurately estimate deformity correction and gap balance in total knee arthroplasty? A prospective study with computer navigation.
- 作者列表："Jhurani A","Agarwal P","Aswal M","Meena I","Srivastava M","Sheth NP
BACKGROUND:Spacer blocks are used commonly in knee arthroplasty to estimate gaps and ligament balance. Their use continues along with modern technology despite dearth of literature regarding their accuracy and reliability. This prospective study aims to determine the difference in values of gap and balance measurements between spacers and trials in computer assisted TKA. METHODS:50 patients with moderate varus deformity of <20° undergoing primary TKA were recruited for this prospective study. After navigation assisted cuts and requisite ligament release, gaps and balance were recorded in extension and 90° flexion with spacer block followed by implant trials. RESULTS:There were 33 females and 17 males with average BMI of 28.2 ± 5kg/m2. The average preoperative flexion deformity was 6.5° ± 4.4° and varus deformity was 8.2° ± 3.8°. Average difference of deformity in sagittal plane in extension between spacer and trial was 6.2° which was statistically significant (p = 0.001) implying that knee achieves more extension with spacer blocks as compared to trials because the blocks do not have posterior offset of the condyles. However, there was no difference between values of soft tissue balance and coronal plane correction between spacer blocks and trials in extension and 90° flexion (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION:Spacer blocks do not estimate extension space accurately with knee achieving 6.2 more flexion with trials as compared to spacer blocks when assessed for sagittal plane correction in extension. Spacer blocks should pass in easily in extension to avoid any flexion deformity when the actual trials are inserted.
背景: 膝关节置换术中常用间隔块来估计间隙和韧带平衡。尽管缺乏关于其准确性和可靠性的文献，但它们的使用仍与现代技术一起继续。本前瞻性研究旨在确定计算机辅助TKA中间隔物和试验之间的间隙和平衡测量值的差异。 方法: 50 例中度内翻畸形 <20 ° 的患者接受初次TKA。导航辅助切断和必要的韧带松解后，用间隔块记录伸展和 90 ° 屈曲时的间隙和平衡，然后进行植入物试验。 结果: 女性 33 例，男性 17 例，平均BMI为 28.2 ± 5千克kg/m2。术前平均屈曲畸形 6.5 ° ± 4.4 °，内翻畸形 8.2 ° ± 3.8 °。垫片与试验矢状面延伸畸形平均差异 6.2 °，有统计学意义 (p = 0.001)。意味着与试验相比，膝关节用间隔块获得更多的伸展，因为间隔块没有髁突的后偏移。然而，在伸展和 90 ° 屈曲方面，间隔块和试验之间的软组织平衡和冠状面矫正值没有差异 (p> 0.05)。 结论: 当评估伸展的矢状面矫正时，与间隔块相比，试验的膝关节屈曲度增加 6.2，间隔块不能准确估计伸展空间。在插入实际试验时，间隔块应易于伸展通过，以避免任何屈曲畸形。
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the cardiovascular risk of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) remains poorly studied. We aimed to investigate the association between primary SS and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of articles in Medline and the Cochrane Library and recent abstracts from US and European meetings, searching for reports of randomized controlled studies of cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality in primary SS. The relative risk (RR) values for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with primary SS were collected and pooled in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model by using Review Manager (Cochrane collaboration). RESULTS:The literature search revealed 484 articles and abstracts of interest; 14 studies (67,124 patients with primary SS) were included in the meta-analysis. With primary SS versus control populations, the risk was significantly increased for coronary morbidity (RR 1.34 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.06-1.38]; P = 0.01), cerebrovascular morbidity (RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.43-1.49]; P < 0.00001), heart failure rate (odds ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.30-4.97]; P < 0.007), and thromboembolic morbidity (RR 1.78 [95% CI 1.41-2.25]; P < 0.00001), with no statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.48 [95% CI 0.77-2.85]; P = 0.24). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis demonstrates that primary SS is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, which suggests that these patients should be screened for cardiovascular comorbidities and considered for preventive interventions, in a multidisciplinary approach with cardiologists.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate the comparative risk of hospitalized infection among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated abatacept versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS:Using claims data from Truven MarketScan database (2006-2015), we identified patients with RA ages ≥18 years with ≥2 RA diagnoses who initiated treatment with abatacept or a TNFi. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any hospitalized infection. Secondary outcomes included bacterial infection, herpes zoster, and infections affecting different organ systems. We performed 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching between the groups in order to control for baseline confounders. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for hospitalized infection. RESULTS:We identified 11,248 PS-matched pairs of patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and TNFi with a median age of 56 years (83% were women). The IR per 1,000 person-years for any hospitalized infection was 37 among patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and 47 in those who initiated treatment with TNFi. The HR for the risk of any hospitalized infection associated with abatacept versus TNFi was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) and remained lower when compared to infliximab (HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.47-0.85]), while no significant difference was seen when compared to adalimumab and etanercept. The risk of secondary outcomes was lower for abatacept for pulmonary infections, and similar to TNFi for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSION:In this large cohort of patients with RA who initiated treatment with abatacept or TNFi as a first- or second-line biologic agent, we found a lower risk of hospitalized infection after initiating abatacept versus TNFi, which was driven mostly by infliximab.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Reducing pain is one of the main health priorities for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA); however, some studies indicate that pain is not routinely assessed in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) beliefs about the role of pain and the prioritization of its assessment in children and young people with JIA. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs who manage children and young people with JIA in the UK (including consultant and trainee pediatric rheumatologists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists). Data were analyzed qualitatively following a framework analysis approach. RESULTS:Twenty-one HCPs participated. Analyses of the data identified 6 themes, including lack of training and low confidence in pain assessment, reluctance to engage in pain discussions, low prioritization of pain assessment, specific beliefs about the nature of pain in JIA, treatment of pain in JIA, and undervaluing pain reports. Assessment of pain symptoms was regarded as a low priority and some HCPs actively avoided conversations about pain. CONCLUSION:These findings indicate that the assessment of pain in children and young people with JIA may be limited by knowledge, skills, and attitudinal factors. HCPs' accounts of their beliefs about pain in JIA and their low prioritization of pain in clinical practice suggest that a shift in perceptions about pain management may be helpful for professionals managing children and young people with this condition.