A stiff spine leads to increased demand on the hip, creating an increased risk of total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation. Several authors propose that a change in sacral slope of ≤10° between the standing and relaxed-seated positions (ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated) identifies a patient with a stiff lumbar spine and have suggested use of dual-mobility bearings for such patients. However, such assessment may not adequately test the lumbar spine to draw such conclusions. The aim of this study was to assess how accurately ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated can identify patients with a stiff spine. This is a prospective, multi-centre, consecutive cohort series. Two-hundred and twenty-four patients, pre-THA, had standing, relaxed-seated and flexed-seated lateral radiographs. Sacral slope and lumbar lordosis were measured on each functional X-ray. ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated seated was determined by the change in sacral slope between the standing and relaxed-seated positions. Lumbar flexion (LF) was defined as the difference in lumbar lordotic angle between standing and flexed-seated. LF≤20° was considered a stiff spine. The predictive value of ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated for characterising a stiff spine was assessed. A weak correlation between ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated and LF was identified (r2= 0.15). Fifty-four patients (24%) had ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° and 16 patients (7%) had a stiff spine. Of the 54 patients with ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10°, 9 had a stiff spine. The positive predictive value of ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° for identifying a stiff spine was 17%. ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° was not correlated with a stiff spine in this cohort. Utilising this simplified approach could lead to a six-fold overprediction of patients with a stiff lumbar spine. This, in turn, could lead to an overprediction of patients with abnormal spinopelvic mobility, unnecessary use of dual mobility bearings and incorrect targets for component alignment. Referring to patients ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° as being stiff can be misleading; we thus recommend use of the flexed-seated position to effectively assess pre-operative spinopelvic mobility

Modifiable factors contributing to stiffness include alignment, implant size, implant position and rotation, and soft tissue tightness or laxity. Less modifiable factors include genetics as in predisposition to inflammation and fibrosis, aberrations in perception and experience of emotional pain, and preoperative range of motion. We reviewed 559 knees undergoing revision between 2007 and 2014, selecting out patients with a diagnosis of stiffness and greater than one-year follow-up. Stiffness was defined as greater than 15 degrees of flexion contracture or less than 75 degrees of flexion or less than 90 degrees of active motion and a chief complaint of limited motion and pain. Radiographic analysis used a set of matched controls with greater than 90 degrees and full extension prior to surgery and were further matched by age, gender, BMI. Flexion contracture changed from an average of 9.7 to an average of 2.3 degrees, flexion changed from an average of 81 to an average of 94 degrees, active motion changed from an average of 72 to an average of 92 degrees, pain scores improved from 44 to 72 points, and Knee Society function scores improved from an average of 49 to an average of 70 points. There were four failures for stiffness, two knees underwent additional manipulation, gaining an average of 10 degrees; and two knees were revised. Radiographic analysis demonstrated stiffness to be strongly correlated to anterior condylar offset ratio and to patellar displacement by multivariant regression analysis, suggesting that overstuffing the patellofemoral joint by anteriorization of the femoral component is associated with stiffness. Using modern revision techniques, revision for stiffness creates reliable improvements in pain, Knee Society clinical and functional scores, and motion

Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common problem occurring between 5% and 30% of patients. Stiffness is defined as limited range of motion (ROM) that affects activities of daily living. A recent International Consensus on definition of stiffness of the knee graded stiffness as mild, moderate or severe (90–100, 70–89, <70, respectively) or an extension deficit (5–10, 11–20, >20). Stiffness can be secondary to an osseous, soft tissue, or prosthetic block to motion. Heterotopic bone or retained posterior osteophytes, abundant fibrotic tissue, oversized components with tight flexion or extension gaps or component malrotation can all limit knee motion. Infection should always be considered in the knee that gradually loses motion. Alternative causes include complex regional pain syndrome and Kinesiophobia that can limit motion without an underlying mechanical cause. The evaluation of knee stiffness radiographs of the knee and cross-section imaging should be performed if component malrotation is considered. A metal suppression MRI assists in quantifying the extent of fibrosis and its location in the anterior or posterior compartment of the knee. Inflammatory markers and joint aspiration as indicated to rule out infection. Arthrofibrosis, or post-surgical fibrosis, is related to abnormal scar formation after surgery that leads to loss of motion. The cause of arthrofibrosis is multifactorial and likely related to genetic host factors. Current research is focusing on molecular signatures that may better identify patients at risk. In addition, therapeutic interventions are being studied that best prevent fibrosis and its recurrence and include the use of anti-inflammatories, corticosteroids, Colchicine, biologic medications (IL-1 inhibitors) and low-dose radiation. Early treatment of the stiff TKA includes physical therapy and manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). MUA performed within 3 months may have the greatest increase in ROM but notable improvement can occur up to 6 months after TKA. After six months, arthroscopic or open surgery is recommended for persistent stiffness. Arthroscopic lysis of adhesions can improve ROM greater than 1 year after index TKA. Average improvement of ROM for both MUA and arthroscopic lysis of adhesions (usually in conjunction with MUA) is approximately 30 degrees. The outcome after open lysis of adhesions are reportedly poor but current adjuvant therapies may improve these clinical outcomes as this addresses the biologic, in addition to the mechanical, basis of fibrosis. Component revision performed for component malposition and stiffness has variable outcomes but a recent study reports a mean increase in ROM of 20 degrees and a modest improvement in overall knee function. The cause of post-operative stiffness after TKA is a complex interplay of the patient, surgeon, and post-operative factors. Correct diagnosis of the underlying cause of the stiff total knee is essential to optimizing treatment outcomes. More research in needed in how to best prevent and treat the biologic risk factors and pathways that contribute to post-surgical fibrosis

Stiffness after TKR is a frustrating complication that has many possible causes. Though the definition of stiffness has changed over the years, most would agree that flexion > 75 degrees and a 15-degree lack of extension constitutes stiffness. This presentation will focus upon the potential causes of a stiff TKR, intra-operative tips, the post-operative evaluation and management, and the results of revision for a stiff TKR. The management of this potentially unsatisfying situation begins pre-operatively with guidance of the patient's expectations; it is well-known that pre-operative stiffness is strongly correlated with post-operative lack of motion. At the time of surgery, osteophytes must be removed and the components properly sised and aligned and rotated. Soft-tissue balancing must be attained in both the flexion/extension and varus/valgus planes. One must avoid overstuffing the tibio-femoral and/or patello-femoral compartments with an inadequate bone resection. Despite these surgical measures and adequate pain control and rehabilitation, certain patients will continue to frustrate our best efforts. These patients likely have a biological predisposition for formation of scar tissue. Other potential causes for the stiff TKR include complex regional pain syndrome or joint infection. Close followup of a patient's progress is crucial for the success in return of ROM. Should motion plateau early in the recovery phase, the patient should be evaluated for manipulation under anesthesia. At our institution, most manipulations are performed within 3 months post-operative under an epidural anesthetic; patients will stay overnight for continuous epidural pain relief and immediate aggressive PT. The results of re-operations for a stiff TKR are variable due to the multiple etiologies. A clear cause of stiffness such as component malposition, malrotation or overstuffing of the joint has a greater chance of regaining motion than arthrofibrosis without a clear cause. Although surgical treatment with open arthrolysis, isolated component or complete revision can be used to improve TKR motion, results have been variable and additional procedures are often necessary

