Background: The purpose of this study was to compare restoration of mechanical limb alignment and three-dimensional component-positioning between conventional and patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty.Methods: Radiographic data of patients undergoing mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (n= 1257), using either conventional (n= 442) or patient-specific instrumentation (n= 812), were analyzed. To evaluate accuracy of axis restoration and 3D-component-positioning between conventional and patient-specific instrumentation, absolute deviations from the targeted neutral mechanical limb alignment and planned implant positions were determined. Measurements were performed on standardized coronal long-leg and sagittal knee radiographs. CT-scans were evaluated for accuracy of axial femoral implant rotation. Outliers were defined as deviations from the targeted neutral mechanical axis of > ± 3° or from the intraoperative component-positioning goals of > ± 2°. Deviations greater than ± 5° from set targets were considered to be severe outliers.Results: Deviations from a neutral mechanical axis (conventional instrumentation: 2.3°± 1.7° vs. patient-specific instrumentation: 1.7°± 1.2°;p< 0.001) and numbers of outliers (conventional instrumentation: 25.8% vs. patient-specific instrumentation: 10.1%;p< 0.001) were significantly lower in the patient-specific instrumentation group. Significantly lower mean deviations and less outliers were detected regarding 3D-component-positioning in the patient-specific instrumentation compared to the conventional instrumentation group (allp< 0.05).Conclusions: Patient-specific instrumentation prevented from severe limb malalignment and component-positioning outliers (> ± 5° deviation). Use of patient-specific instrumentation proved to be superior to conventional instrumentation in achieving more accurate limb alignment and 3D-component positioning, particularly regarding femoral component rotation. Furthermore, the use of patient-specific instrumentation successfully prevented severe (> 5° deviation) outliers.

Various nutritional supplements are available over the counter, yet few have been investigated in randomized controlled trials. The rationale for using the specific mix of nutritional substances including collagen type II, hyaluronic acid, n-acetyl-glucosamine, bamboo extract, L-lysine, and vitamin C is the assumption that combining naturally occurring ingredients of the intervertebral disc would maintain spine function. This double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a nutraceutical supplement mix in the management of lumbar osteochondrosis. Fifty patients were randomly assigned to either the supplement or placebo group in a 1:1 ratio. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the visual analogue scale for pain (pVAS), short form-12 (SF-12) physical and mental component summary subscale scores (PCS and MCS, respectively), and global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to evaluate degenerative changes of intervertebral discs (IVD) including Pfirrmann grades as well as three-dimensional (3D) volume measurements. Data were collected at baseline and after the 3-month intervention. None of the PROMs were significantly different between the supplement and placebo groups. Disc degeneration according to Pfirrmann classifications remained stable during the 3-month intervention in both groups. Despite no significance regarding the distribution of Pfirrmann grade changes (improvement, no change, worsening; p = 0.259), in the supplement group, one patient achieved a three-grade improvement, and worsening of Pfirrmann grades were only detected in the placebo group (9.1%). Furthermore, in-depth evaluations of MRIs showed significantly higher 3D-measured volume changes (increase) in the supplement (+740.3 ± 796.1 mm³) compared to lower 3D-measured volume changes (decrease) in the placebo group (−417.2 ± 875.0 mm³; p < 0.001). In conclusion, this multi-nutrient supplement might not only stabilize the progression of lumbar osteochondrosis, but it might also potentially even increase IVD volumes as detected on MRIs.

Background: Despite high rates of successful outcomes after open and arthroscopic distal clavicle excision (DCE) for symptomatic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) degeneration, some patients present with persistent symptoms and disabilities after surgical intervention. This study aims to compare radiological, functional, and subjective outcomes of open revision surgery after failed arthroscopic DCE to primary successful arthroscopic DCE. Methods: In this retrospective case-control study, 10 patients who underwent open DCE revision were age- and gender-matched with 10 patients who did not require revision surgery after DCE. Radiographic evaluation included presence of acromioclavicular spurs and acromioclavicular joint distance. Functional and subjective outcomes were assessed using the CS, SSV, SST, VAS for pain, patient’s satisfaction, ASES and quick DASH score. Results: At the latest postoperative follow-up (case: 57.3 ± 19.2 months; control: 63.5 ± 16.3 months), spur formation was detected in twice as many cases in the revision group, while acromioclavicular distance showed no significant difference. However, a significant bony regrowth was noticed in the revision group between revision surgery and latest follow-up, with a decrease of the acromioclavicular distance from 9.2 ± 1.6 mm to 5.9 ± 4.6 mm (p = 0.026) and a development of new spur formations in 30% of cases. There were no significant differences in overall CS between the revision and control group (p = 0.174) at final follow-up, but the control group scored significantly higher in the CS subgroups pain (p = 0.012) and internal rotation (p = 0.016). Mean SSV was significantly lower in the revision (65.5 ± 22.3%) compared to the control group (85.9 ± 16.4%; p = 0.031). Conclusions: Bony regrowth at the distal clavicle presenting as postoperative AC-distance narrowing and new spur formation was observed more distinctly in the revision group. Despite a slight increase in postoperative outcomes after revision surgery, subjective satisfaction and recalcitrant pain remain a concern. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III, retrospective case-control study