Search

Background. In primary and revision total hip arthroplasty, to prevent perioperative complications, the prediction of the optimal implant size is essential. Using three-dimensional computed tomography-based postoperative evaluation software, we explored the accuracy and the precision of measurement of the size, alignment, and position of the prosthetic components after total hip arthroplasty. Methods. Using postoperative evaluation software, the postoperative computed tomography data from 20 hips in 20 patients were evaluated. The component size, alignment, and three-dimensional positioning of the cup and stem were assessed. The concordance rates of the component, repeatability (intraobserver reliability), and reproducibility (interobserver reliability) of postoperative evaluation were calculated. The radiographic inclination and radiographic anteversion of the cup, anteversion, varus–valgus angle, and flexion–extension angles of the stem were measured for alignment. The implant positioning was measured along three axes, namely, X-axis (transverse), Y-axis (sagittal), and Z-axis (longitudinal). Results. The concordance rates of all parts are above 94%. The intraobserver and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients of alignment measurement were very good for both cup (0.879–0.964) and stem (0.973–0.996). The intraobserver and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients of cup positioning were very good (0.961–0.987) for all axes. The intraobserver and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients of implant positioning were very good for the stem (0.879–0.995) for all axes. Conclusions. Computed tomography-based postoperative evaluation software was able to evaluate the size and position of total hip implants with high reproducibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Failed spinal fusion surgery sometimes requires salvage surgery when symptomatic, especially with postsurgical decrease in intervertebral disc height followed by foraminal stenosis. For such cases, an anterior approach to lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) provides safe, direct access to the pathological disc space and a potential improvement in the fusion rate. One LLIF approach, oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), targets the oblique lateral window of the intervertebral discs to achieve successful lateral interbody fusion. The current technical note describes spinal revision surgery using the OLIF procedure., Technical Note: The subjects were patients with leg pain and/or lower back pain derived from decreased intervertebral height followed by foraminal stenosis due to failed spinal fusion surgery. These patients underwent additional OLIF surgery and posterior fusion with no additional posterior direct decompression. Their outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores at baseline and final follow-up. Bony union was also evaluated using computed tomography images at final follow-up. Six subjects were evaluated, with two representative cases described in detail. Four patients had an adjacent segment disorder, and the other two patients had pseudarthrosis due to postoperative infection. The mean JOA score improved from 5.7 ± 5.4 to 21.2 ± 2.3, with a mean recovery rate of 65.0%. All cases showed intervertebral bony union., Conclusions: We introduced a salvage strategy for failed posterior spine fusion surgery cases using the OLIF procedure. Patients effectively achieved recovered intervertebral and foraminal height with no additional posterior direct decompression., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest or sources of funding.

Objective: To determine the distribution of referred hip pain in patients with idiopathic osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ION)., Methods: We prospectively documented 119 hips in 90 patients with ION (mean age 51 years). Patients identified the location of pain originating in their hip on a drawing of the body. Osteoarthritis of the hip (OA) was used as a historical cohort., Results: Referral of pain originating from the hip in patients with ION was 93% (111 hips) to the groin, 68% (81 hips) to the knee, 36% (43 hips) to the anterior thigh, 34% (40 hips) to the buttock, 18% (22 hips) to the lower leg, 9% (11 hips) to the greater trochanter, and 8% (9 hips) to the low back. About 97% (115 hips) of pain was located in the hip region (groin, buttock, and greater trochanter) and 77% (92 hips) showed referred pain (anterior thigh, knee, lower leg, and low back). Pain from ION was significantly more frequent in the knee and lower leg, but significantly less frequent in the lower back than pain from OA., Conclusion: We should be aware of ION masquerading as pain in the knee or anterior thigh.