Immediate effects of rhythmic joint mobilization of the temporomandibular joint on pain,mouth opening and electromyographic activity in patients with temporomandibular disorders

BackgroundRhythmic joint mobilizations (RJM) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) are employed to relieve pain and improve function in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, the evidence on the immediate effects of RJM in patients with TMD is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the immediate clinical and functional effects of RJM in patients with TMD.Materials and methodsThis was a one-group quasi-experimental before and after study. Thirty-eight patients with TMD were assessed by means of pain intensity (visual analogue score, VAS), pressure pain threshold (PPT, measured through pressure algometry on the masseter and temporal muscles), mouth opening (MO, measured with a ruler), and surface electromyographic activity of the masseter and temporal muscles (asymmetry index, AI). Measurements were performed before and after a single, 1-min session of RJM of each TMJ. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS version 20.0 statistical package.ResultsA statistical significant difference was found in pain intensity, PPT and MO after the intervention (p < 0.05). No difference was found in the AI. A large effect size was observed for pain intensity, PPT of the left and right masseter muscles and MO (d = 0.85–1.13), whereas for the left and right temporal muscles the effect size was moderate (d = 0.62) and small, respectively (d = 0.49).ConclusionIn this sample of patients with TMD, a single session of RJM of the TMJ seemed to be effective in reducing pain intensity, increasing PPT and improving MO immediately after the intervention, without differences in the AI.     

Hip Displacement in Cerebral Palsy: The Role of Surveillance

IntroductionHip displacement is common in cerebral palsy (CP) and is related to the severity of neurological and functional impairment. It is a silent, but progressive disease, and can result in significant morbidity and decreased quality of life, if left untreated. The pathophysiology of hip displacement in CP is a combination of hip flexor-adductor muscle spasticity, abductor muscle weakness, and delayed weight-bearing, resulting in proximal femoral deformities and progressive acetabular dysplasia. Due to a lack of symptoms in the early stages of hip displacement, the diagnosis is easily missed. Awareness of this condition and regular surveillance by clinical examination and serial radiographs of the hips are the key to early diagnosis and treatment.Hip surveillance programmesSeveral population-based studies from around the world have demonstrated that universal hip surveillance in children with CP allows early detection of hip displacement and appropriate early intervention, with a resultant decrease in painful dislocations. Global hip surveillance models are based upon the patients’ age, functional level determined by the Gross Motor Function Classification system (GMFCS), gait classification, standardized clinical exam, and radiographic indices such as the migration percentage (MP), as critical indicators of progressive hip displacement.ConclusionDespite 25 years of evidence showing the efficacy of established hip surveillance programmes, there is poor awareness among healthcare professionals in India about the importance of regular hip surveillance in children with CP. There is a need for professional organizations to develop evidence-based guidelines for hip surveillance which are relevant to the Indian context.     

Intraoperative complications in temporomandibular joint arthroscopy: A retrospective observational analysis of 899 arthroscopies

This study aims to describe intraoperative complications in temporomandibular joint arthroscopy in patients with Wilkes stage II, III y IV. An analytic observational retrospective study. Inclusion criteria were patients who had no improvement with conservative treatment diagnosed as Wilkes II stage to Wilkes stage IV, and no previous TMJ surgery. Exclusion criteria were disc perforation observed by arthroscopy. Data collected from 458 patients (899 arthroscopies). Of this population, 772 (85.8%) arthroscopies correspond to women, and 127 men (14.1%). Of the sample evaluated, 368 (40.9%) were arthroscopic without discopexy, and 531 (59%) were arthroscopic with discopexy using resorbable pins. In total, 330 complications (36.7%) were found, of which 293 (32.5%) were implicated with iatrogenic damage to the anatomy, and 36 (4%) were associated with some instrument failure. Of this total number of complications, 191 (51.9%) of 386 corresponded to the arthroscopy without discopexy group and 138 (25.9%) of 531 corresponded to the arthroscopy with discopexy group. These study data suggest that the main complications were irrigation fluid extravasation (p = 0.000), and intra-articular bleeding (p = 0.001) followed by pin problems (p = 0.001) in cases of arthroscopies with discopexy. Within the limitations of the study it seems that the learning curve has an important influence on the occurrence of complications. At the beginning of the learning curve, complications are more related to anatomy. Afterwards, the rate of complications decreases but they are more related to the instruments used in advanced techniques. Therefore, proper training and a wide learning curve can reduce the risk of complications and if any occur, more timely management could be given.     

Prior surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures is associated with increased complications following subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare complication rates between patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after a prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) to those undergoing RSA as a primary treatment for PHFs, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).MethodsPatients who underwent RSA between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Mariner database. Patients were separated into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) RSA for osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear, or CTA (Control-RSA); (2) RSA as a primary treatment for PHF (PHF-RSA); and (3) RSA for patients with prior ORIF of PHFs (ORIF-RSA). Ninety-day medical and 2-year postoperative surgical complications were identified. In addition, patients in the PHF-RSA group were subdivided into those undergoing RSA for PHF within 3 months of the fracture (acute) vs. those treated greater than 3 months from diagnosis (delayed). Multivariate regression was performed to control for differences in comorbidities and demographics.ResultsA total of 30,824 patients underwent primary RSA for arthritis or CTA, 5389 patients underwent RSA as a primary treatment for a PHF, and 361 patients underwent RSA after ORIF of a PHF. ORIF before RSA was associated with an increased risk of overall revision (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, P = .002), infection (OR 2.40, P < .001), instability (OR 2.43, P < .001), fracture (OR 3.24, P = .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.59, P = .008), and readmission (OR 2.55, P = .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. RSA as a primary treatment for PHF was associated with an increased risk of 2-year revision (OR 1.60, P < .001), infection (OR 1.51, P < .001), instability (OR 2.84, P < .001), and fracture (OR 2.54, P < .001) in addition to major medical complications (OR 2.02, P < .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.92, P < .001), 90-day emergency department visits (OR 1.26, P < .001) and 90-day readmission (OR 2.03, P < .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. The ORIF-RSA group had an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (OR 1.94, P = .002) when compared with the PHF-RSA cohort. There were no differences in medical or surgical complications in the RSA-PHF cohort between patients treated in an acute or delayed fashion.ConclusionRSA following ORIF of a PHF is associated with increased complications compared with patients undergoing RSA for nonfracture indications. Prior ORIF of a PHF is also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection after RSA compared with patients who undergo RSA as a primary operation for fracture. The timing of RSA as a primary operation for PHF does not appear to impact the rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications.     

