Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Background: Outcomes following meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) are an evolving topic. Purpose: To review clinical outcomes in younger, previously active patients who underwent an isolated MAT or MAT plus any osteotomy. Concurrent surgeries, complications, and graft survivorship are presented. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Inclusion criteria included having undergone MAT with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up with at least 1 of the following patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures collected pre- and postoperatively: visual analog scale for pain, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and overall satisfaction. From patient records, we recorded descriptive data, side (medial/lateral), previous or concurrent procedures, perioperative complications, revisions, and conversion to arthroplasty. Two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences in age and body mass index (BMI). A 2 × 2 chi-square test was used to determine if the spectrum of procedures performed on our study’s patient group was representative of the entire population. PRO results were analyzed using a multivariate ANOVA. Results: From a total of 91 eligible patients, 61 (63 knees) met our inclusion criteria. Mean presurgery age was 25.5 ± 9.2 years, and mean BMI was 26.7 (range, 18.5-38.4). At follow-up (mean, 4.8 years; range, 1.0-13.6 years) overall PROs were statistically and clinically improved at final follow-up ( P ≤ .003); effect sizes were moderate and large. KOOS Pain and KOOS Activities of Daily Living showed some main or interaction effects that were trivial or small. Patient satisfaction with the treatment was ≥7 out of 10 in 85% of patients. A minimum of 1 subsequent surgery for various concerns was necessary in 23% of the 93 knees. Graft survival in the included patients was 100%. Conclusion: Complications (conditions requiring at least 1 subsequent surgery) affected about one-quarter of the patients who underwent MAT. Nevertheless, MAT seemed to provide our patients with adequate pain relief and improved function.
BackgroundThe Center for Disease Control provides recommendations for preventative services and screenings including recommendations for a one-time HIV screening of all adult patients between the ages of 13-64. But not all clinics are fully compliant with these recommendations. We identified a need for increased screening at two clinics in a rural setting. As a healthcare quality improvement initiative, we developed educational informatics to increase screening compliance.MethodsThis project assessed HIV screening rates before and after educational interventions at two clinics, the Coyote Clinic and the Avera Downtown Clinic. Three changes were implemented to increase the HIV screening rate and ultimately provide more effective high-quality health care. The three initiatives focused on patients, physicians, and student volunteers in order to provide a strong foundation of knowledge to all parties involved in a patient’s care.ResultsPrior to any interventions, the baseline screening rate (screenings/100 persons) at the Avera Downtown Clinic was 0.84 while the screening rate at the Coyote Clinic was 0.00. After the proposed interventions, the screening rate of the Downtown Clinic improved to 3.97 and the screening rate at the Coyote Clinic improved to 29.4. Using a Fisher’s Exact test, we found a statistically significant post-intervention increase in HIV screening at the Coyote Clinic after the intervention (p = 0.0002) but not at the Downtown Clinic (p = 0.0940.)ConclusionHIV screening rates improved after the implementation of interventional education initiatives tailored for patients, medical students, and physicians. Implementation of low-cost quality improvement measures such as the ones detailed herein may significantly improve long-term patient management, particularly in the context of screening tests.
Background: Between 1984 and 1994, a single surgeon performed 132 primary cementless total ankle replacements using the Agility total arthroplasty system. The purpose of this study was to report on the 20-year follow-up, which we believe is the first study with this length of follow-up. Methods: Living patients were contacted and interviewed to determine the status of their implant (revised or unrevised) and to answer a simple questionnaire concerning overall satisfaction, pain, and functional improvement, as in a previous study. Thirty-three (26.2%) patients with 33 (25%) ankles of the original series were alive at a minimum of 20 years postoperatively, with a median follow-up of 22 years. They were asked to return to the office for standing anteroposterior and lateral ankle and foot radiographs or to send these radiographs if performed elsewhere. Radiographs were evaluated for radiolucencies around the components and subsidence (talar component) or migration (tibial component) of components. Results: Seventeen (13.5%) ankles of the 126 available for follow-up, including 5 (15.2%) ankles in living patients, had undergone revision ( n = 10) or arthrodesis ( n = 7) for loosening. One additional ankle was revised for infection and 1 for talar component malposition; thus, 19 (15.1%) ankles were revised. Conclusion: These results should provide a 20-year benchmark for newer total ankle arthroplasty designs when a similar length of follow-up becomes available. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
Total ankle replacement has been proven to be effective method for treatment of patient with end-stage ankle arthritis alternative to ankle fusion. STAR implant was initially used followed by SALTO, INBONE and ZIMMER implants. While four implants are currently used, there is a paucity of evidence in literature to compare outcomes and complications between them. Methods: Retrospective chart review of 247 consecutive patients with 258 arthritic ankles who were diagnosed with end-stage ankle arthritis and underwent total ankle replacement using STAR (98 ankles, 38.0%), SALTO (121 ankles, 46.9%), INBONE (24 ankles, 9.3%), and Zimmer (15 ankles, 5.8%) implants between October 1997 and May 2015. There was prospectively collected data and minimum follow-up for inclusion was 6 months with an average of follow-up of 101.2 months (range, 18 to 211 months), 52.3 (range, 6 to 90 months), 15.3 (range, 6 to 27 months), and 13.7 months (range, 6 to 26 months) for STAR, SALTO, INBONE, and ZIMMER, respectively). The primary outcome was Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Foot Function Index (FFI, pain, disability, activity limitations, and total scores), Short Form-36 (SF-36, PCS and MCS), and the secondary outcomes included 2year, 5-year, and 10-year survival rate, ankle range of motion at the final post-operative visit, and complications. Analysis of VAS, SF-36, and FFI was performed between the four groups using one-way ANOVA. Independent Sample T-test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, and Chi-square test were used to compare other parameters and complications. Results: All four implants demonstrated significant improvement of functional outcomes (SF-36,FFI,VAS) (p < 0.001); however, there was no significant of outcomes and pain relief between each pair of implants (p > 0.05, all). The 2-year survival rates were 98.9%, 100%, 100%, and 100% for STAR, SALTO, INBONE, and Zimmer implants respectively. The 5-year survival rates were 91.7% and 96.2% and for STAR and SALTO implants respectively but 10-year survival was 86.1% for the STAR implant. Shortterm complication for STAR, SALTO, INBONE, and ZIMMER implants were superficial wound infection (8.4%,
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.