ObjectivesDespite various challenges, orthopaedic sports surgeons are still providing the arthroscopic service in low-income and middle-income countries like Nepal; however, it is hardly being reported. The main purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in the urban group and that of the rural group.MethodsWe evaluated a total of 194 patients, including 98 patients in the urban group and 96 patients in the rural group, undergoing arthroscopic ACLR between August 2015 and February 2018, and had completed a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Subjective evaluations were performed using the Tegner-Lysolm score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form. Laxity assessments were performed using the Lachman test and the Pivot-shift test. Functional evaluation included the range of motion, single-leg hop test and overall IKDC score. Radiological assessment was performed according to the IKDC guidelines. SPSS was used for data analysis.ResultsThere was statistically significant differences in the subjective assessments between 2 groups. No statistically significant differences existed between 2 groups in terms of laxity and functional assessments. However, the proportion of laxity, in terms of Lachman test and Pivot-shift test, was higher in the young and active individuals and the proportion of abnormal and severely abnormal in all parameters of functional outcomes was higher in the older female in the rural group. Graft failure occurred in 19 (17.6%) knees in the urban group and 17 (16.8%) knees in the rural group. Graft failure in the urban group was higher in young and active male patients, whereas failure in the rural group was more in female patients. Similarly, overall infection occurred in 13 (6.2%) knees, including 5 (2.3%) deep infections and 8 (3.8%) superficial infections.ConclusionWe advised similar rehabilitation protocol for all the patients; however, the outcomes were significantly lower in patients living in rural areas as they are found to have poor compliance with the rehabilitation protocol. The overall graft failure rate was 17.2%; however, the reoperation rate was higher in the urban group than the rural group. The rate of deep infection was higher in the rural group as compared with the urban group.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective comparative study.

Objectives The primary aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet procedure for recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. The secondary aims were to assess and compare the surgical cost, patient satisfaction, and complications, including recurrence and infection. Methods We retrospectively compared the clinical outcomes of all consecutive patients undergoing either arthroscopic Bankart repair or the open Latarjet procedure from May 2015 to May 2018 with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Forty-one patients (32 men, 9 women) in the Bankart group and 40 patients (34 men, 6 women) in the Latarjet group were available for the final follow-up. Results There were no statistically significant differences in the demographic parameters or clinical outcomes between the two groups. Functional satisfaction was higher with the Latarjet procedure. Bankart repair had a significantly higher operating cost than the Latarjet procedure. Three patients in the Bankart group and no patients in the Latarjet group developed recurrence. Conclusion Both procedures provided satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, the Latarjet group had a higher rate of functional satisfaction and lower operating cost, and there was a trend toward higher recurrence in the arthroscopic Bankart group.

Introduction: Pain management in total knee arthroplasty is aimed to minimize postoperative pain and improve functional outcomes in patients. Although there are many methods used for controlling the pain there has been no consensus on most appropriate or the best protocol. Adductor canal block (ACB) has the unique advantage of providing localized analgesia but it doesn't provide pain relief to the posterior capsule, it has been postulated that IPACK (interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the knee) combined with ACB will provide better pain relief than ACB alone. Materials and Methods: 60 Patients were studied in two groups. Group A had those patients with ACB+ ipack and Group B had ACB. Group A -Patient were subjected to combined ACB block with IPACK. Group B -Patient in this group were given ACB. Patient were studied for pain score VAS on Day 0 and Day 1 morning and evening, range of movement at postoperative Day 1 and distance walked on Day 1. Results: Group B had better outcome as compared to Group A. The mean VAS score for the ACB+IPACK group was less than for ACB alone at end of Day 0 and Day 1 in morning and evening. The ROM for the ACB+IPACK group was better than ACB alone and number of steps walked by patients were more in ACB+IPACK as compared to ACB alone. The statistical difference was significant when Adductor +IPACK group was compared to Adductor group for VAS, ROM and number of steps walked. Conclusion: ACB+IPACK is better mode than ACB for control of postoperative pain in patient undergoing Total knee replacement. IPACK is relatively safe and combined with adductor canal block decreases posterior pain in TKR patients.

Background The primary aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet procedure for recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Secondary aims were to assess and compare the cost-effectiveness, satisfaction and complications, including recurrence and infection. Methods We retrospectively evaluated the patients who underwent either arthroscopic Bankart repair with or without Remplissage procedure or open Latarjet procedure between May 2015 and May 2018. The preoperative data were collected from the hospital records, and the postoperative data were collected during the follow-up visit. At the final follow-up, 41(male=32, female=9) patients in the Bankart group and 40(male=34 and female=6) patients in the Latarjet group were included in the study. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the ASES score, Rowe score, and Quick DASH score. A self-constructed scale that consisted of satisfied and dissatisfied was used to measure the level of satisfaction. Any complications were recorded in every follow-up visit. Collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. Results There was no statistically significant difference regarding the age (p=0.401), gender (p=0.569), site of involvement (p=0.158), number of preoperative dislocations (p=0.085), follow-up (p=0.061), between the two groups. Similarly, no statistically significant difference existed regarding the ASES score (p=0.388), Rowe score (p=0.211), and Quick DASH score (p=0.713). The average external rotation was 83 degrees in the Bankart group and 85 degrees in the Latarjet group (p=0.140). Functional satisfaction was higher in the Laterjet group compared to the Bankart group (p=0.482). Hundred percent of the patients were cosmetically satisfied in the Bankart group, whereas only 32(80%) patients were cosmetically satisfied in the Latarjet group (p=0.002). There was a significantly higher operating cost for arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to open Latarjet procedure (p<0.001). Three patients had a recurrence in the Bankart group, whereas no recurrence occurred in the Latarjet group. And, 2 superficial infections occurred in the Latarjet group. Conclusion These results provide the fact that arthroscopic Bankart repair might be a fancy and minimally invasive procedure, Latarjet procedure should still be a priority in a developing country like Nepal, where financial cost is a huge burden.