No abstract

Cementless fixation design failures led to low use of this alternative technology. A cementless total knee arthroplasty addressed these design flaws. The single radius knee design incorporated additive manufacturing to produce the tibial and patellar implants. Both implants have enhanced porous substrates, optimizing initial bony ingrowth. A nonrandomized prospective review was conducted of 72 cementless knees followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 37 months). Surgical time, estimated blood loss, and range of motion at 6 weeks were compared with those of a matched cohort of 70 cemented knees performed by the same surgeon. Knee Society Score and Oxford Knee Score were recorded for the cementless group. Radiographs were evaluated for change in implant position, subsidence, and radiolucent and sclerotic lines. Operative time was statistically shorter in the cementless group (40 vs 45 minutes), but there was no significant difference in postoperative estimated blood loss (557 vs 355 mL). Range of motion at 6 weeks averaged 118° in the cementless group vs 114° in the cemented group. Knee Society Score improved from 53.9 preoperatively to 85.0 at 6 weeks and 91.6 at most recent follow-up. Oxford Knee Score improved from 23.9 preoperatively to 31.7 at 6 weeks and 43.4 at most recent follow-up. No implants aseptically loosened or migrated. There were 2 early infections in the cemented group requiring revision. This cementless total knee arthroplasty revealed excellent clinical results at 3-year follow-up and resulted in shortened operative times. Biologic fixation was achieved in 100% of patients with improved functional and objective scores. Early results are encouraging, and this cementless total knee arthroplasty appears to provide an excellent alternative to cemented total knee arthroplasty. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(6):e765-e771.].

Background The purpose of this study is to evaluate how prior breast augmentation impacts rates of complications and risk for reoperation after mastectomy with concurrent breast reconstruction. Methods Patients undergoing nipple-sparing, skin-sparing, or simple mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction from 2008 to 2018 were identified in a prospective database. Postoperative complications and reoperations were then analyzed comparing patients with prior augmentation to patients without history of previous breast surgery. Results A total of 468 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 4 years. Of these, 72 had prior augmentation mammoplasty. These patients underwent nipple-sparing (52, 72%), skin-sparing (15, 21%), or simple (5, 7%) mastectomy with immediate direct-to-implant (46, 61%) or tissue expander (26, 35%) reconstruction. On univariate analysis, this cohort had a lower body mass index (23.3 vs 25.3, P = 0.003), a higher rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy (72% vs 54%, P = 0.01), and a higher prevalence of stage I disease (44% vs 33%, P = 0.04). Differences in age, comorbidities, reconstructive techniques, tumor size, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies were not significant. Overall complication rate between patients with or without prior augmentation did not significantly differ (51% vs 50%, P = 0.83); no significant differences in rates of surgical site infection, hematoma, mastectomy skin flap/wound necrosis, nipple complications, implant loss, or capsular contracture were found. Analysis of reoperations between patients with and without prior augmentation revealed no significant differences in average number of subsequent planned, unplanned, or total reoperations. On multivariate analysis, prior breast augmentation was found to be associated with significantly increased risk for undergoing ≥1 unplanned reoperation (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.28–4.05, P = 0.005). Conclusions Prior augmentation mammoplasty does not significantly affect rates of postoperative complications after mastectomy with concurrent reconstruction. Although prior augmentation does not affect number of subsequent reoperations on average, it does increase the risk of experiencing 1 or more unplanned reoperation after mastectomy with reconstruction.

COVID-19 viral pandemic continues to manifest itself in the form of various clinical symptoms. Due to concerns of COVID-19 in the setting of high rates of false-negative, there is increased likelihood of anchoring bias. We present a case of a 48-year-old white female who presented with two weeks of dry cough and diffuse pruritic nodular cutaneous rash. Patient was exposed to a colleague who tested positive for COVID 19. Initial visits were conducted virtually and workup was negative for COVID-19. Patient was offered supportive care; however, her symptoms continued to worsen. Subsequent workup was positive for left lower lobe nodular opacity on the chest X-ray, follow up CT chest showed demonstrated a focal 3.4 cm infiltrate in the left lower lobe pleural base posteriorly, blood workup was positive for eosinophil count, elevated liver enzymes and positive coccidioides antibody IgG and IgM. This case highlights the importance of avoiding anchoring bias when creating differential diagnoses and triaging patients.

No abstract