Explore the vast range of titles available.

This book fills a gap in providing specialist information on orthopaedics and trauma occupational therapy. Its contributors bring together information on the aetiology, surgical input and the occupational therapy intervention appropriate to this client group. It is divided into two main sections, the first being orthopaedics and the second orthopaedic trauma. The first part is further subdivided to cover lower limb surgery, upper limb surgery, spinal conditions, and paediatric orthopaedic conditions. In Part two, principles of fracture management are covered, followed by pelvic and acetabular reconstruction, hand injuries and traumatic amputation.

Background There is an inherently difficult learning curve associated with minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to spinal decompression and fusion. The association between complication rate and the learning curve remains unclear. Questions/purposes We performed a systematic review for articles that evaluated the learning curves of MIS procedures for the spine, defined as the change in frequency of complications and length of surgical time as case number increased, for five types of MIS for the spine. Methods We conducted a systematic review in the PubMed database using the terms “minimally invasive spine surgery AND complications AND learning curve” followed by a manual citation review of included manuscripts. Clinical outcome and learning curve metrics were categorized for analysis by surgical procedure (MIS lumbar decompression procedures, MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, percutaneous pedicle screw insertion, laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and MIS cervical procedures). As the most consistent parameters used to evaluate the learning curve were procedure time and complication rate as a function of chronologic case number, our analysis focused on these. The search strategy identified 15 original studies that included 966 minimally invasive procedures. Learning curve parameters were correlated to chronologic procedure number in 14 of these studies. Results The most common learning curve complication for decompressive procedures was durotomy. For fusion procedures, the most common complications were implant malposition, neural injury, and nonunion. The overall postoperative complication rate was 11% (109 of 966 cases). The learning curve was overcome for operative time and complications as a function of case numbers in 20 to 30 consecutive cases for most techniques discussed within this review. Conclusions The quantitative assessment of the procedural learning curve for MIS techniques for the spine remains challenging because the MIS techniques have different learning curves and because they have not been assessed in a consistent manner across studies. Complication rates may be underestimated by the studies we identified because surgeons tend to select patients carefully during the early learning curve period. The field of MIS would benefit from a standardization of study design and collected parameters in future learning curve investigations.

Background Computer-assisted solutions are changing surgical practice continuously. One of the most disruptive technologies among the computer-integrated surgical techniques is Augmented Reality (AR). While Augmented Reality is increasingly used in several medical specialties, its potential benefit in orthopedic surgery is not yet clear. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of the current state of knowledge and the applicability of AR in orthopedic surgery. Methods A systematic review of the current literature was performed to find the state of knowledge and applicability of AR in Orthopedic surgery. A systematic search of the following three databases was performed: “PubMed”, “Cochrane Library” and “Web of Science”. The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items on Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and it has been published and registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Results 31 studies and reports are included and classified into the following categories: Instrument / Implant Placement, Osteotomies, Tumor Surgery, Trauma, and Surgical Training and Education . Quality assessment could be performed in 18 studies. Among the clinical studies, there were six case series with an average score of 90% and one case report, which scored 81% according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist (JBI CAC). The 11 cadaveric studies scored 81% according to the QUACS scale (Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies). Conclusion This manuscript provides 1) a summary of the current state of knowledge and research of Augmented Reality in orthopedic surgery presented in the literature, and 2) a discussion by the authors presenting the key remarks required for seamless integration of Augmented Reality in the future surgical practice. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019128569 .

