Introduction: Foot drop is a disorder that impairs walking and leads to tripping and falling. Tendon transfer (e.g., tibialis posterior tendon) is a typical secondary procedure in foot drop treatment. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the most common tendon transfer techniques for treating foot drop and to analyze the reported functional outcomes. Furthermore, it was of interest if the type of surgical technique affects the functional outcome. Methods: A PubMed and MEDLINE literature search was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The search terms used were (“tendon transfer” OR “tendon transposition”) AND (“foot drop” OR “peroneal neuropathies”). Any study published before January 2020 was considered for inclusion. No case reports or reviews were included. Common outcome measures (Stanmore score, AOFAS, FAAM, AFO use, patient satisfaction and active ankle dorsiflexion) were evaluated. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Coleman Methodology Score. Results: Of the 125 reviewed publications, 37 met the inclusion criteria. 42 cohorts were analyzed. The frequently reported tendon transfer technique was the tibialis posterior tendon transfer through the interosseus membrane. The most used fixation technique was tendon on tendon fixation; however in recent years, a tendon to bone fixation has gained popularity. There was an increase in Stanmore scores and AOFAS postoperatively and a decrease of AFO use postoperatively observed. Conclusions: Due to various outcome measures and lack of preoperative assessment in the included studies, a meta-analysis of the pooled results was not possible. Nevertheless, the findings of this study show that tendon transfer increases mobility and self-independency leading to patient satisfaction. The choice of the surgical technique does not affect the outcome. A prospective collection of patient data and standardized outcome measures will be important to further analyze the efficacy of tendon transfer techniques.

Background and Objectives: Noise exposure during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been demonstrated to exceed thresholds that are deemed as over-exposure by industry noise level standards. With orthopedic surgeons being at risk of suffering from Noise Induced Hearing Loss, the purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the viability of the use of industry grade active noise cancelling headphones (ANCH) during TKA. Material and Methods: In this prospective pilot study, 10 TKA were performed. In five of these cases, surgeon, assistant, scrub nurse and anesthetist wore ANCH with automatic noise level dependent noise attenuation above 82 dB. A validated 14-item questionnaire was used after each case to evaluate the quality of communication, performance, teamwork and mental load. In seven cases a calibrated sound level meter was used to measure the operating theatre noise. Peak sound level (LApeak), A-weighted continuous sound level (LAeq) and A-weighted noise exposure averaged for an 8-h time-period (LEPd) were calculated. Results: There was no perceived benefit of ANCH for the surgeons (p = 0.648), assistants (p = 0.908) and scrub nurses (p = 0.251). There was an overall improvement observed by anesthetists (p = 0.001). A worse communication while wearing ANCH was reported by surgeons but not by the rest of the team. Average LApeak was 90.6 ± 3.2 dB(C), LAeq was 61.9 ± 1.0 dB(A) and LEPd was 53.2 ± 1.2 dB(A). Conclusions: Industry grade ANCH seem to provide no benefit for surgeons, assistants and scrub nurses during TKA, while anesthesiologists seem to benefit from the use of ANCH during TKA. Due to the limitations of this pilot study, further studies with larger study populations are necessary to adequately investigate the use of ANCH during TKA.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) aggravates the already difficult treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). Due to many factors influencing AMR, the correct choice of antimicrobial management remains arguable. The primary purpose of this retrospective study was to identify and compare bacteria and their antibiotic resistance profile between septic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and septic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). A review of all revision TKAs and revision THAs, undertaken between 2007 and 2020 in a tertiary referral hospital, was performed. Included were cases meeting the consensus criteria for PJI, in which an organism has been identified. There were no major differences in tissue sampling between revision TKAs and revision THAs over time. A total of 228 bacterial strains, isolated after revision TKA and THA, were analysed for their resistance to 20 different antibiotics. There was a statistically significant higher occurrence of Gram-negative bacteria identified after revision THAs compared to TKA (p = 0.002). The comparison of antibiotic resistance between revision TKAs and revision THAs was statistically significant in 9 of 20 analysed antibiotics. This has implications for the choice of empirical antibiotic in revision surgery as well as prophylactic antibiotic in primary surgery, depending on the joint that is to be replaced.

Reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) requires a multi-pronged strategy including usage of a prophylactic antibiotic. A history of penicillin or cephalosporin allergy often leads to a change in prophylactic antibiotic regimen to avoid serious side effects. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to determine incidence of PJI based on perioperative antibiotic regimen in total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). A review of all primary THAs, primary TKAs and primary UKAs, undertaken between 2011 and 2020 in a tertiary referral hospital, was performed. The standard perioperative antibiotic for joint arthroplasty (JA) in the analyzed tertiary hospital is cefuroxime. There were no differences in prophylactic antibiotic regimen over time. In 7.9% (211 of 2666) of knee arthroplasties and in 6.0% (206 of 3419) of total hip arthroplasties, a second-line prophylactic antibiotic was used. There was no statistically significant higher occurrence of PJI between the first-line and second-line prophylactic antibiotic in knee arthroplasties (p = 0.403) as well as in total hip arthroplasties (p = 0.309). No relevant differences in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and body mass index (BMI) between the groups were observed.

Background: Surgical hip joint reconstruction may be the method of choice for children and adolescents with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), as well as neurogenic dislocation of the hip (NDH) and Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease (LCPD). Following pelvic surgery, immobilization using a spica cast is considered to be the gold standard, despite the fact that casting may cause complications, such as hygienic problems, skin lesions, neurological deficits, and rigidity of the adjacent joints. An alternative for postoperative immobilization is a foam splint. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare spica cast and foam splint immobilization after hip reconstruction in children and adolescents with DDH, NDH, and LCPD. Methods: In a prospective randomized clinical trial, children and adolescents (age: 4–14 years), who received hip reconstructive surgery (osteotomy of the ilium and proximal femur, open reduction, soft tissue techniques) for DDH, NDH, and LCPD were included. Patient recruitment, group allocation, surgery, and aftercare were carried out in a department for orthopaedic surgery in Central Europe. Standardized questionnaires SF-36 (Short Form-36), EQ-5D (Euro Quality of Life 5D and CPCHILD (Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities) were gathered before, six, and twelve weeks after surgery from each patient. Group one received a spica cast and group two a foam splint for a period of six weeks postoperatively. There was no difference in surgical treatment. Results: Twenty-one out of thirty planned patients were enrolled in the study. One patient had to be excluded because of a lack of compliance. All quality of life (QOL) scores showed a significant reduction at the 6-week follow-up compared to the preoperative assessment. After twelve weeks, the scores came back close to the preoperative values. A significant reduction was seen in the spica cast group pre- vs. postoperatively for the variables CPCHILD (81% vs. 64%, p = 0.001), EQ-5d (65% vs. 45%, p = 0.014), and SF-36 (85% vs. 74%, p = 0.004). The corresponding values for the foam splint group also presented a reduction for all scores, but without statistical significance. Complications occurred in five cases. Conclusions: Recent retrospective studies suggest that foam splint immobilization after hip reconstruction surgery is a safe and feasible method, promising fewer complications compared to spica casting. The preliminary results of this prospective randomized clinical trial show an improvement of the scores when using a foam splint compared to the conventionally used spica cast. Benefits for the patients may be fewer adverse events and no need to undergo a second round of anaesthesia for recasting. Data suggest higher patient and caretaker satisfaction in the foam splint group.