Positive Cultures Can Be Safely Ignored in Revision Arthroplasty Patients That Do Not Meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting Criteria

BackgroundDuring aseptic revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA), one or more cultures may occasionally isolate an organism. The hypothesis of this study was that in a portion of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for aseptic failure, culture may isolate an organism(s) that can be left untreated.MethodsAll patients undergoing revision TJA from 2000 to 2017 at two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized as aseptic if they were appropriately investigated preoperatively and did not meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. In the aseptic revision cohort, patients with a single positive culture or multiple cultures positive for different organisms (“organism-positive”) and patients who had negative intraoperative cultures (“organism-negative”) were compared based on demographics, comorbidities, operative details, subsequent reoperations, and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).ResultsIn total, 3,234 International Consensus Meeting–negative aseptic revision TJAs were included, of which 215 patients (6.6%) were organism-positive, 196 (91.2%) had a single positive culture, and 19 (8.8%) were positive for 2 or more distinct organisms (ie, polymicrobial). The most prevalent organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (37.5%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (9.6%), and Cutibacterium acnes (8.0%). Demographics and operative details were comparable between the groups. Using multiple regressions there was no association between culture positivity and the rate of reoperation or PJI.ConclusionIsolation of organisms by culture in patients undergoing revision for aseptic failure was not uncommon. As long as these patients were appropriately investigated preoperatively and PJI was excluded, these findings suggest that culture results may be ignored without subjecting patients to additional antimicrobial treatment.     

Surgical Helmets Used During Total Joint Arthroplasty Harbor Common Pathogens: A Cautionary Note

BackgroundThe use of personal-protection surgical helmet/hood systems is now a part of the standard surgical attire during arthroplasty in North America. There are no protocols for the disinfection of these helmets.MethodsThis is a prospective, single-center, observational study. Helmets worn by 44 members of the surgical team and foreheads of 44 corresponding surgical personnel were swabbed at three distinct time points. In addition, 16 helmets were treated with hypochlorite spray to determine if pathogens could be eliminated. Swabs obtained were processed for culture and next-generation sequencing (NGS).ResultsOf the 132 helmet samples, 97 (73%) yielded bacteria on culture and 94 (71%) had evidence of bacterial–deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) on NGS. Of the swabs sent for bacterial identification at the three time points, at least one from each helmet was positive for a pathogen(s). Of the 132 forehead samples, 124 (93%) yielded bacteria on culture and 103 (78%) had evidence of bacterial-DNA on NGS. The most commonly identified organism from helmets was Cutibacterium acnes (86/132) on NGS and Staphylococcus epidermidis (47/132) on culture. The most commonly identified organism from the foreheads of surgical personnel was Cutibacterium acnes (100/132) on NGS and Staphylococcus epidermidis (70/132) on culture. Sanitization of helmets was totally effective; no swabs taken the following morning for culture and NGS identified any bacteria.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that surgical helmets worn during orthopedic procedures are contaminated with common pathogens that can potentially cause surgical site infections. The findings of this study should at the minimum compel us to develop protocols for the disinfection of these helmets.     

The Fate and Relevance of the Patella in Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundIt remains unclear whether reimplantation of a patellar component during a two-stage revision for periprosthetic total knee arthroplasty infection (PJI) affects patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) or implant survivorship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patellar resurfacing during reimplantation confers a functional benefit or increases implant survivorship after two-stage treatment for PJI.MethodsTwo-stage revisions for knee PJI performed by three surgeons at a single tertiary care center were reviewed retrospectively. All original patellar components and cement were removed during resection and the patella was resurfaced whenever feasible during reimplantation. PROMs, implant survivorship, and radiographic measurements (patellar tilt and displacement) were compared between knees reimplanted with a patellar component versus those without a patellar component.ResultsA total of 103 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-three patients (41.7%) underwent reimplantation with, and 60 patients (58.3%) without a patellar component. At a mean follow-up of 33.5 months, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or PROMs between groups (P ≥ .156). No significant differences were found in the estimated Kaplan-Meier all-cause, aseptic, or septic survivorship between groups (P ≥ .342) at a maximum of 75 months follow-up. There was no significant difference in the change (pre-resection to post-reimplant) of patellar tilt (P = .504) or displacement (P = .097) between the groups.ConclusionPatellar resurfacing during knee reimplantation does not appear to meaningfully impact postoperative PROMs or survivorship. Given the risk of potential extensor mechanism complications with patellar resurfacing, surgeons may choose to leave the patella without an implant during total knee reimplantation and expect similar clinical outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel III.