Purpose of Review The use of cannabinoids has increased since legalization of recreational and medical use in the USA. It is likely that many orthopaedic patients consume cannabinoid products during the traumatic or perioperative period. The purpose of this study was to investigate the pre-clinical data evaluating the mechanism of action of cannabidiol (CBD) and Δ 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ 9-THC) and to evaluate the current clinical data on the use of cannabinoids in musculoskeletal illness. Recent Findings Recent pre-clinical studies have demonstrated that cannabinoid use and the endocannabinoid system (ECS) has an important role in bone healing and bone homeostasis. There is data that suggests that the use of cannabidiol (CBD) may increase bone healing, whereas the use of Δ 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ 9-THC), the major psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, likely inhibits bone metabolism and repair. The clinical implications and consumption of marijuana by orthopaedic patients have not been thoroughly evaluated. Studies have demonstrated concern for negative cardiovascular and psychiatric effects caused by marijuana use, but have not yet elucidated outcomes in the orthopaedic literature. Summary With the recent increase in advertising of CBD products and legalization of marijuana, it is likely that many orthopaedic patients are consuming cannabinoid products. The clinical implications and consumption of these products are unclear. We need more robust and well-designed clinical studies prior to making further recommendations to our patients on the consumption of these products.

To our knowledge, the present report describes the first case series of patients in whom allergic contact dermatitis developed in association with the use of the Prineo wound-closure system during orthopaedic procedures. The presentation can range from blistering to erythematous papules and vesicles to crusted plaques that resolve with Keflex and topical corticosteroid cream.

Of the true pathology identified, over half were not evident on clinical presentation, emphasizing the importance of a routine surveillance. However, an image intense surveillance program has a high rate of initially indeterminate findings. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:818-822. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background: Lateral column lengthening (LCL) is a surgical procedure used to manage forefoot abduction and, in theory, also increases the longitudinal arch by plantarflexion of the first ray through tensioning the peroneus longus for patients with stage IIB adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD). This procedure utilizes an opening wedge osteotomy of the calcaneus, which is then filled with autograft, allograft, or a porous metal wedge. The primary aim of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes of these different bone substitutes following LCL for stage IIB AAFD. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who underwent LCL from October 2008 until October 2018. Preoperative weightbearing radiographs, initial postoperative radiographs, and 1-year weightbearing radiographs were reviewed. The following radiographic measurements were recorded: incongruency angle, talonavicular coverage angle (TNCA), talar–first metatarsal angle (T-1MT), and calcaneal pitch. Results: A total of 44 patients were included in our study. The mean age of the cohort was 54 (range, 18-74). The study cohort was divided into 2 groups. There were 17 (38.7%) patients who received a titanium metal wedge and 27 (61.5%) that received autograft or allograft. Patients that underwent LCL with the autograft/allograft group were significantly older (59 vs 47 years old, P  = .006). Patients who underwent LCL with a titanium wedge had a significantly higher preoperative talonavicular angle (32 vs 27 degrees, P  = .013). There were no significant differences in postoperative TNCA, incongruency angle, or calcaneal pitch at 6 months or 1 year. Conclusion: At 6 months and 1 year, no radiographic differences were found between autograft/allograft bone substitutes vs titanium wedge in LCL. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.