Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: There is no consensus on whether hip-ankle radiographs or rather standardized a‑p knee-radiographs should be used to assess implant position and coronal alignment after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study investigates whether implant position and alignment after TKA can reproducibly be assessed using a‑p knee-radiographs rather than hip-ankle radiographs.
Materials And Methods: This study was performed on 100 weight-bearing hip-ankle radiographs after conventional primary TKA. The true mechanical and anatomical femorotibial angle as well as coronal implant position was assessed on hip-ankle radiographs. The radiographs were then cropped to 80, 60 and 40 % of the leg-length and tibial coronal implant position, and the anatomical axis and a surrogate mechanical axis were obtained. The difference in the alignment parameters between the hip-ankle radiographs were statistically compared with the cropped radiographs and the inter-observer correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated.
Results: The ICC for measurement of the mechanical femorotibial angle was higher in hip-ankle radiographs (0.95) when compared with a radiograph cropped to 40 % (0.61). There was a significant difference in the mechanical femorotibial angle between hip-ankle radiographs and any cropped radiograph. However, there were no significant differences in coronal implant position and the anatomical femorotibial angle between hip-ankle radiographs and any cropped radiograph.
Conclusions: We conclude that standard a‑p knee-radiographs are insufficient to assess the mechanical alignment following TKA. However, standard a‑p knee-radiographs are appropriate to assess the implant position when referenced against the anatomical axes. Weight-bearing hip-ankle radiographs should be questioned as a routine after TKA.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00132-016-3264-7 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!