Bone substitutes are being increasingly used in surgery as over two millions bone grafting procedures are performed worldwide per year. Autografts still represent the gold standard for bone substitution, though the morbidity and the inherent limited availability are the main limitations. Allografts, i.e. banked bone, are osteoconductive and weakly osteoinductive, though there are still concerns about the residual infective risks, costs and donor availability issues. As an alternative, xenograft substitutes are cheap, but their use provided contrasting results, so far. Ceramic-based synthetic bone substitutes are alternatively based on hydroxyapatite (HA) and tricalcium phosphates, and are widely used in the clinical practice. Indeed, despite being completely resorbable and weaker than cortical bone, they have exhaustively proved to be effective. Biomimetic HAs are the evolution of traditional HA and contains ions (carbonates, Si, Sr, Fl, Mg) that mimic natural HA (biomimetic HA). Injectable cements represent another evolution, enabling mininvasive techniques. Bone morphogenetic proteins (namely BMP2 and 7) are the only bone inducing growth factors approved for human use in spine surgery and for the treatment of tibial nonunion. Demineralized bone matrix and platelet rich plasma did not prove to be effective and their use as bone substitutes remains controversial. Experimental cell-based approaches are considered the best suitable emerging strategies in several regenerative medicine application, including bone regeneration. In some cases, cells have been used as bioactive vehicles delivering osteoinductive genes locally to achieve bone regeneration. In particular, mesenchymal stem cells have been widely exploited for this purpose, being multipotent cells capable of efficient osteogenic potential. Here we intend to review and update the alternative available techniques used for bone fusion, along with some hints on the advancements achieved through the experimental research in this field.

PurposeSeveral studies have revealed that robot-assisted technique might improve the pedicle screw insertion accuracy, but owing to the limited sample sizes in the individual study reported up to now, whether or not robot-assisted technique is superior to conventional freehand technique is indefinite. Thus, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials to assess which approach is better.MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science, CNKI and WanFang were systematically searched to identify potentially eligible articles. Main endpoints containing the accuracy of pedicle screw implantation and proximal facet joint violation were evaluated as risk ratio (RR) and the associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), while radiation exposure and surgical duration were presented as mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsSix studies involving 158 patients (688 pedicle screws) in robot-assisted group and 148 patients (672 pedicle screws) in freehand group were identified matching our study. The Grade A accuracy rate in robot-assisted group was superior to freehand group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00, 1.06; P = 0.04), but the Grade A + B accuracy rate did not differ between the two groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99, 1.02; P = 0.29). With regard to proximal facet joint violation, the combined results suggested that robot-assisted group was associated with significantly fewer proximal facet joint violation than freehand group (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.55; P = 0.01). As was the radiation exposure, our findings suggested that robot-assisted technique could significantly reduce the intraoperative radiation time (MD − 12.38, 95% CI − 17.95, − 6.80; P < 0.0001) and radiation dosage (SMD − 0.64, 95% CI − 0.85, − 0.43; P < 0.00001). But the overall surgical duration was longer in robot-assisted group than conventional freehand group (MD 20.53, 95% CI 5.17, 35.90; P = 0.009).ConclusionsThe robot-assisted technique was associated with equivalent accuracy rate of pedicle screw implantation, fewer proximal facet joint violation, less intraoperative radiation exposure but longer surgical duration than freehand technique. Powerful evidence relies on more randomized controlled trials with high quality and larger sample size in the future.

