Background: Good clinical outcomes for locking plates as an external fixator to treat tibial fractures have been reported. However, external locking plate fixation is still generally rarely performed. This study aimed to compare the stability of an external locking plate fixator with that of a conventional external fixator for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures using finite element analysis. Methods: Three models were constructed: (1) external locking plate fixation of proximal tibial fracture with lateral proximal tibial locking plate and 5-mm screws (ELP), (2) conventional external fixation of proximal tibial fracture with an 11-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-11), and (3) conventional external fixation of a proximal tibial fracture with a 7-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-7). The stress distribution, displacement at the fracture gap, and stiffness of the three finite element models at 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-mm plate–rod offsets from the lateral surface of the lateral condyle of the tibia were determined. Results: The conventional external fixator showed higher stiffness than the external locking plate fixator. In all models, the stiffness decreased as the distance of the plate–rod from the bone surface increased. The maximum stiffness was 121.06 N/mm in the EF-11 model with 30-mm tibia–rod offset. In the EF-7 model group, the maximum stiffness was 40.00 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia–rod offset. In the ELP model group, the maximum stiffness was 35.79 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia–plate offset. Conclusions: Finite element analysis indicated that external locking plate fixation is more flexible than conventional external fixation and can influence secondary bone healing. External locking plate fixation requires the placement of the plate as close as possible to the skin, which allows for a low-profile design because the increased distance from the plate to the bone can be too flexible for bone healing. Further experimental mechanical model tests are necessary to validate these finite element models, and further biological analysis is necessary to evaluate the effect of external locking plate fixation on fracture healing.

Background: The Achilles tendon is the strongest tendon in the human body, but it is prone to injury, especially in modern times when recreational sports are growing in popularity. As a result, Achilles tendon rupture is becoming an increasingly common medical problem in modern society. The main objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of percutaneous repair and open repair for the treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted involving a total of 316 patients who had undergone surgical treatment for Achilles tendon rupture between 2013 and 2021. The data collected from the medical history of these patients included the type of surgical procedure, the mechanism of injury, the age and sex of the patients, the time spent in the hospital, and any possible complications of the surgical treatment (such as infections, reruptures, or sural nerve injuries). Results: The study revealed that there was no significant difference between percutaneous and open surgical approaches in terms of sural nerve injury. However, there was a statistically significant advantage of the percutaneous method in terms of the number of infections, which was significantly lower than that of the open method. Additionally, the median length of hospital stay was found to be four days longer with the open approach. However, the study noted that a statistically significant advantage of the percutaneous method for rerupture could not be established due to the small number of patients with rerupture and the insufficient ratio of patients with rerupture in relation to the size of the observed population. Conclusions: Percutaneous repair is an effective treatment option for Achilles tendon rupture and has outcomes equal to or better than those of open repair. Therefore, this approach is recommended as the preferred method of treatment due to the presence of fewer complications, provided that the indications for this technique are appropriate.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability, with limited therapies that modify both symptoms and structural degeneration. Autologous microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT) has emerged as a promising regenerative option, especially in phenotypically distinct OA subgroups. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the clinical and structural efficacy of intra-articular MFAT versus hyaluronic acid (HA) in patients with early to moderate inflammatory phenotype knee OA. Methods: Fifty-three patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either MFAT (n = 35) or HA (n = 18). Patients were followed-up for six months post-injection and evaluated using patient-reported outcome measures (KOOS, WOMAC, VAS) and delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC). A responder analysis defined structural response as ≥10% increase in dGEMRIC in ≥3 of 7 predefined cartilage regions. Results: Both MFAT and HA led to statistically significant improvements in clinical scores and cartilage glycosaminoglycan content. MFAT showed greater mean improvements across most clinical and dGEMRIC measures, although without reaching statistical significance, except for KOOS Symptoms (MFAT: +25.0 vs. HA: +12.7, p = 0.008). Responder-level analysis revealed that all patients who demonstrated structural response also experienced clinically meaningful pain improvement (KOOS Pain ≥ 10), while no patient showed structural benefit without parallel symptomatic relief. Conclusions: MFAT led to greater improvement in symptoms related to joint stiffness, swelling, and crepitus compared to HA, reflecting its potential benefit in targeting the inflammatory features of knee OA. Importantly, HA also led to significant clinical and structural improvements, supporting its continued role as a standard-of-care comparator in knee OA management. Furthermore, the correlation between dGEMRIC and clinical response suggests its utility as a predictive biomarker of treatment success.

BackgroundGood clinical outcomes for locking plates as an external fixator to treat tibial fractures have been reported. However, external locking plate fixation is still generally rarely performed. This study aimed to compare the stability of external locking plate fixator with that of conventional external fixator for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures, using finite element analysis. MethodsThree models were constructed: (1) external locking plating of proximal tibial fracture with lateral proximal tibial locking plate and 5-mm screws (ELP), (2) conventional external fixation of proximal tibial fracture with an 11-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-11), and (3) conventional external fixation of proximal tibial fracture with a 7-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-7). The stress distribution, displacement at the fracture gap, and stiffness of the three finite element models at 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-mm plate–rod offset from the lateral surface of the lateral condyle of the tibia were determined. ResultsThe conventional external fixator showed higher stiffness than did the external locking plate fixator. In all models, the stiffness decreased as the distance of the plate–rod from the bone surface increased. The maximum stiffness was 121.06 N/mm in the EF-11 model with 30-mm tibia–rod offset. In the EF-7 model group, the maximum stiffness was 40.00 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia–rod offset. In the ELP model group, the maximum stiffness was 35.79 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia–plate offsetConclusionsExternal locking plate fixation is more flexible than conventional external fixation, which can influence secondary bone healing. External locking plate fixation requires the placement of the plate as close as possible to the skin, which allow low-profile design, because the increased distance of the plate from bone can be too flexible for bone healing.