Alignment of the prosthesis is one of the most significant factors that affect the long-term clinical outcome following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There is conflicting evidence whether patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) for TKA improves the component position compared to standard instrumentation. This study aimed to compare the rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial components in TKA patients when performed with either conventional or PSI. Sixty patients with primary knee osteoarthritis were randomly divided into two groups treated surgically with TKA: one with conventional instrumentation and the other with the Visionaire PSI system (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, TN). Computerized tomography (CT) and X-ray imaging were performed preoperatively and 12 weeks after surgery. The rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial component in all patients was assessed postsurgically using CT imaging according to the Berger protocol. Both groups were clinically assessed in a blinded fashion using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and a visual analog scale (VAS). Fifty-eight patients were prospectively assessed. The mean postsurgical follow-up was 3.0 ± 0.4 months. CT images did not reveal any significant improvement in the rotational alignment of the implant components between the groups. X-rays revealed a significant improvement in the deviation from the optimal alignment range of the femoral component in the coronal plane in both groups. Patients operated with Visionaire PSI assistance had poorer functional outcomes. We conclude that there were no improvements in clinical outcomes or knee component alignment in patients treated with PSI compared with those treated with standard instruments. In addition, clinical and functional assessment showed inferior results in terms of KSS and VAS scores at the midterm follow-up in patients treated with PSI.
Background Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is considered to be highly successful in treatment of end-stage osteoarthritis. There are multiple implant designs available on the market, and it is difficult to point which one is the best. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes and gait pattern after TKA with the use of fixed-bearing medial pivot (K-Mod) vs multi-radius design (NexGen) implants and to compare them to norms for healthy patients with no osteoarthritis or arthroplasty procedure in anamnesis. Methods A group of 30 patients who received the medial pivot (MP) TKA and 33 patients who received the posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA between May and August of 2018 were included. All surgeries were performed in the level III academic hospital by a single surgeon. Every patient was asked to fulfill the The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Standard X-ray, biomechanical gait analysis using a motion capture system, and statistical analysis were performed at 2 years postoperatively. Results A total of 28 patients from either MP cohort (93%) or PS (85%) matched-control cohort completed the whole assessment at the final follow-up. There were statistically significant differences in a few gait parameters such as shorter mean step length both in operated and healthy limb, lower mean gait velocity, and lower mean walking cadence than the norm in both MP and PS groups. As to the WOMAC score, there was statistically significant improvement in both groups comparing preoperative and postoperative outcomes. Nevertheless, in the MP group, there was a significantly higher score, indicating worse outcomes, in the stiffness part of the WOMAC score than in the PS group. No significant differences were found between groups during radiological evaluation. Conclusions There were satisfying and promising clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in both MP and PS groups with very little difference in relation to norm values. However, both implants failed in fully restoring gait patterns similar to the healthy limb of the same patient.
Background: The decision to return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is difficult; thus, coaching staff require a readable, easy-to-use, and holistic indication of an athlete’s readiness to play. Purpose: To present the Composite Score of Readiness (CSR) as a method providing a single score for RTS tests after ACL reconstruction. Methods: The study comprised 65 male football players (age 18–25 years), divided into three groups: ACL group—subjects after ACL rupture and reconstruction, Mild Injury (MI) group—subjects after mild lower limb injuries, and Control (C) group—subjects without injuries. The CSR was calculated based on three performed tests (Y-balance test, Functional Movement Screen, and Tuck Jump Assessment) and expressed as the sum of z-scores. The CSR index allows highlighting an athlete’s functional deficits across tests relative to the evaluated group. Results: The CSR indicated that relative to the group of athletes under the study, similar functional deficits were present. Comparing athletes following ACL reconstruction to both the MI and C groups, in the majority of subjects, the CSR index was below zero. The correlation between CSR and raw tests results indicated that the CSR is most strongly determined by YBT. Conclusion: The CSR is a simple way to differentiate people after serious injuries (with large functional deficits) from people without injuries or with only small deficits. Because the CSR is a single number, it allows us to more easily interpret the value of functional deficits in athletes, compared to rating those deficits based on raw tests results.
Background Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a cause of multiple complications, including retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy. These complications are well understood and believed to contribute to gait instability. Poor balance control and increased falling risk have also been reported in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Patients with DPN have increased risk of falling due to decreased proprioceptive feedback. Effective balance training should improve postural control in patients with DPN. For this purpose further evaluation was conducted and balance training was designed. Methods The goal of our study was to determine values of proprioception, balance, muscle coordination and strength in patients with T2D and analyze whether biofeedback balance training with use of the Biodex Balance System could improve these parameters. To assess the fall risk the general stability index (GSI), the index of frontal-posterior (FPI) and medial–lateral (MLI) stability were evaluated. 37 patients with diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited to this study. Their results were compared with control group consisting of 41 healthy participants who were homogenic to the study group in terms of age and body mass index (BMI). Results There were statistically significant differences between patients with diabetes compared to healthy subjects in GSI (2.79 vs 1.1), FPI (1.66 vs 0.7), MLI (0.88 vs 0.52) and risk of falling (5.18 vs 2.72) p < 0.05. There were also statistically significant changes before and after training in all stability indices (GSI: 2.79 vs 1.26, FPI: 1.66 vs 0.77, MLI: 0.88 vs 0.54 accordingly) p < 0.05 and risk of falling (5.18 vs 3.87) p < 0.05 in the study group who had undergone training with biofeedback. Conclusions This study found that there is a decreased balance and motor coordination and an increased risk of falling in patients with type 2 diabetes. These parameters improved in patients who have undergone training programme with biofeedback. Furthermore, an age-dependent deprivation of static balance was observed along with an increased risk of falling as a result of increasing BMI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.