The long-term effect of distal radial fracture malunion on activity limitations is unknown. https://bit.ly/2qYgOMh #JBJS
Effect of Postoperative Mechanical Axis Alignment on Survival and Functional Outcomes of Modern Total Knee Arthroplasties with Cement
Abdel et al. report on the 20-year survivorship of total knee arthroplasty implants that were mechanically aligned (0° ± 3° relative to the mechanical axis) compared with those that were outside that range and considered outliers. https://bit.ly/2uqY77S #JBJS
OrthoBuzz regularly brings you a current commentary on a “classic” article from The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. These articles have been selected by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors of The Journal because of their long-standing significance to the orthopaedic community and the many citations they receive in the literature. Our OrthoBuzz commentators highlight the impact that these JBJS articles have had on the practice of orthopaedics. Please feel free to join the conversation by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” button in the box to the left.
The classic 1981 JBJS article by B.F. Morrey et al. begs to be read carefully, in part because of the name of the lead author. More importantly, this study answers the question that arises with almost every patient with an elbow disorder: Is the achieved range of motion sufficient for activities of daily living? We can answer this question “yes” or “no” after reading this article, and in my own practice, I repeatedly refer to the information provided in it.
Dr. Morrey was an aerospace engineer who worked at NASA for two years before he attended medical school at the University of Texas Medical Branch. After his residency at the Mayo Clinic and after achieving a master’s degree in biomechanics from the University of Minnesota, he joined the staff at Mayo in 1978.
In this article, which integrates Dr. Morrey’s engineering and medical disciplines, he applied a high-tech device of that period (the triaxial electrogoniometer) to answer simple but eternal questions such as what degree of elbow flexion is needed to eat or perform personal hygiene.
It is the nature of human beings to notice particular joint impairments only when they disturb activities of daily living. Patient-reported outcome scores assessing subtle disturbances have recently been published, but we learned from Dr. Morrey’s article that patients with elbow flexion less than 130° will probably be reminded of their elbow problem whenever they try to use a telephone. (With today’s small cellular phones the problem might be even more accentuated.)
There is not much that a contemporary reviewer would criticise if this study were to be submitted today. Yes, the graphics would be nicer, and there would be more than 12 references. Modern computer-aided tools and methods for motion analysis might be more precise (and produce a mass of partially redundant data), but the results would remain essentially the same.
In fact, the question of functional elbow range of motion was revisited in JBJS by Sardelli et al. exactly 30 years after Dr. Morrey’s study appeared. Using modern three-dimensional optical tracking technology, Sardelli et al. found only minimal differences compared to findings in the Morrey et al. study. Only a few contemporary tasks like working on a computer (greater pronation) or using a cellular phone (greater flexion) appeared to require slightly more range of motion than previously reported.
Finally, it is the succinct and pointed results that amaze me whenever I recall the information from Dr. Morrey’s study. All we need to remember are four numbers: 100, 30, 130, and 50. Therein we are reminded that the patient needs to achieve a 100° arc of motion for flexion /extension (from 30° to 130°) and forearm rotation (50° of pronation and 50° of supination).
The authors were able to omit the conclusion sentence we see so often these days: “Further studies are needed…” The question about the minimal range of elbow motion needed to accomplish activities of daily living has been convincingly answered in this article. All residents should read this JBJS classic early, certainly before they examine their first patient with an elbow disorder.
Bernhard Jost, M.D.
JBJS Deputy Editor
Surgeons often prescribe more postoperative pain medication than their patients actually use. That’s partly because there is limited procedure-specific evidence-based data regarding optimal amounts and duration of postoperative narcotic use—and because every patient’s “relationship” with postoperative pain is unique. Nevertheless, physician prescribing plays a role in the current opioid-abuse epidemic, so any credible scientific information about postoperative narcotic usage will be helpful.
The Level I prognostic study by Grant et al. in the September 21, 2016 issue of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery identified factors associated with high opioid use among a prospective cohort of 72 patients (mean age 14.9 years) undergoing posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis.
Higher weight and BMI, male sex, older age, and higher preoperative pain scores were associated with increased narcotic use after surgery. Somewhat surprisingly, the number of levels fused, number of osteotomies, in-hospital pain level, self-reported pain tolerance, and surgeon assessment of anticipated postoperative narcotic requirements were unreliable predictors of which patients would have higher postoperative narcotic use.
Because the authors found that pain scores returned to preoperative levels by postoperative week 4, they say, “further refills after this point should be considered with caution.” Additionally, after reviewing the cohort’s behavior around disposing of unused narcotic medication, the authors conclude, “We consider discussion of narcotic use and disposal to be an important component of the 1-month postoperative visit…This important educational opportunity could help decrease abuse of narcotics.”
OrthoBuzz occasionally receives posts from guest bloggers. This guest post comes from Chad Krueger, MD, in response to an Annals of Internal Medicine study investigating the effectiveness of tai chi for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA).
We have put men on the moon, but we still have no cure for the osteoarthritis that affects millions of Americans. We try a variety of injections and other conservative measures to help slow the progression of the disease, but at some point arthritis wins. Undaunted, we search for new modalities of easing the disability the disease brings to our patients in hopes of offering an effective treatment.
That is why I read with interest the recent study “Comparative Effectiveness of Tai Chi Versus Physical Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis” in the Annals of Internal Medicine. I have many patients with debilitating knee arthritis who are not quite ready to embark on a joint replacement until they feel they have exhausted all other options. I have never referred a patient to tai chi, so would this provide another avenue for those patients to explore?