Introduction. Lumbar spine fusion in patients undergoing THA (total hip arthroplasty) is a known risk factor for hip dislocation with some studies showing a 400% increased incidence compared to the overall THA population. Reduced spine flexibility can effectively narrow the cup anteversion safe zone while alterations in pelvic tilt can alter the center of the anteversion safe zone. The use of precision cup alignment technology combined with patient-specific cup alignment goals based on preoperative assessment has been suggested as a method of addressing this problem. The current study assess the dislocation rate of THA patients with stiff or fused lumbar spines treated using surgical navigation with patient-specific cup orientation goals. Methods. Seventy-five THA were performed in 54 patients with a diagnosis of lumbar fusion, lumbar disc replacement, and scoliosis with Cobb angles greater than 40 degrees were treated by the senior author (SM) as part of a prospective, non-randomized study of surgical navigation in total hip arthroplasty. All patients were treated using a smart mechanical navigation tool for cup alignment (HipXpert System, Surgical Planning Associates, Inc., Boston, MA). Cup orientation goals were set on a patient-specific basis using supine pelvic tilt as measured using CT. Patients with increased pelvic tilt had a goal for increased cup anteversion and patients with decreased pelvic tilt had a goal for decreased cup anteversion (relative to the anterior pelvic plane coordinate system). Each patient's more recent outpatient records were assessed for history of dislocation, instability, mechanical symptoms, decreased range of motion or progressive pain. Additionally, last clinic radiographs were reviewed to confirm lumbar pathology in the form of spinal surgical hardware. Results. Seventy-five total hip arthroplasties with stiff lumbar spine were reviewed with and average follow up of 6.04 years. The average number of levels of lumbar fusion was 2.3 levels. Since the most recent follow up on all patients in this cohort no hip dislocations had occurred. Discussion and Conclusion. Fusion or stiffness of the lumbar spine is a known risk factor for instability following elective THA. The current study demonstrates that patient-specific planning of cup placement taking abnormal pelvic tilt into consideration combined with the use of accurate intra-operative cup alignment technology can be used to address this problem

Introduction. Treatment of non-union in open tibial fractures Gustilo-Anderson(GA)-3A/3B fractures remains a challenging problem. Most of these can be dealt using treatment methods that requires excision of the non-union followed by bone grafting, masquelet technique, or acute shortening. Circular fixators with closed distraction or bone transport also remains a useful option. However, sometimes due to patient specific factors these cannot be used. Recently antibiotic loaded bone substitutes have been increasingly used for repairing infected non-unions. They provide local antibiotic delivery, fill dead space, and act as a bone conductive implant, which is resorted at the end of a few months. We aimed to assess the outcome of percutaneous injection of bone substitute while treating non-union of complex open tibial fractures. Materials & Methods. Three cases of clinical and radiological stiff tibial non-union requiring further intervention were identified from our major trauma open fracture database. Two GA-3B cases, treated with a circular frame developed fracture-related-infection(FRI) manifesting as local cellulitis, loosened infected wires/pins with raised blood-markers, and one case of GA-3A treated with an intramedullary nail. At the time of removal of metalwork/frame, informed consent was obtained and Cerament-G. TM. (bone-substitute with gentamicin) was percutaneously injected through a small cortical window using a bone biopsy(Jamshedi needle). All patients were allowed to weight bear as tolerated in a well-fitting air-cast boot and using crutches. They were followed up at 6 weekly intervals with clinical assessment of their symptoms and radiographs. Fracture union was assessed using serial radiographs with healing defined as filling of fracture gap, bridging callus and clinical assessment including return to full painless weight bearing. Results. Follow-up at 6 months showed all fractures had healed with no defect or gaps with evidence of new trabecular bone and significant resorption of Cerament-G. TM. at final follow-up. There was no evidence of residual infection with restoration of normal limb function. Fractures with no internal fixation showed a mild deformity that had developed during the course of the healing, presumed due to mild collapse in the absence of fixation. These were less than 10 degrees in sagittal and coronal planes and were clinically felt to be insignificant by the patients. Conclusions. Cerament-G's unique combination of high dose antibiotics and hydroxy apatite matrix provided by calcium sulphate might help provide an osteoconductive environment to allow these stiff non-unions to heal. The matrix appears to provide a scaffold-like structure that allows new bone in-growth with local release of antibiotics helping reduce deep-seated infections. The final deformation at fracture site underlines the need for fixation- and it is very unlikely that this technique will work in mobile nonunions. Whilst similar fractures may heal without the use of bone substitute injections, the speed of healing in presence of significant fracture gap suggests the use of these bone substitutes did help in our cases. Further studies with a larger cohort, including RCTs, to evaluate the effectiveness of this technique compared to other methods are needed

