We compared clinical [including maximal flexion and range of motion (ROM)] and radiographical outcomes of high-flex versus conventional implants for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after 1 year. We also analyzed the factors affecting postoperative ROM in high-flex implants. The high-flex group (n=90) had an average maximal flexion of 129.8 degrees (standard deviation (SD), 5.2 degrees ) significantly higher than the 124.3 degrees (SD, 9.2 degrees ) of the conventional group (n=90), especially for patients with less than 90 degrees of knee flexion (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in hospital for special surgery (HSS) score between the two groups. No knee developed osteolysis, aseptic loosening, or other complications. We found that, for high-flex implants, preoperative ROM had a significant effect on postoperative ROM.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Segmental fractures of the clavicle are very rare. Therefore, to date, there has not been a clear, standardized method of management of segmental clavicle fractures. Herein, two patients with a segmental fracture are described: One patient was treated conservatively, while another patient was treated operatively. Both patients showed excellent results. We discuss the various management options with a literature review. Case Reports Case 1A 40-year-old man presented to the outpatient clinic CASE REPORT J Korean Fract Soc 2017;30(3):151-155 ISSN 1225-1682 (Print)ㆍISSN 2287

PurposeTo compare the short term clinical results of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendon between Rigid-fix and PINN-ACL Cross Pin for femoral side fixation.Materials and Methods127 patients who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon and had been followedup for over than one year were enrolled for the present study. Rigid-fix was used in 71 cases (group 1), and PINN-ACL Cross Pin was used in 56 cases (group 2). Clinical and radiological results, operation time, and perioperative complications were compared amongst the two groups.ResultsThe International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score and Lysholm score were 94 and 95 in group 1 and 87 and 91 in group 2, with no statistical difference (p=0.892, p=0.833), respectively. However, significant difference was observed in one-leg hop test between the two groups (p=0.032). Five cases in group 1 and 40 cases in group 2 were found to be associated with perioperative complications with statistical difference (p<0.0001).ConclusionsThere was no resultant difference between the employment of PINN-ACL Cross Pin and Rigid-fix as femoral graft fixation for ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon. However, PINN-ACL Cross Pin led to complications with extensive operation times. Hence, it needs further improvement of tools for minimization of complications.

Study DesignRetrospective study.PurposeTo examine the clinical and radiologic characteristics of patients with stage 1 and 2 distractive flexion injury according to Allen's classification and who were not diagnosed immediately after injury, and to analyze the outcomes of surgical treatments.Overview of LiteratureFor the diagnosis of stage 1 and 2 distractive flexion injury in the lower cervical spine, attention should be paid when performing radiographs as well as when interpreting the radiographs.MethodsThe study was conducted on 10 patients (group 1) with stage 1 or 2 distractive flexion injury and who were not diagnosed immediately after injury from January 2003 to January 2009. The control group (group 2), 16 distractive flexion injury patients who were diagnosed immediately were selected. The simple radiographs, the degree of soft tissue swelling and the magnetic resonance imaging findings of the two groups were compared, and the clinical and radiologic results were examined.ResultsThe degree of the prevertebral soft tissue swelling of group 1 was lower in group 1, and it was statistically significant (p = 0.046). The fusion was achieved in all cases (100%) in group 1, however, re-displacement as well as the loss of reduction occurred in one case, despite of delayed fusion and good clinical result. In group 2, bone fusion was achieved in 15 cases of 16 cases (94%).ConclusionsFor the diagnosis of stage 1 and 2 distractive flexion injury in the lower cervical spine, it is desirable to perform computed tomography if diagnosis is not clear. Even if the diagnosis is delayed, stage 1 and 2 distractive flexion injury could be readily reduced by traction, and the treatment outcomes are considered to be comparable to those of the patients diagnosed immediately after injury.

No abstract