http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120422/-/DC1.

Intraoperative femoral condyle fracture is a significant but rarely reported complication during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This is the first study to identify the incidence, risk factors, location and outcome of these fractures in an Asian population with modern posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA. Materials and methods: We reviewed 2682 consecutive primary TKAs performed between 2011 and 2017 in a single centre; 23 femoral condyle fractures were identified and analysed. Results: Fractures were managed conservatively with screw fixation or revision arthroplasty. Mean follow up was 3.0 years (range 3 months to 5.9 years). All patients achieved bone union and good functional outcome. The mean Knee Society Knee score was 89.4 (range 71-100) and the function score was 80.2 (range 60-95) at a mean of 3.0 years post-operation. Bilateral surgery was found to be a significant risk factor for femoral condyle fracture, while there was a higher trend of fracture in female patients and Stryker articular surface mounted (ASM) navigation. Conclusions: Intraoperative fracture is not uncommon with modern PS TKA. Postulated risk factors for fracture were discussed. Early identification of risk factors and a rigorous surgical technique may reduce risk of fracture. A good functional result was expected after proper treatment.

No abstract

Background/Purpose: The iASSIST system is a novel navigation system for total knee replacement. It is based on accelerometers built within electronic pods attached to the instruments within the operative field. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of iASSIST navigation with that of the conventional alignment technique. Methods: A total of 91 patients (92 knees) retrospectively matched for age, gender, preoperative range of motion, and lower limb deformity underwent total knee replacement using iASSIST navigation (45 patients, 46 knees) or conventional instrumentation (46 patients, 46 knees). Operative time and radiological alignments were compared. Results: The use of iASSIST navigation resulted in fewer outliners (as defined by >3 deviation from the neutral mechanical axis) in lower limb alignment. Operative time with iASSIST navigation was not longer than that using conventional instruments. Conclusion: iASSIST navigation reduces the incidence of lower limb malalignment without adding extra time to the procedure. 中 文 摘 要 簡介: iASSIST是一個全新的全膝關節置換術電腦導航系統。本研究的目的是比較iASSIST 導航系統及傳統全 膝關節置換術的準確性。 方法: 回顧性分析91位病人(92膝) 的全膝關節置換術，病人、年齡、性別、術前活動範圍和下肢畸形的狀態 匹配。45位病人(46膝) 接受了iASSIST電腦導航全膝關節置換術。46位病人接受了傳統全膝關節置換術。我 們對两組病人的手術時間及術前術後的影像對線進行了比較。 結果: 使用iASSIST電腦導航全膝關節置換術之整體下肢對線較傳統全膝關節置換術較少 對線異常值 (>3 偏 離中立機械軸)。而使用iASSIST電腦導航全膝關節置換術之手術時間並不比傳統全膝關節置換術長。 結論: iASSIST電腦導航降低整體下肢對線出現偏差的機會，同時無需增加額外手術時間。

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate if the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Colonoscopy CLN (ENDO‐AID) could increase the polyp detection rate (PDR). Methods and Materials A single center retrospective study was performed in Tin Shui Wai Hospital. PDR in CLN from 11/2020 to 03/2021 after the application of ENDO‐AID (AI group) was compared to the cases from 12/2019 to 11/2020 before the application of the practice (non‐AI group). Procedures were performed by a single endoscopist with experience in performing > 3,000 CLN. Variables, such as patients' demographic data, indications, incidence of PDR, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale BBPS, withdrawal time, post CLN complication rate between the 2 groups, were compared. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed by using the Chi‐Square test (Fisher exact test if appropriate) and Mann‐Whitney test respectively. Results were considered to be significant if p‐value < 0.05. Results Total 234 patients were recruited. 115 patients (49.1%) were in the non‐AI group while 119 patients (50.9%) were in the AI group. The mean age of the non‐AI was higher than the AI group (65.3 vs 59.2, p< 0.001*), otherwise, there was no significant difference in sex (p = 0.05), percentage of smokers (20.8% vs 27.7%, p = 0.22), past medical history of IBD (0 vs 0, p = 1.0), family history of colorectal cancer (9 vs 9, p = 0.94), indications for CLN (e.g. follow up CLN for polyp/ cancer, per‐rectal bleeding, altered bowel habit etc. p > 0.05), BBPS (7.88 vs 8.04, p = 0.217), withdrawal time (7.65 min vs 7.48 min, p = 0.935), completion rate (95.6% vs 98.3%, p = 0.27) and complication rate (0% in both groups,p=1.0) between groups. In the contrary, PDR was significantly higher in the AI group than the non‐AI group (64.7% vs 46.0%, p = 0.003*). Besides, adenoma detection rate was also found significantly higher in the AI group than the non‐AI group (52.9% vs 37.4%, p = 0.017*). Conclusions AI CLN can improve the PDR.