Stiffness after total knee replacement remains a significant factor in a suboptimal result after total knee arthroplasty. Interference with function including stair climbing, arising from a seated position, driving and return to activities of daily living and recreational sports are all compromised when stiffness results after knee replacement. The key indicator for resultant range of motion after knee replacement remains knee motion prior to surgery. A knee with limited motion prior to surgery will rarely achieve the same motion as a fully mobile knee and the patient should be counseled to this ultimate result. Patients with prior knee surgery, post-traumatic knee arthritis also tend to be stiffer after knee replacement. If a knee is stiff after replacement it is key to determine if there is a mechanical impediment to motion (e.g. implant sizing problem, overstuffing of the patellofemoral joint) and revision knee replacement to address this problem will be necessary and is best done when recognised. When referring to a stiff knee after replacement flexion less than 90 degrees is generally accepted. Management of the knee with limited motion after knee replacement should first be treated with manipulation of the knee under anesthesia. Timing of manipulation is key to its success and if a patient is not progressing after 4–6 weeks manipulation is generally indicated. Manipulation can be performed up to 6–12 months after replacement but ultimate motion is negatively impacted by delay as scar tissue becomes more indurated and fixed. Arthroscopic lysis of adhesions can be performed in the recalcitrant knee but in my experience will generally improve motion in the 10- to 15-degree range, if at all. In patients with persistent and disabling stiffness, open resection with radical scar excision can be performed and if there is not an implant sizing issue this may improve motion. It is important to rapidly mobilise these patients after surgery with early flexion to beyond 90 degrees with use of optimal analgesia to allow vigorous early motion. At time of open lysis of adhesions revision of components should be performed if there is any question of need to do this to improve range of motion

The causes of a stiff elbow are numerous including: post-traumatic elbow, burns, head injury, osteoarthritis, inflammatory joint disease and congenital. Types of stiffness include: loss of elbow flexion, loss of elbow extension and loss of forearm rotation. All three have different prognoses in terms of the timing of surgery and the likelihood of restoration of function. Contractures can be classified into extrinsic and intrinsic (all intrinsic develop some extrinsic component). Functional impairment can be assessed medicolegally; however, in clinical practice the patient puts an individual value on the arc of motion. Objectively most functions can be undertaken with an arc of 30 to 130 degrees. The commonest cause of a Post-traumatic Stiff elbow is a radial head fracture or a complex fracture dislocation. Risk factors for stiffness include length of immobilisation, associated fracture with dislocation, intra-articular derangement, delayed surgical treatment, associated head injury, heterotopic ossification. Early restoration of bony columns and joint stability to allow early mobilisation reduces incidence of joint stiffness. Heterotopic ossification (HO) is common in fracture dislocation of the elbow. Neural Axis trauma alone causes HO in elbows in 5%. However, combined neural trauma and elbow trauma the incidence is 89%. Stiffness due to thermal injury is usually related to the degree rather than the site. The majority of patients have greater than 20% total body area involved. Extrinsic contractures are usually managed with a sequential release of soft tissues commencing with a capsular excision (retaining LCL/MCL), posterior bundle of the MCL +/− ulna nerve decompression (if there is loss of flexion to 100 degrees). This reliably achieved via a posterior incision, a lateral column exposure +/− ulna nerve mobilisation. A medial column exposure is a viable alternative. Arthroscopic capsular release although associated with a quicker easier rehabilitation is associated with increased neural injury. Timing of release is specific to the type of contracture, i.e. flexion contractures after approx. six months, extension contractures ASAP but after four months, loss of forearm rotation less 6 to 24 months. The use of Hinged Elbow Fixators is increasing. The indications include reconstructions that require protection whilst allowing early movement, persistent instability or recurrent/late instability or interposition arthroplasty. Post-operative rehabilitation requires good analgesia, joint stability and early movement. The role of CPM is often helpful but still being evaluated

