Background Young, active, skeletally mature patients have higher failure rates after various surgical procedures, including stabilization for shoulder instability and primary ACL reconstruction. It is unclear whether young, active, skeletally mature patients share similarly high failure rates after revision ACL reconstruction. Questions/purposes We therefore determined whether revision ACL reconstruction restores knee stability and allows young (younger than 18 years), active, skeletally mature patients to return to preinjury activity levels. Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively identified 36 patients who had an initial ACL reconstruction between the ages of 12 and 17 years (mean, 15.4 years) and subsequent revision between the ages of 13 and 18 years (mean, 16.9 years); of these, 2-year followup was available for 21 (75%). Mechanisms of primary graft failure included traumatic rerupture (23 noncontact, seven contact), persistent instability (five), and infection (one). One patient had open physes at the time of revision. All revisions were single-stage transosseous reconstructions. The minimum followup was 24 months (mean, 36 months; range, 24-63 months).
Background Pain management after TKA remains challenging and the efficacy of continuously infused intraarticular anesthetics remains a controversial topic.Questions/purposes We compared the side effect profile, analgesic efficacy, and functional recovery between patients receiving a continuous intraarticular infusion of ropivacaine and patients receiving an epidural plus femoral nerve block (FNB) after TKA. Methods Ninety-four patients undergoing unilateral TKA were prospectively randomized to receive a spinal-epidural analgesic infusion plus a single-injection FNB or a spinal anesthetic plus a continuous postoperative intraarticular infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine. All patients were blinded to their treatment with placebo saline catheters. Blinded coinvestigators collected data concerning side effect profiles (nausea, hypotension), analgesic efficacy (VAS pain scores, narcotic usage), and functional recovery (timed up and go test, quadriceps strength, WOMAC scores, Knee Society scores, early postoperative ambulatory ability, in-hospital falls). All complications and adverse events were recorded. Results The frequency of nausea and hypertension was not different between the study groups. During the first 12 and 24 postoperative hours, the mean maximum VAS pain scores were higher in the ropivacaine group than in the epidural group (first 12 hours: 3.93 versus 1.14, respectively, p \ 0.0001; 12-24 hours: 3.52 versus 1.93, respectively, p = 0.008). After 24 hours, pain scores were similar between groups. Narcotic consumption was significantly higher in the ropivacaine group on the day of surgery, but overall in-hospital narcotic usage was similar between groups. There were no clinically important differences in functional recovery between groups at any time point, but patients in the epidural group were more likely to have knee buckling (32.7% versus 6.7%, p = 0.002) and delayed ambulation (16.3% versus 0.0%, p = 0.006) than patients in the ropivacaine group, though not in-hospital falls. No infections occurred in either group, and the frequency of complications was not different between groups.
At mid-term follow-up, NMC prostheses without stem extensions have excellent clinical results and are a viable option for patients with ligamentous instability. The use of Palacos cement in this scenario was associated with a high rate of femoral component loosening, possibly due to the decreased intrusion depth of Palacos when compared to Simplex cement.
The conversion rate during laparoscopic appendectomy has not changed significantly over the past seven years and remains ~4%. Independent pre-operative predictors of conversion are advanced age, ASA score>2 points, attending surgeon inexperience, and extensive inflammation observed on pre-operative CT scan. Proceeding directly with open appendectomy under these circumstances may reduce operative time, expense, and morbidity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.