Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: Little is known regarding the opinions of the general population on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft options. Purpose: To evaluate the general population's perception of the use of allografts versus autografts in ACL reconstruction using a previously validated online marketplace platform. Methods: A prospective 34-question survey was distributed via the online marketplace. After collecting baseline demographics, participant preferences for ACL reconstruction with an allograft or autograft were established. All respondents completed a preeducation survey, reviewed an evidence-based education sheet, and completed a posteducation survey to assess their understanding. Upon completion, participants were asked which graft they would prefer. Participants were then asked if they would be willing to change their preference based on surgeon recommendation. Finally, participants were asked to rank the factors from the education sheet that were most influential. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Results: There were 491 participants that completed the survey (mean age, 39.9 years [range, 19-72 years]; 244 male, 241 female, and 6 nonbinary/third-gender participants). Before reading the education sheet, 276 (56%) reported no graft preferences, 146 (30%) preferred autograft, and 69 (14%) preferred allograft. After reading the provided sheet, 226 (46%) participants preferred autograft, 185 (38%) preferred allograft, and 80 (16%) had no preference. The mean score on the preeducation test was 45%, and the mean score on the posteducation test was significantly greater (61%; P < .01). Overall, 345 participants (83.9%) stated they would change their preference for autograft or allograft if their surgeon recommended it. Surgeon preference (n = 330; 67%), educational information provided (n = 117; 24%), and previous knowledge (n = 44; 9%) were the most important factors for making graft selections. The mean ages of the participants selecting each graft type before and after education were as follows: allograft (37.8 ± 10.1 vs 40.6 ± 11.8 years; P = .05), autograft (38 ± 11.5 vs 39.5 ± 10.1 years; P = .21), and no preference (41.5 ± 11.2 vs 39.4 ± 11.8 years; P = .16). Conclusion: Education resulted in a greater number of individuals’ reporting a preference in graft type (either allograft or autograft) compared with preinformation questioning. In addition, 83.9% of the participants were willing to switch their graft choice if recommended by their surgeon.

In the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA), pseudoaneurysms are extremely rare and can be difficult to diagnose, as clinical symptoms can mimic symptoms of other more common complications, such as periprosthetic joint infection, hematoma, and nerve damage. We present a case of a 69-year-old male with a history of slipped capital femoral epiphysis 56 years prior and subsequent right THA. The right hip primary arthroplasty was subsequently complicated by multiple dislocations and recurrent prosthetic joint infections. The most recent infection was treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) in 2017. The patient later presented in 2019 with right thigh pain. Upon further analysis, he was diagnosed with Streptococcus bovis positive periprosthetic joint infection. The patient underwent a two-stage revision of the hip using an antibiotic spacer. Two weeks following the second stage, he presented with a sudden onset of uncontrolled atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response and a low hemoglobin. The computed tomography scan revealed a large hematoma involving both the anterior and posterior thigh compartments with lab markers that were questionable for infection. An operation to remove the hematoma revealed no purulence, and a large pulsatile pseudoaneurysm on the posterolateral aspect at the mid femur was found. A sharp bone fragment was noted next to the pseudoaneurysm. The pseudoaneurysm was repaired by a vascular surgeon, and the bone fragment was removed. Following this procedure, the patient developed a subsequent periprosthetic joint infection requiring a double DAIR procedure six weeks following the pseudoaneurysm repair and is now on chronic antibiotic suppression. Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of the potential for pseudoaneurysm in the setting of total joint arthroplasty when treating a postsurgical hematoma of sudden onset.

The purpose of this study was to determine if short-term outcomes differed for pediatric patients with suspected musculoskeletal infection with or without a preoperative MRI. This was a multicenter, retrospective review of patients aged 0–16 years who presented with atraumatic extremity pain, underwent irrigation and debridement (I&D), and received at least one preoperative or postoperative MRI over a 10-year period. Primary outcomes were time to OR, total I&Ds, readmission rate, time from OR to discharge, and total number of MRIs. Secondary outcomes entailed the rate at which concurrent osteomyelitis was identified in patients with septic arthritis and the extent of the resulting surgical debridement. Of the 104 patients, 72.1% had a preoperative MRI. Patients with a preoperative MRI were significantly less likely to have surgery on the day of admission. No difference was found between groups regarding total I&Ds, readmission rate, time from OR to discharge, and total number of MRIs. Of the 57 patients diagnosed with septic arthritis, those with a preoperative MRI were significantly more likely to have concurrent osteomyelitis identified and to undergo bony debridement in addition to arthrotomy of the joint. In conclusion, patient outcomes are not adversely affected by obtaining a preoperative MRI despite the delay in time to OR. Although preoperative MRI can be beneficial in ruling out other pathologies and identifying the extent of concurrent osteomyelitis, the decision to obtain a preoperative MRI and timing of surgery should be left to the discretion of the treating surgeon.

Background: To our knowledge, there are no studies assessing associations between patients on preoperative estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) undergoing distal radius open reduction and internal fixation (DRORIF) and postoperative outcomes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare surgical and medical complications in patients on ERT undergoing DR-ORIF with a matched control cohort. Materials and Methods: The PearlDiver Mariner database was searched for female patients who took ERT within 3 months of the index procedure. Patients were matched 1:4 with non-ERT controls using propensity score matching. Complications were assessed at 90 days, 2 years, and 5 years. Statistical analyses were conducted using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical significance was determined at a P value of <.05. Results: The ERT cohort consisted of 1,815 ERT users, and the control cohort consisted of 7,247 patients. At 2 years, the ERT cohort was associated with a slightly greater incidence of malunion/nonunion (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.13–2.18) but with no increased risk of revision surgery (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.50–2.10). Similarly, at 5 years, the ERT cohort was associated with a slightly higher likelihood of a malunion/nonunion diagnosis (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24–2.30). Conclusion: The current study suggests that patients on preoperative ERT had a slightly increased risk of malunion/nonunion at 2 years and 5 years after DR-ORIF. We did not find associations between increases in the risk of any other major or minor complications and the cohort of patients on preoperative ERT within 5 years postoperatively.