Stiffness remains one of the most common, and challenging postoperative complications after TKA. Preoperative motion and diagnosis can influence postoperative motion, and careful patient counseling about expectations is important. Postoperative stiffness should be evaluated by ruling out infections, metal allergy, or too aggressive physical therapy. A careful physical and radiographic examination is required. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) in selected cases can be helpful. The best timing to perform MUA is between the 6th and 10th week postoperatively. Careful technique is required to minimise the risk of fracture or soft tissue injury. This requires complete paralysis! For more chronic stiffness, revision may be indicated if an etiology can be identified. An excessively thick patellar resurfacing, an overstuffed tibia insert, an oversized femoral component, or gross malrotation should be corrected. During revision, thorough synovectomy, release of contractures, ligamentous balancing and restoration of the joint line is required. Careful attention to component rotation, and sizing is critical. Downsizing components is helpful to place less volume into the joint space. Patients should be counseled that the results of revision for stiffness are mixed and somewhat unpredictable. More frequent postoperative nurturing is helpful to guide rehabilitation progress. Manipulation after revision at 6 weeks is almost expected

Stiffness after a TKA might be said to be present when reasonable functions of daily living cannot be performed or can only be performed with difficulty or pain. This will certainly be true if flexion is less than 75 degrees and/or there is a 15-degree lack of full extension. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the causes of a stiff TKA, consider the aspects of surgical technique that are associated with the occurrence of stiffness, present post-surgical management that impacts on the development of stiffness and summarise the results of the surgical treatment of a stiff TKA. Pre-operative stiffness is strongly correlated with post-operative limitation of motion. Therefore, pre-surgical measures to optimise motion should be carried out. These include appropriate physical therapy, adequate pain management and a discussion with the patient of the issues likely to affect post-operative range of motion. It is particularly important to discuss with the patient appropriate expectations with regard to the likely range of motion that will be achieved following TKA surgery. There are a number of steps that can be taken during the performance of a TKA that have an impact on range of motion. Osteophytes must be removed. Correctly sized implants must be used to avoid over-stuffing the tibio-femoral and patello-femoral compartments. Mal-positioning implants and the extremity can adversely affect range of motion. Inadequate bone resection will also lead to a reduced range of motion. Improper soft tissue balancing in both flexion and extension may be associated with post-surgical stiffness. Post-operative management must include adequate pain management as well as appropriate rehabilitation. Close post-surgical surveillance will help identify those patients likely to achieve unsatisfactory range of motion. Manipulation of appropriate patients within the first 6 weeks following surgery is usually associated with a satisfactory final range of motion. When persistent stiffness occurs, an attempt must be made to identifying possible causes, including component mal-alignment or mal-rotation, component mis-sizing or mis-positioning and inadequate soft tissue balancing. The surgical treatment of a stiff total knee include: 1) arthroscopic debridement and manipulation; 2) arthrotomy with debridement; and 3) single or complete component revision. Although surgical intervention often results in improved range of motion, the results are variable and somewhat limited

