Our aim was to compare the degree of patellar descent and alteration in angle of the inclination of the tibial plateau in lateral closing-wedge and medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) in 51 consecutive patients with osteoarthritis of the medial compartment and varus malalignment. Patellar height was measured by the Insall-Salvati (IS) and the Blackburne-Peel (BP) ratios. The tibial inclination was determined by the Moore-Harvey (MH) method. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to determine the influence of the type of HTO (closing vs opening wedge) on the post-operative patellar height or tibial inclination. The intra- and interobserver variability of these methods was determined before operation and at follow-up at one year. After an opening-wedge HTO the patellar height was significantly more decreased (mean post-operative difference: IS = 0.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.23; BP = 0.11; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18) compared with a closing-wedge HTO. The angle of tibial inclination differed significantly (mean post-operative difference MH = -6.40 degrees; 95% CI -8.74 to -4.02) between the two HTO techniques, increasing after opening-wedge HTO and decreasing after closing-wedge HTO. There was no clinically-relevant difference in the intra- and interobserver variability of measurements of patellar height either before or after HTO.

A prospective, randomised, controlled trial compared two different techniques of high tibial osteotomy with a lateral closing wedge or a medial opening wedge, stabilised by a Puddu plate. The clinical outcome and radiological results were examined at one year. The primary outcome measure was the achievement of an overcorrection of valgus of 4 degrees . Secondary outcome measures were the severity of pain (visual analogue scale), knee function (Hospital for Special Surgery score), and walking distance. Between January 2001 and April 2004, 92 patients were randomised to one or other of the techniques. At follow-up at one year the post-operative hip-knee-ankle angle was 3.4 degrees (+/- 3.6 degrees SD) valgus after a closing wedge and 1.3 degrees (+/- 4.7 degrees SD) of valgus after an opening wedge. The adjusted mean difference of 2.1 degrees was significant (p = 0.02). The deviation from 4 degrees of valgus alignment was 2.7 degrees (+/- 2.4 degrees SD) in the closing wedge and 4.0 degrees (+/- 3.6 degrees sd) in the opening-wedge groups. The adjusted mean difference of 1.67 degrees was also significant (p = 0.01). The severity of pain, knee score and walking ability improved in both groups, but the difference was not significant. Because of pain, the staples required removal in 11 (23%) patients in the closing-wedge group and a Puddu plate was removed in 27 (60%) patients in the opening-wedge group. This difference was significant (p < 0.001). We conclude that closing-wedge osteotomy achieves a more accurate correction with less morbidity, although both techniques had improved the function of the knee at one year after the procedure.

Background: Contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) suture repair techniques have been subject to renewed interest in recent years. Although several clinical studies have yielded good short-term results, high-quality evidence is lacking in regard to the effectiveness of this treatment compared with ACL reconstruction. Hypothesis: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair is at least as effective as anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction for the treatment of acute ACL rupture in terms of patient self-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: After stratification and randomization, 48 patients underwent either dynamic augmented ACL suture repair or ACL reconstruction with a single-bundle, all-inside, semitendinosus technique. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 2 years postoperatively was the primary outcome measure. Patient-reported outcomes (IKDC subjective score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Tegner score, visual analog scale for satisfaction), clinical outcomes (IKDC physical examination score, leg symmetry index for the quadriceps, hamstrings strength, and jump test battery), and radiological outcomes as well as adverse events including reruptures were recorded. Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle. Results: The lower limit for the median IKDC subjective score of the repair group (86.2) fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin, confirming noninferiority of dynamic augmented ACL suture repair compared with ACL reconstruction. No statistical difference was found between groups for median IKDC subjective score (repair, 95.4; reconstruction, 94.3). Overall, 2 reruptures (8.7%) occurred in the dynamic ACL suture repair group and 4 reruptures (19.0%) in the ACL reconstruction group; further, 5 repeat surgeries—other than for revision ACL surgery—took place in 4 patients from the dynamic ACL suture repair group (20.8%) and in 3 patients from the ACL reconstruction group (14.3%). Conclusion: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair is not inferior to ACL reconstruction in terms of subjective patient-reported outcomes as measured with the IKDC subjective score 2 years postoperatively. However, for reasons other than revision ACL surgery due to rerupture, a higher number of related adverse events leading to repeat surgery were seen in the dynamic augmented ACL suture repair group within 2 years postoperatively. Clinical Relevance: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair might be a viable treatment option for patients with an acute ACL rupture. Registration: NCT02310854 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The results indicate that a brace intended to reduce load shows small effects in patients with unicompartmental OA. However, many patients do not adhere in the long run to this kind of conservative treatment.

The BF module on the XN-1000 is a suitable tool for fast and accurate quantification of WBC (differential) and RBC counts in CSF and other BFs in a diagnostic setting.

No abstract

Background There is controversial evidence regarding whether foot orthoses or knee braces improve pain and function or correct malalignment in selected patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the medial knee compartment. However, insoles are safe and less costly than knee bracing if they relieve pain or improve function.Questions/purposesWe therefore asked whether laterally wedged insoles or valgus braces would reduce pain, enhance functional scores, and correct varus malalignment comparable to knee braces.Patients and MethodsWe prospectively enrolled 91 patients with symptomatic medial compartmental knee OA and randomized to treatment with either a 10-mm laterally wedged insole (index group, n = 45) or a valgus brace (control group, n = 46). All patients were assessed at 6 months. The primary outcome measure was pain severity as measured on a visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures were knee function score using WOMAC and correction of varus alignment on AP whole-leg radiographs taken with the patient in the standing position. Additionally, we compared the percentage of responders according to the OMERACT-OARSI criteria for both groups.ResultsWe observed no differences in pain or WOMAC scores between the two groups. Neither device achieved correction of knee varus malalignment in the frontal plane. According to the OMERACT-OARSI criteria, 17% of our patients responded to the allocated intervention. Patients in the insole group complied better with their intervention. Although subgroup analysis results should be translated into practice cautiously, we observed a slightly higher percentage of responders for the insole compared with bracing for patients with mild medial OA.ConclusionsOur data suggest a laterally wedged insole may be an alternative to valgus bracing for noninvasively treating symptoms of medial knee OA.Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of level of evidence.