-
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Chronic recurrent and multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO) is a nonsporadic autoinflammatory disorder. Currently, it is diagnosed based on clinical, radiologic, pathological,... (Review)
Review
Chronic recurrent and multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO) is a nonsporadic autoinflammatory disorder. Currently, it is diagnosed based on clinical, radiologic, pathological, and longitudinal data. Numerous aspects should be highlighted due to increased knowledge in imaging and immunology. We emphasize the use of whole-body MRI, which is a non-invasive diagnostic strategy. A literature review was carried out on longitudinal studies. Commonly, the mean age at diagnosis is 11 years, ranging between 3 and 17. The most common sites are the long bone metaphysis, particularly femoral and tibial metaphysis. In addition, the pelvis, spine, clavicle, and mandible may be involved. In long bones, the radiologic appearance can show typical structure, mixed lytic and sclerotic, sclerotic or lytic. It is frequently metaphyseal or juxta-physeal, with hyperostosis or periosteal thickening. The involvement of the vertebral skeleton is often multifocal. Therefore, whole-body MRI is essential in identifying subclinical lesions. CRMO is a polymorphic disorder in which whole-body MRI is beneficial to demonstrate subclinical edema. Vertebral collapse requires long-term monitoring.
Topics: Bone and Bones; Child; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Osteomyelitis
PubMed: 36072576
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.959575 -
The Bone & Joint Journal Feb 2015Revision knee arthroplasty presents a number of challenges, not least of which is obtaining solid primary fixation of implants into host bone. Three anatomical zones...
Revision knee arthroplasty presents a number of challenges, not least of which is obtaining solid primary fixation of implants into host bone. Three anatomical zones exist within both femur and tibia which can be used to support revision implants. These consist of the joint surface or epiphysis, the metaphysis and the diaphysis. The methods by which fixation in each zone can be obtained are discussed. The authors suggest that solid fixation should be obtained in at least two of the three zones and emphasise the importance of pre-operative planning and implant selection.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Diaphyses; Epiphyses; Femur; Humans; Reoperation; Tibia
PubMed: 25628273
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34144 -
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Nov 2022Since the introduction of the Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the humeral stem design has been modified with improved clinical outcomes. Two distinct... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the introduction of the Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the humeral stem design has been modified with improved clinical outcomes. Two distinct humeral designs have been used extensively: the inlay design, in which the humeral tray is seated within the metaphysis, and the onlay design, in which the humeral tray sits on the metaphysis at the level of the humeral neck cut. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether there are differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates between these designs.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to perform this systematic review. A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase was performed to identify all studies comparing the clinical results of both humeral designs. Primary outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures, shoulder range of motion, and incidence of complications.
RESULTS
From the 156 identified publications, 12 studies were included in the final review. A total of 1447 patients were included, with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. At final follow-up, both implants demonstrated significant improvements in comparison to preoperative baseline. On comparison of the inlay vs. onlay groups, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was higher in the inlay group (mean difference, 2.53 [95% confidence interval, 0.27-4.78]; P = .03). Postoperative motion, even if statistically greater in the onlay group (differences of 5° in forward flexion [P < .001], 3° in abduction [P = .003], and 4° in external rotation [P < .001]), was not clinically different. On comparison of complications, the inlay group showed more instances of scapular notching (93 of 322 patients vs. 70 of 415 patients; odds ratio, 0.35; P < .001) but fewer scapular spine fractures (26 of 727 patients vs. 21 of 559 patients, P = .09).
DISCUSSION
Inlay and onlay humeral tray designs in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty demonstrate similar clinical improvements postoperatively. Onlay implants have a low rate of scapular notching but a higher rate of scapular spine fracture. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 humeral tray designs is important to provide surgeons with options to tailor surgical plans for high-risk patients.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder; Shoulder Joint; Humerus; Scapula; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 35671928
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.002