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to evaluate stiff knees which have a preoperative arc of motion (AOM) < 65 degrees and maximum flexion < 90 degrees under anesthesia for primary TKA. Material and Methods. We prospectively evaluated 25 knees, 20 patients, the follow up period was 5±3 years, OA 13, RA 10 and traumatic OA 2 knees. All case were medial para-patella approaches and snip was added in one knee operation, 23 PS-type and 2 constrain-type TKAs. Results. Preoperative and postoperative FTA were 185.3±8.4 and 174.2±2.8 degrees, α95.5±3.0, β88.6±2.1, γ4.1±2.9, σ83.8±3.0, CTA1.4±1.9 degrees. Soft tissue releases were performed in Clayton stage I 9, II 14 and III 2 knees, and additional resection for the posterior capsule 11, vastus intermedius 2 and ITT 4 knees and lateral release 4 knees. Additional bone cuts were performed in 19 knees including femur 14 knees and tibia 12 knees. Component gaps (20/30/40lb) of medial and lateral were 9.8±0.8/10.8±2.9/12.2±1.9 mm and 11.0±2.1/12.6±2.5/13.6±2.8 mm at 0 degrees, they were 11.4±2.8/13.5±3.6/15.8±4.1 mm and 12.5±2.7/15.1±3.8 /18.0±4.2 mm at 90 degrees. (Figure1) MCL avulsion was in 3 knees. AOMs in preoperative, perioperative, 1-year later and final observation were 45.0±16.5, 110.4±15.5, 110.8±18.4 and 113.4±18.2 degrees. (Figure2) Flexions were72.5±17.7, 104.0±14.0, 104.0±14.0 and 106.5±14.4 degrees. Extensions were −28.3±10.5, −6.0±7.5, −6.0±7.0 and −6.9±7.8 degrees. There were no statistical differences between perioperative and final AOM, flexion and extension, and between OA and RA. Discussion. AOM improved and remained after the surgeries. We evaluated soft tissue release and component gaps in 25 stiff knees when preoperative arc of motion (AOM) was < 65 degrees and maximum flexion < 90 degrees under anesthesia for primary TKA. There were no statistical differences between perioperative and final AOM, flexion and extension, and between OA and RA. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Knee stiffness is a well-recognised postoperative problem that has been reported to occur in 6% to 15% of all patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and there are multiple preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative risk factors that may predispose patients to postTKA knee stiffness. Preoperative risk factors include poor baseline range of motion (ROM), obesity, and a history of previous knee surgery and/or trauma. Potential intraoperative risk factors for having a stiff knee are malalignment, gap imbalance, and under-resection of patella. Possible postoperative risk factors include heterotopic ossification, pain, poor patient motivation, and poor physical therapy compliance. Three commonly used adjuvant treatments for this condition are custom knee devices, Botox, and ASTYM. These treatment modalities are most effective when used within 6 weeks after surgery. Multiple case series have reported that CKD can improve range of motion while maximising patient-reported functional outcomes. Botox can improve range of motion by paralyzing the muscle where the contracture is located. ASTYM therapy has recently been reported to resolve muscle contractures by effectively stimulating tissue turnover, scar tissue resorption, and regeneration of the normal soft tissue structure. When these adjuvant therapies fail, manipulation under anesthesia has been reported to be efficacious in restoring some of the original ROM. If this fails, there are surgical treatment options such as arthroscopic debridement, surgical release, revision TKA, or peroneal nerve release

Stiffness remains one of the most common, and challenging post-operative complications after TKA. The exact definition of stiffness varies, and patient expectations of post-operative motion vary as well. Pre-operative motion and diagnosis (such as post-traumatic arthritis) can influence post-operative motion, and careful patient counseling about expectations is important. Post-operative stiffness should be evaluated by ruling out infection, evaluating rehabilitation efforts, and careful physical and radiographic examination. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) in selected cases can be helpful. The author generally prefers to perform MUA between the 6- and 8-week mark post-operatively. Careful technique is required to minimised the risk of fracture or soft tissue injury. For more chronic stiffness, revision may be indicated, especially if an etiology is identified pre-operatively (for example, an excessively thick patellar resurfacing, an oversized femoral component, gross malrotation, etc.). CT scanning can be helpful for pre-operative evaluation and planning. During revision, thorough synovectomy and release of contractures and ligamentous balancing is performed as required. Careful attention to gap balancing, component rotation, and sizing is critical. Patients should be counseled that the results of revision for stiffness are mixed and somewhat unpredictable unless a clear etiology was found intra-operatively (for example, a grossly oversized femoral component). More frequent post-operative office visits may be helpful to guide rehabilitation progress in these challenging cases

Limited motion is associated with functional impairment and lack of satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The development of limited motion after TKA is often multifactorial. Patient related factors that can contribute to limited motion include poor pre-operative motion, patella infera, hip flexion contracture, leg length inequality, habitual narcotic use, morbid obesity, and possible genetic factors which lead to a biologic predisposition to form scar tissue. Surgical techniques to achieve full motion include appropriate sizing and positioning of the implants, proper gap balancing and soft tissue release, removal of posterior condylar osteophytes, and adequate tibial slope. Patient education, pain management, and participation in post-operative rehabilitation are also important. If adequate motion is not achieved, then manipulation can be helpful particularly up to three months after surgery. Once scar tissue is more mature, 6 months to a year after surgery, arthroscopy to resect arthrofibrotic scar is an appropriate option. For stiffness beyond one year after surgery revision TKA can be expected to result in modest improvement in motion, but pain relief may be quite variable

