Hip osteoarthritis (OA) can be idiopathic or develop secondary to structural joint abnormalities of the hip joint (alteration of normal anatomy) and/or due to a systemic condition with joint involvement. Early osteoarthritic changes to the hip can be completely asymptomatic or may cause the development hip symptomatology without evidence of OA on radiographs. Delaying the progression of hip OA is critical due to the significant impact of this condition on the patient’s quality of life. Pre-OA of the hip is a newly established term that is often described as the development of signs and symptoms of degenerative hip disease but no radiographic evidence of OA. Advanced imaging methods can help to diagnose pre-OA of the hip in patients with hip pain and normal radiographs or aid in the surveillance of asymptomatic patients with an underlying hip diagnosis that is known to increase the risk of early OA of the hip. These methods include the delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of cartilage (dGEMRIC), quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI- T1rho, T2, and T2* relaxation time mapping), 7-Tesla MRI, computed tomography (CT), and optical coherence tomography (OCT). dGEMRIC proved to be a reliable and accurate modality though it is limited by the significant time necessary for contrast washout between scans. This disadvantage is potentially overcome by T2 weighted MRIs, which do not require contrast. 7-Tesla MRI is a promising development for enhanced imaging resolution compared to 1.5 and 3T MRIs. This technique does require additional optimization and development prior to widespread clinical use. The purpose of this review was to summarize the results of translational and clinical studies investigating the utilization of the above-mentioned imaging modalities to diagnose hip pre-OA, with special focus on recent research evaluating their implementation into clinical practice.

No abstract

Introduction:Patients with orthopaedic trauma are frequently lost to follow-up. Personal mobile devices have been used to ascertain clinical research outcomes. The prevalence of mobile device ownership, use patterns, and attitudes about research among patients with orthopaedic trauma would inform clinical research strategies in this population.Methods:A total of 1,434 consecutive unique adults scheduled for an orthopaedic trauma outpatient clinic from December 2019 through February 2020 at a metropolitan level 1 trauma center were identified. Associations of demographic data with clinic attendance and mobile phone registration were explored by logistic regression. One hundred one patients attending clinic were then prospectively surveyed from June 2021 through August 2021 about housing stability, personal mobile device ownership, capabilities, use patterns, and openness to communicating via the device with for orthopaedic care and research.Results:The prevalence of personal mobile device ownership was 91% by registration data and 90% by a survey. Ninety-nine percent of survey respondents with mobile devices reported cell service always or most of the time. Ninety-three percent kept their devices charged always or most of the time. Ninety-two percent reported e-mail access. Eighty-three percent reported video capability. Ninety-one percent would communicate with their orthopaedic trauma care team by text message. Eighty-seven percent would answer research questions by phone call, 79% by text, and 61% by video. Eighty-five percent reported stable housing, which was not associated with mobile device ownership or use, but was associated with clinic nonattendance (29% vs. 66%, P < 0.01) and changing phone number at least once in the previous year (28% vs. 58%, P = 0.04).Discussion:Personal mobile devices represent a feasible platform for screening and collecting outcomes from patients with orthopaedic trauma. Nine in 10 patients own personal mobile devices, keep them charged, have text and e-mail service, and would use the device to participate in research. Housing instability was not associated with mobile device ownership or use patterns.

One mechanism of action for clinical efficacy by therapeutic antibodies is the promotion of immune-related functions, such as cytokine secretion and cytotoxicity, driven by FcγRIIIa (CD16) expressed on natural killer (NK) cells. These observations have led to research focusing on methods to increase Fc receptor-mediated events, which include removal of a fucose moiety found on the Fc portion of the antibody. Further studies have elucidated the mechanistic changes in signaling, cellular processes, and cytotoxic characteristics that increase ADCC activity with afucosylated antibodies. Additionally, other studies have shown the potential benefits of these antibodies in combination with small molecule inhibitors. These experiments demonstrated the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying the benefits of using afucosylated antibodies in combination settings. Many of these observations were based on an artificial in vitro activation assay in which the FcγRIIIa on human NK cells was activated by therapeutic antibodies. This assay provided the flexibility to study downstream effector NK cell functions, such as cytokine production and degranulation. In addition, this assay has been used to interrogate signaling pathways and identify molecules that can be modulated or used as biomarkers. Finally, other therapeutic molecules (i.e., small molecule inhibitors) have been added to the system to provide insights into the combination of these therapeutics with therapeutic antibodies, which is essential in the current clinical space. This manuscript aims to provide a technical foundation for performing this artificial human NK cell activation assay. The protocol demonstrates key steps for cell activation as well as potential downstream applications that range from functional readouts to more mechanistic observations.

Introduction:Bone drilling is a critical skill honed during orthopaedic surgical education. How a bone drill is held and operated (bracing position) may influence drilling performance.Methods:A prospective study with randomized crossover was conducted to assess the effect of 4 bracing positions on orthopaedic surgical trainee performance in a simulated bone drilling task. Linear mixed effects models considering participant training level, preferred bracing position, height, weight, and drill hole number were used to estimate pairwise and overall comparisons of the effect of each bracing position on 2 primary outcomes of drilling depth and accuracy.Results:A total of 42 trainees were screened and 19 were randomized and completed the study. Drill plunge depth with a 1-handed drilling position was significantly greater by pairwise comparison to any of the 3 double handed positions tested: a soft tissue protection sleeve in the other hand (0.41 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.03, p = 0.031), a 2-handed position with the contralateral small finger on bone and the thumb on the drill (0.42 mm, 95% CI 0.06-0.79, p = 0.018), and a 2-handed position with the contralateral elbow braced against the table (0.40 mm, 95% CI 0.02-0.78, p = 0.038). No position afforded a significant accuracy advantage (p = 0.227). Interactions of participant height with plunge depth and accuracy as well between drill hole number and plunge depth were observed.Conclusion:Orthopaedic surgical educators should discourage trainees from operating a bone drill using only 1 hand to reduce the risk of iatrogenic injury due to drill plunging.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level II.