A retrospective study involving thirty-six patients with thirty-seven ankle fusions was undertaken to assess the rate of fusion, the subjective and objective results, the residual subtalar and midtarsal movement, and the functional disability. Fusion occurred in thirty-one ankles (84 per cent). Twenty-four patients were reviewed, on average 7.5 years after fusion, and eighteen had good or excellent results; only four had been unable to return to their previous employment. The conclusion is that fusion is still a good treatment for the painful post-traumatic arthritis ankle, the resulting functional disability being minimal.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

No abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease characterized by articular cartilage degradation which can affect many joints in the body, but is particularly common in weight-bearing joints such as the knee and hip. The loss of cartilage can lead to joint space narrowing (JSN), pain, and loss of function and ultimately leads to the need for total joint replacement. There are a number of risk factors associated with OA, including genetic predisposition, obesity, age, and previous joint trauma. With obesity set to rise in future years,(Salihu et al., 2009) combined with OA being a frequent condition among the elderly and an ageing population (Mabey,Honsawek 2015), the prevalence of OA is expected to increase. An effective and reliable method for diagnosis and prognosis is needed, with increased demands on health services

The choice of the best stabilization technique for thoracolumbar fractures remains controversial. While LSF includes too many motion segments, SSF is associated with a high rate of fixation failure and subsequent loss of kyphotic correction. Our objective is to compare the surgical, clinical, and radiological outcomes of thoracolumbar spine fixation using long-segment fixation (LSF) versus short-segment fixation (SSF) with a screw in the fractured vertebra. We retrospectively evaluated 63 patients with single- level thoracolumbar fracture types A and B treated during the period between 2010 and 2017 in our institution. Group A (30 patients) was treated by SSF with an intermediate screw in the fractured vertebra, while group B (33 patients) was treated by LSF. Both groups were compared in terms of surgical, clinical, and radiological outcomes. The mean operative blood loss was significantly lower in group A than in group B (451.3 ± 79.9 and 690 ± 92.1 ml, respectively). The mean operative time in Group A was significantly shorter than in group B (58.4 ± 14.8 and 81.5 ± 12.3 minutes, respectively). Both groups achieved a similar Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. No significant difference was found as regards the kyphotic angle correction and the correction loss at final follow-up. In conclusion, SSF with a screw in the fractured vertebra achieved comparable functional and radiological outcomes to LSS with less blood loss and operative time.