This study examines prospectively the randomised, long-term, clinical and radiological results of the treatment of spondylitis patients by ventro-dorsal or ventral spine fusion. Group 1 consisted of 12 patients who (after ventral removal of the focus of infection and autologous bone grafting) were treated by dorsal instrumentation. Group 2 consisted of ten patients who, after similar ventral removal and bone interposition, were stabilised by ventral instrumentation. The patients prospectively underwent clinical and radiological studies. In addition, they were asked to fill in self-assessment questionnaires such as the short-form (SF)-36 health survey, the Oswestry questionnaire, and the visual analog scales (VAS). The postoperative follow-ups were at 6 months, 2 years and 5.4 years. It proved possible to demonstrate clinically that patients with an isolated ventral spondylodesis feel significantly better and experience significantly less pain in the area of spinal fusion than patients with ventro-dorsal fusion 2 and 5.4 years after the operation. Over a number of years a stable fusion can be achieved through either operation. Ventral stabilisation yields more advantages than dorsal instrumentation in the long term. These advantages result in a clinically smoother course after the operation. If, in the individual case, ventral instrumentation is feasible, this method should be used.

Contrary to expectations and local protocols, most patients were treated with conventional long-duration therapy. Patients treated for short courses had good outcomes. The low rate of complications may make randomized controlled equivalence trials unfeasible. Increasing evidence of the efficacy and safety of short-duration treatment (3-3.5 weeks) for acute, uncomplicated OM or SA in children suggests that this could be accepted as the standard treatment. However, this should be evaluated prospectively using a register, with at least 12 months' of follow-up.

The analysis and interpretation of cup position and acetabular parameters may be improved by our method for assessing pelvic tilt in AP radiographs.

Weight-bearing long-leg radiographs are commonly used in orthopaedic surgery. Measured parameters, however, change when radiographs are conducted in different rotational positions of the leg. It was hypothesized that rotational errors are regularly present in long-leg radiographs resulting in wrong measurements. In 100 consecutive long-leg radiographs conducted according to the method of Paley, rotation was assessed by fibular overlap. Angular parameters in radiographs (mechanical lateral proximal femoral angle (mLPFA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), angle between the anatomical and mechanical femoral axis (AMA), mechanical medial proximal tibia angle (mMPTA), mechanical lateral distal tibial angle (mLDTA), and the mechanical femoral and tibial axis (mFA–mTA) were measured and deviations related to malrotation calculated. An average internal rotation of 8 degrees was found in lower limbs showing a range between 29 degrees of internal and 22 degrees of external rotation. As a result, mean differences before and after rotational correction for measured parameters (mLPFA, mLDFA, AMA, mMPTA, mLDTA, mFA–mTA) ranged between 0.4 and 1.7 degrees (−2.1; 5.6 95% confidence interval [CI]). In conclusion, malrotation of lower limbs is regularly present in long-leg radiographs. As all measured parameters are influenced by malrotation, correct lower limb rotation needs to be verified.

BackgroundHeterotopic ossification (HO) is a complication after tissue trauma, fracture and surgery (i.e. total hip arthroplasty). Prophylaxis is the most effective therapy. If HO formations become symptomatic and limit patients’ quality of life, revision surgery is indicated and is usually combined with a perioperative oral prophylaxis (NSAIDs) and/or irradiation. However, a long-term use of NSAIDs can induce gastro-intestinal or cardiac side-effects and possible bony non-unions during fracture healing. Subject of this study was to assess the current status of HO prophylaxis after injuries or fractures and to evaluate current indications and strategies for excision of symptomatic HO.MethodsBetween 2013 and 2014, a questionnaire was sent to 119 orthopaedic and trauma surgery departments in Germany. Participation was voluntary and all acquired data was given anonymously.ResultsThe cumulative feedback rate was 71 %. Trauma and orthopaedic surgery departments in Germany recommend oral HO prophylaxis after acetabulum and femoral neck fractures, elbow dislocation, and fracture or dislocation of the radial head. Pain upon movement and an increasing loss of range of motion in the affected joint are considered to be clear indications for HO surgery. A partial removal of ROM-limiting HO formations was also considered important. The vast majority of all departments include perioperative oral HO prophylaxis and/or irradiation if surgical HO removal is planned. The choice and duration of NSAIDs is highly variable.ConclusionHO is of clinical significance in current traumatology and orthopaedics. Certain fractures and injuries are prone to HO, and prophylactic measures should be taken. The respondents in this survey assessed current therapeutic strategies for HO formations similarly. These concepts are in line with the literature. However, the duration of perioperative oral HO prophylaxis varied greatly among the specialist centres. This is significant as a long-term use of NSAIDs fosters a potential risk for the patients’ safety and could influence the clinical outcome. National and international guidelines need to be developed to further reduce HO rates and improve patients’ safety in trauma and orthopaedic surgery.