Introduction. Limb-length discrepancy (LLD) is a common postoperative complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study focuses on the correlation between patients’ perception of LLD after THA and the anatomical and functional leg length, pelvic and knee alignments and foot height. Previous publications have explored this topic in patients without significant spinal pathology or previous spine or lower extremity surgery. The objective of this work is to verify if the results are the same in case of stiff or fused spine. Methods. 170 patients with stiff spine (less than 10° L1-S1 lordosis variation between standing and sitting) were evaluated minimum 1 year after unilateral primary THA implantation using EOS® images in standing position (46/170 had previous lumbar fusion). We excluded cases with previous lower limbs surgery or frontal and sagittal spinal imbalance. 3D measures were performed to evaluate femoral and tibial length, femoral offset, pelvic obliquity, hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), knee flexion/hyperextension angle, tibial and femoral rotation. Axial pelvic rotation was measured as the angle between the line through the centers of the hips and the EOS x-ray beam source. The distance between middle of the tibial plafond and the ground was used to investigate the height of the foot. For data with normal distribution, paired Student's t-test and independent sample t-test were used for analysis. Univariate logistic regression was used to determine the correlation between the perception of limb length discrepancy and different variables. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate the correlation between the patient perception of LLD and variables found significant in the univariate analysis. Significance level was set at 0.05. Results. Anatomical femoral length correlated with patients’ perception of LLD but other variables were significant (the height of the foot, sagittal and frontal knee alignment, pelvic obliquity and pelvic rotation more than 10°). Interestingly some factors induced an unexpected perception of LLD despite a non-significant femoral length discrepancy less than 1cm (pelvic rotation and obliquity, height of the foot). Conclusions. LLD is a multifactorial problem. This study showed that the anatomical femoral length as the factor that can be modified with THA technique or choice of prosthesis is not the only important factor. A comprehensive clinical and radiological evaluation is necessary preoperatively to investigate spinal stiffness, pelvic obliquity and rotation, sagittal and coronal knee alignment and foot deformity in these patients. Our study has limitations as we do not have preoperative EOS measurements for all patients. We cannot assess changes in leg length as a result of THA. We also did not investigate the degree of any foot deformities as flat foot deformity may potentially affect the patients perception of the leg length. Instead, we measured the distance between the medial malleolus and ground that can reflect the foot arch height. More cases must be included to evaluate the potential influence of pelvis anatomy and functional orientation (pelvic incidence, sacral slope and pelvic tilt) but this study points out that spinal stiffness significantly decreases the LLD tolerance previously reported in patients without degenerative stiffness or fusion

Stiffness after knee arthroplasty is an important complication that the orthopaedic surgeon must be prepared to manage. In some cases, patients have a low-pain threshold or unidentifiable etiologic findings with no clinical indicators of septic or aseptic failure, and no radiographic evidence of mechanical complications. Psychosocial issues are important to consider, such as patient motivation and etiologic findings related to a worker's compensation claim. For patients who fail to achieve satisfactory ROM after TKA with no identifiable cause, treatment options may be categorised as non-surgical and surgical interventions. Non-surgical interventions would be physical therapy and pharmaceutical control for pain management. Surgical interventions include non-invasive options such as manipulation under anesthesia, and invasive options such as arthroscopy and mini-arthrotomy. Manipulation under anesthesia is indicated in the TKA that has less than 90° ROM after six weeks, no progression or regression in ROM. A modified technique has evolved for patients with persistent stiffness after standard-technique manipulation. The modified technique uses epidural anesthesia continued for post-operative analgesia, hospital stay of 1–3 days, CPM for 2–3 days, and daily PT. Continuous epidural infusion with local anesthetic is administered to provide complete analgesia, but allows muscle activation to be maintained during the hospital stay. Although open revision is sometimes required, arthroscopic management may be an effective alternative in certain instances, and also is helpful in diagnosis and treatment of other conditions of the knee that include prosthetic loosening and failure, retained cement, loose bodies, and sub-clinical infections. However, the painful TKA without evidence of significant intra-articular pathologic findings does not always respond well to arthroscopic management. Another option is open arthrotomy, done mainly to excise scar tissue. A synovectomy may be done as well. The polyethylene insert may be removed and an examination of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) performed. If the PCL is tight, it can be released and the existing components may be retained. Sometimes the polyethylene liner may be exchanged to a lipped insert to maintain stability. Revision surgery represents another option of treatment that can provide improved results whether manipulation or arthroscopic debridement has been done (14). Revision of one or all components combined with arthrolysis continues to have a role in improvement of ROM and outcomes in the stiff TKA