Background Some early studies with robotic-assisted pedicle screw implantation have suggested these systems increase accuracy of screw placement. However, the relationship between the success rate of screw placement and the learning curve of this new technique has not been evaluated. Questions/purposes We determined whether, as a function of surgeon experience, (1) the success rate of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement improved, (2) the frequency of conversion from robotic to manual screw placement decreased, and (3) the frequency of malpositioned screws decreased. Methods Between June 2010 and August 2012, the senior surgeon (IHL) performed 174 posterior spinal procedures using pedicle screws, 162 of which were attempted with robotic assistance. The use of the robotic system was aborted in 12 of the 162 procedures due to technical issues (registration failure, software crash, etc). The robotic system was successfully used in the remaining 150 procedures. These were the first procedures performed with the robot by the senior surgeon, and in this study, we divided the early learning curve into five groups: Group 1 (Patients 1–30), Group 2 (Patients 31–60), Group 3 (Patients 61–90), Group 4 (Patients 91–120), and Group 5 (Patients 121–150). One hundred twelve patients (75%) had spinal deformity and 80 patients (53%) had previous spine surgery. The accuracy of screw placement in the groups was assessed based on intraoperative biplanar fluoroscopy and postoperative radiographs. The results from these five groups were compared to determine the effect on the learning curve. The numbers of attempted pedicle screw placements were 359, 312, 349, 359, and 320 in Groups 1 to 5, respectively. Results The rates of successfully placed screws using robotic guidance were 82%, 93%, 91%, 95%, and 93% in Groups 1 to 5. The rates of screws converted to manual placement were 17%, 7%, 8%, 4%, and 7%. Of the robotically placed screws, the screw malposition rates were 0.8%, 0.3%, 1.4%, 0.8%, and 0%. Conclusions The rate of successfully placed pedicle screws improved with increasing experience. The rate of the screws that were converted to manual placement decreased with increasing experience. The frequency of screw malposition was similar over the learning curve at 0% to 1.4%. Future studies will need to determine whether this finding is generalizable to others. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Compared with non-degradable materials, biodegradable biomaterials play an increasingly important role in the repairing of severe bone defects, and have attracted extensive attention from researchers. In the treatment of bone defects, scaffolds made of biodegradable materials can provide a crawling bridge for new bone tissue in the gap and a platform for cells and growth factors to play a physiological role, which will eventually be degraded and absorbed in the body and be replaced by the new bone tissue. Traditional biodegradable materials include polymers, ceramics and metals, which have been used in bone defect repairing for many years. Although these materials have more or fewer shortcomings, they are still the cornerstone of our development of a new generation of degradable materials. With the rapid development of modern science and technology, in the twenty-first century, more and more kinds of new biodegradable materials emerge in endlessly, such as new intelligent micro-nano materials and cell-based products. At the same time, there are many new fabrication technologies of improving biodegradable materials, such as modular fabrication, 3D and 4D printing, interface reinforcement and nanotechnology. This review will introduce various kinds of biodegradable materials commonly used in bone defect repairing, especially the newly emerging materials and their fabrication technology in recent years, and look forward to the future research direction, hoping to provide researchers in the field with some inspiration and reference.

BackgroundProtocols including combination of surgery and radiotherapy are more and more frequent in the treatment of bone tumors of the spine. In metastatic disease, combination of surgery and radiotherapy is since long time accepted, as based on clinical evidence. In primary tumors, combination of surgery and radiotherapy can be considered in all the cases in which a satisfactory oncological margin cannot be achieved: high-grade malignancies, recurrent tumors, huge tumors expanding in an extracompartimental area, and when tumor-free margin requires unacceptable functional sacrifices. However, metal implants are an obstacle in the collaboration between surgeons and radiation oncologists. Carbon-fiber-reinforced polyethil–ether–ether–ketone (CFR-PEEK) composite implants could make easier and more effective the treatment as radiolucent and not interfering with ionizing radiation and accelerated particles. The purpose of this article is to report the preliminary results from a cohort of patients treated with CFR-PEEK and to evaluate the safety and the non-inferiority of the device respect the commonly used titanium implants.Materials and methodsThis study concerns an ambispective cohort series of 34 tumor patients (14 metastases and 20 primaries, most of them recurrent) submitted to thoracic and lumbar spine fixation with a CFR-PEEK composite implants. Oncologic surgery was palliative decompression and fixation in 9 cases, tumor excision in 21, and enbloc resection in 4. Data collected for this preliminary report were all intraoperative remarks, incidence of complications, changes in neurological status, local control, and survival. All the cases were followed 6–36 months (mean 13 months).ResultsOnly one intraoperative screw breakage occurred out of 232 implanted screws. Pain control and neurological improvement were the early clinical results. Two sacral screws loosening were found at 9 and 12 months in multilevel constructs performed on multirecurrent tumors. Six local recurrences were early found thanks to the implant radiolucency. Radiation oncologists’ opinion was favourable as concerning better treatment planning on CT and lacking of scattering effect during the treatment.ConclusionsNo artifacts on imaging studies mean early local recurrence detection. For radiation oncologists, no artifacts on imaging studies mean easier planning and no scattering effect means more effective and safe radiotherapy, particularly when particles are used. Moreover, it seems that the clinical use of CFR-PEEK composite implants may be safe and at least comparable with the commonly used titanium implants in terms of intraoperative complications, stability at weight bearing and at functional recovery. Larger patient series and longer follow-up are required to confirm these data.