Background:This systematic review aimed to present an updated analysis of the evidence comparing outcomes between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (robotic THA) and conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (manual THA).Methods:A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) systematic review was performed using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase. Controlled studies comparing primary robotic THA and manual THA utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. We also compared radiographic outcomes, dislocation rates, and revision surgical procedures between groups. The ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tools were used to assess study quality and risk of bias.Results:Of 765 studies identified, 7 articles comparing robotic THA with manual THA met inclusion criteria. A total of 658 patients were assessed, 335 of whom underwent robotic THA. The majority of studies found no significant differences (p > 0.05) in PROMs between the 2 techniques. Two low-quality studies (Level III) found significantly better postoperative PROMs favoring robotic THA at 2 years. When assessing radiographic outcomes, 6 studies showed that robotic THA resulted in more consistent and accurate component placement. No differences in postoperative dislocations, complications, or revision rates were found between groups except in 1 study, which found significantly more dislocations and revisions in the robotic THA cohort. Reported operative times were a mean of 12 to 25 minutes longer when using robotic THA.Conclusions:The existing literature comparing robotic THA and manual THA is scarce and low-quality, with findings limited by methodological flaws in study design. Although evidence exists to support increased accuracy and reproducibility of THA component placement with robotic THA, this has not been shown to reduce postoperative dislocation and revision rates. Based on the available evidence, functional outcomes are comparable between techniques, and robotic THA appears to be associated with longer operative times. To fully evaluate the utility of robotic THA, additional well-designed, prospective controlled studies with continuous long-term monitoring are required.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives Percutaneous dialysis access interventions are routinely used to maintain the patency of dialysis access despite the lack of data regarding their long-term effectiveness. This retrospective study was undertaken to study the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous dialysis access interventions in arm fistulas and bridge grafts in an office-based endovascular center. Methods Patients who had a percutaneous dialysis access intervention in their upper extremity access site, performed at a single office-based endovascular center over a nine-year period (2007–2016) were included in this study. The patients’ demographic factors, patency, and complications were analyzed. Patients were entered in the study after first percutaneous dialysis access intervention. Results A total of 298 limbs in 259 patients had 913 procedures carried out over a nine-year period. There were 190 access arteriovenous fistulas and 108 arteriovenous grafts. The two most common arteriovenous fistulas were the brachiocephalic fistula ( n = 74, 39%) and radio cephalic fistula ( n = 69, 36%). Arteriovenous grafts were most commonly placed in the upper arm ( n = 66, 61%) followed by the forearm ( n = 42, 39%). The mean overall patency for all limbs was 50.86 months. Arteriovenous fistulas had a significantly longer patency than arteriovenous grafts (51.65 vs. 42.09 months; P = 0.01). In addition, patients with two or more percutaneous dialysis access intervention in their arteriovenous fistula had significantly greater patency than those with only one percutaneous dialysis access intervention (58.5 vs. 7.6 months; hazard ratio 0.41; P = 0.0008). This was not true for the arteriovenous graft group. Women represented 49% of the patient group. Their accesses had shorter patency than men (39.8 vs. 60 months; P = 0.0007). Conclusions This data support the use of repeated percutaneous dialysis access intervention to maintain long-term patency of dialysis access sites in an office-based endovascular center. Overall, fistulas have longer patency than grafts and women have poorer outcomes as compared to men

No abstract

We present a case of a 30-year-old Hispanic male with pelvic outlet obstruction syndrome secondary to a large pelvic abscess caused by Salmonella enterica Bovismorbificans. This case demonstrates a potentially serious complication of a rare foodborne illness in the United States, in which an urgent surgical intervention was warranted. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis demonstrated a large pelvic cystic mass causing near-total pelvic outlet obstruction of both gastrointestinal and genitourinary systems. A total of 1,250 mg of IV vancomycin and 3.375 mg of IV piperacillin-tazobactam were administered every eight hours, and an urgent decompressive transverse loop colostomy, Foley catheter placement, and percutaneous drainage were performed. Culture of the abscess fluid identified Salmonella enterica serotype Bovismorbificans, and the antibiotic regimen was changed to 1,000 mg IV ceftriaxone every 24 hours. Subsequent CT imaging displayed a reduction in abscess size. The patient was then discharged with a 14-day course of 500 mg of oral ciprofloxacin every 12 hours and 500 mg of oral metronidazole every eight hours. Imaging at three weeks post-discharge displayed resolution of the abscess, and the drain was removed. The patient had complete recovery and did well several months following treatment. While rare, Salmonella enterica serotype Bovismorbificans could potentially lead to serious complications such as giant pelvic abscess, in which a multidisciplinary team approach (i.e., medical, surgical, and interventional) is critical for a good outcome.