Park YU, et al. Clin Orthop Surg. 2024 Dec;16(6):994-1000. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24163

Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) represents a well-recognized treatment option for isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis; however, the debate regarding the superiority of fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing designs continues. We aimed to evaluate the mid- to long-term outcomes of medial UKA comparing mobile- versus fixed-bearing designs within a single institution over an average 10-year follow-up. Methods: This retrospective study included 81 consecutive patients who underwent primary medial UKA (45 fixed-bearing and 36 mobile-bearing) with a minimum five-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and range of motion (ROM). Radiological measurements included hip-knee-ankle axis angle (HKA) and osteoarthritis progression. Implant survivorship was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis, with failure defined as either conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or polyethylene (PE) exchange. Results: At a mean follow-up of 10.6 years, WOMAC scores, ROM, and radiological outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between the fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing groups. Significantly higher failure rates were observed in the mobile-bearing group, both when considering conversion only (p = 0.041) and when including conversion or PE exchange (p = 0.009). Survival analysis demonstrated 10-year rates of 97.8% for fixed-bearing and 88.9% for mobile-bearing with TKA conversion defined as failure (p = 0.066). Using combined failure criteria of TKA conversion or PE exchange, 10-year survival rates were 97.8% for fixed-bearing and 83.3% for mobile-bearing (p = 0.015). Conclusions: At a mean 10.6-year follow-up, clinical and radiological outcomes were comparable, but fixed-bearing UKA demonstrated superior survivorship.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare radiological and clinical results between early (≤3 weeks) and late (>3 weeks) removal of pins in patients treated with the stepwise percutaneous leverage technique for radial neck fractures. Methods: 37 patients (aged 3-15) who underwent fixation with stepwise percutaneous leverage technique for Judet class III and class IV radial neck fractures between 2003 and 2019 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the time of pin removal; 19 had early pin removal (≤3 weeks) and 18 had late pin removal (>3 weeks). The patients’ radiological results were graded using the Metaizeau classification and their clinical results were evaluated by measuring their range of motion (ROM) and Mayo elbow performance scores (MEPS) at postoperative follow-ups. Statistical tests, including the Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests, were performed to compare the demographic factors and outcomes. Results: The mean time of removal of pins for all patients was 21 (10-43) days. The mean time for early and late removal was 15.1 (10-21) and 27.6 (22-43) days, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between groups radiologically according to the Metaizeau classification (P = .723). Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found in the ROM (extension/flexion: P = .620, pronation/supination: P = .578) or MEPS (P = .695) between groups. Conclusion: This study has shown us that early removal of pins in patients with pediatric radial neck fractures treated with stepwise percutaneous leverage technique demonstrated good radiological and clinical results comparable to late pin removal. Level of Evidince: Level IV, Therapeutic Study Cite this article as: Kim TH, Cho J, Han K, Lee D, Lee JM, Choi W. Clinical and radiological results of early pin removal in pediatric radial neck fractures treated with stepwise percutaneous leverage technique. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc., 2023;57(1):30-35.

Lee JW, et al. Clin Orthop Surg. 2025 Aug;17(4):704-709. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24177

용수민, et al. Pediatr Infect Vaccine. 2022 Dec;29(3):173-178. https://doi.org/10.14776/piv.2022.29.e18