Each year millions of patients are treated for joint pain with total joint arthroplasty, and the numbers are expected to rise. Comorbid disease is known to influence the outcome of total joint arthroplasty, and its documentation is therefore of utmost importance in clinical evaluation of the individual patient as well as in research. In this paper, we examine the various methods for obtaining and assessing comorbidity information for patients undergoing joint replacement. Multiple instruments are reliable and validated for this purpose, such as the Charlson Index, Index of Coexistent Disease, and the Functional Comorbidity Index. In orthopedic studies, the Charnley classification and the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical function score (ASA) are widely used. We recommend that a well-documented comorbidity index that incorporates some aspect of mental health is used along with other appropriate instruments to objectively assess the preoperative status of the patient.
Background The optimal treatment for femoral neck fracture is a matter of controversy. We compared the outcome of displaced fractures with good healing potential (moderately displaced fractures) to the outcome of undisplaced fractures treated by internal fixation with 2 parallel screws.Methods In a consecutive series of hip fracture patients, the rates of reoperation and mortality for 225 undisplaced fractures were compared to those for 241 moderately displaced fractures. The patients were followed for 1-6 years.Results The total rate of reoperation was 19% (9% because of healing complications) for the undisplaced fractures and 33% (20% because of healing complications) for the moderately displaced fractures. Fracture displacement was the main predictor of reoperation. There was no difference in mortality between the groups, and patient-related background parameters (rather than fracture displacement) were the main predictors of mortality. Interpretation Undisplaced fractures should be treated by internal fixation. The best treatment for moderately displaced fractures remains to be determined.
BackgroundIn order to create a well-functioning total hip arthroplasty (THA), it is important to restore femoral off-set and thus the abductor lever arm. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effect of increasing the abductor lever arm to and beyond the anatomical native lever arm in minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty performed through a direct anterior approach.Materials and methodsWe compared the lever arm of the operated hip to the lever arm of the contralateral native hip on radiographs in 148 patients following THA. The patients were divided in two groups based on whether they kept their anatomical lever arm or had an increased lever arm. The clinical outcome was assessed using hip osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS), Harris hip score and UCLA activity score.ResultsPatients who kept their anatomical lever arm did not experience a significantly better clinical outcome than the patients with an increased abductor lever arm. We found no significant difference in clinical scores at any of the follow-ups during the first year after THA.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that an increase in the abductor lever arm does not have major effects on the clinical outcome after THA. To avoid the potential negative effects of decreasing the lever arm, the surgeon should aim for an equal or slightly increased lever arm.Level of evidence Level 3, prospective cohort study.
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.