In this trial, 200 patients were randomized to either 24 total tai chi classes or standard physical therapy sessions (12 sessions at the PT office followed by six weeks of monitored home exercise). The primary outcome measure was the WOMAC score. After following the patients for a year, the researchers found that both groups had substantial improvements in their WOMAC scores, along with improvements in four secondary outcome measures: physical function, quality of life, depression, and medication usage. The one notable between-group difference was that the tai chi group had significantly greater improvements in depression and quality of life.
It’s clear that increasing physical activity, within reasonable bounds, helps patients with knee arthritis in many ways. Whether that extra activity comes from a tai chi class or a structured physical therapy program may not matter. However, it is possible that the tai chi classes (and other group-based physical activity programs) have social benefits that standard physical therapy does not—and that the patients in the tai chi classes may have benefited substantially from that social connection. Many studies, including those of the Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP) cohort, have shown the power that social and psychological factors can have on a patient’s outcome. It’s not surprising that similarly positive social effects would be found in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Still, not everyone with knee osteoarthritis will want or be able to attend a group class, so such a treatment option is not universally applicable. However, these findings should provoke orthopaedic surgeons and payers to consider seriously the social and emotional aspects of OA treatments. Tai chi is certainly not a “moonshot” solution to knee osteoarthritis, but then again, what is?
Chad Krueger, MD is a military orthopaedic surgeon at Womack Army Medical Center in Fort Bragg, NC.
The indications for arthroscopic treatment of musculoskeletal injuries continue to expand as orthopaedists find new and creative ways to apply this flexible technology. The May 2016 “Case Connections” article springboards from a May 25, 2016 JBJS Case Connector report about an isolated avulsion of the teres minor tendon that was repaired arthroscopically. That unique case is linked to three others from the JBJS Case Connector archive:
- Arthroscopic treatment of a knee flexion contracture
- Arthroscopic reduction/fixation of an acetabular rim fracture
- Arthroscopically assisted medial femoral condyle reduction
As impressive as these minimally invasive solutions are, orthopaedists should always keep in mind that arthroscopy, like any other surgical procedure, is not without its potential complications (see related “Case Connections” article).
We posted our first “Case Connections” article about bisphosphonate-related atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) one year ago. Since then, JBJS Case Connector has published three additional case reports on the same topic, suggesting that it’s time for a revisit. These three recent cases demonstrate that AFFs can occur despite prophylactic intramedullary (IM) nailing of an at-risk femur, that AFFs can present as periprosthetic fractures, and that men taking bisphosphonates—not just women—can experience AFFs.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced this week that it will not deny claims from providers during the first 12 months of ICD-10 implementation based on a lack of code specificity, “as long as the physician/practitioner use[s] a valid code from the right family.” Similarly, CMS will not penalize physicians whose coding lacks ICD-10 specificity when reporting to the Physician Quality Reporting System, Meaningful Use, or Value Based Modifier programs, as long as the submitted code comes from the “correct family.”
In making this joint announcement with the AMA, CMS also said it will establish a “communication and collaboration center,” which will house an ombudsman “to help receive and triage physician and provider issues.” As “ICD-Day” (October 1, 2015) looms, CMS is encouraging small-practice providers to avail themselves of the readiness tools at the “Road to 10” website, which includes a separate section for orthopaedists.
Every month, JBJS publishes a Specialty Update—a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Here is a summary of selected findings from Level I and II studies cited in the May 20, 2015 Specialty Update on foot and ankle surgery:
Talar and Calcaneal Fractures
- A prospective randomized study comparing the sinus tarsi approach with the minimally invasive approach to the calcaneus found significantly fewer wound healing complications and shorter operative times with the minimally invasive longitudinal approach, but better outcomes were noted with the sinus tarsi approach for Sanders type-IV fractures.
- An RCT comparing outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures found no between-group differences at one year, but a trend toward better pain scores and function was noted in the operative group at eight to twelve years.
- A prospective randomized study of treatments for severe lateral ankle sprains compared a walking boot with restricted joint mobilization for three weeks with immediate application of a functional brace. No between-group differences in pain scores or development of mechanical instability were found, but the immediate functional-brace group had better function scores and shorter recoveries.
- A randomized trial comparing neuromuscular training, bracing, and a combination of the two for managing lateral ankle sprains concluded that bracing is the dominant secondary preventive intervention.
Total Ankle Arthroplasty
- A Level II study comparing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) with ankle arthrodesis found that both procedures improved gait postoperatively, but TAA came closer to restoring a normal gait.
- A Level II study comparing fixed and mobile-bearing TAA devices found nearly equivalent improvements in pain and function.
- A Level I study looking at TAA outcomes in relation to preoperative coronal-plane malalignment found that results were similar for ankles with a preoperative coronal-plane varus deformity of ≥10° and those with <10° of varus deformity.
Ankle and Hindfoot Arthrodesis
- A pilot RCT comparing B2A-coated ceramic granules with autograft in foot and ankle arthrodesis found that the B2A approach produced a 100% fusion rate, compared with a 92% rate in the autograft group.
- A Level II study found that weight-bearing cast immobilization provided outcomes that were similar to those of non-weight-bearing cast immobilization in non-operative management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.
- In an RCT comparing standard-of-care orthoses with experimental pressure-based orthoses to prevent plantar foot ulcers, the experimental orthoses outperformed the standard ones.
- A Level I study investigating surgical-site infections after foot and/or ankle surgery found an increased risk of infection associated with concomitant peripheral neuropathy, even in patients without diabetes.