Introduction. The majority of radial head fractures may be treated successfully by conservative means and they are often considered a benign injury. However, approximately 25% of Mason type II fractures will not have a good long term result. Pain and stiffness can be a problem and this may be a significant complaint in young active patients with pain at end range of motion. Methods. A retrospective review of a single surgeon series of 62 consecutive elbow arthroscopic arthrolyses performed in 62 patients between June 2006 and Sept 2009 was performed. Pre- and post-operative ranges of motion (ROM) were assessed and recorded along with the patient's DASH score. Patients were kept in overnight and splinted in extension. Splints were removed the following day and AROM exercises were commenced with the physiotherapist. Patients were reviewed and assessed at follow up. Results. The majority of patients were male with an average age of 37 years The majority of post-traumatic cases were Mason type II fractures, who had failed conservative treatment. A statistically significant improvement in ROM of was seen following surgery for trauma related stiffness compared to other aetiologies. A improvement was also noted in DASH scores. Conclusions. In this series of elbow arthroscopic arthrolyses performed for stiffness following radial head fracture the procedure was a safe and well tolerated with significant improvements seen post-operatively. This may be an effective method of treating patients with painful stiff elbows post radial head fracture

The standard approach is through the deltopectoral interval. Among patients with prior incisions, one makes every effort to either utilise the old incision or to incorporate it into a longer incision that will allow one to approach the deltopectoral interval and retract the deltoid laterally. The deltopectoral interval is most easily developed just distal to the clavicle, where there is a natural infraclavicular triangle of fat that separates the deltoid and pectoralis major muscles even in very scarred or stiff shoulders. Typically, the deltoid is retracted laterally leaving the cephalic vein on the medial aspect of the exposure. The anterior border of the deltoid is mobilised from the clavicle to its insertion on the humerus. The anterior portion of the deltoid insertion together with the more distal periosteum of the humerus may be elevated slightly. The next step is to identify the plane between the conjoined tendon group and the subscapularis muscle. Dissection in this area must be done very carefully due to the close proximity of the neurovascular group, the axillary nerve, and the musculocutaneous nerve. Scar is then released from around the base of the coracoid. The subacromial space is freed of scar and the shoulder is examined for range of motion. Particularly among patients with prior rotator cuff surgery, there may be severe scarring in the subacromial space. Internal rotation of the arm with dissection between the remaining rotator cuff and deltoid is critical to develop this plane. If external rotation is less than 30 degrees, one can consider incising the subscapularis off bone rather than through its tendinous substance. For every 1 cm that the subscapularis is advanced medially, one gains approximately 20 to 30 degrees of external rotation. The rotator interval between the subscapularis and supraspinatus is then incised. This release is then continued inferiorly to incise the inferior shoulder capsule from the neck of the humerus. This is performed by proceeding from anterior to posterior with progressive external rotation of the humerus staying directly on the bone with electrocautery and great care to protect the axillary nerve. The key for glenoid exposure as well as improvement in motion is deltoid mobilization, a large inferior capsular release, aggressive humeral head cut and osteophyte removal

We hypothesize that tethering adhesions of the quadriceps muscle are the major pathological structures responsible for a limited range of motion in the stiff arthritic knee. Forty-two modified quadriceps muscle releases were performed on 24 patients with advanced osteoarthritis scheduled for total knee arthroplasty. The ranges of motion were documented intraoperatively both before and immediately after the release. Passive flexion improved significantly in all patients (mean, 32.4 degrees of improvement, P < .001) following a modified quadriceps release, despite any presence of osteophytes or severe deformities. These results strongly implicate adhesions of the quadriceps muscle to the underlying femur, which prevent the distal excursion of the quadriceps tendon, as the restrictive pathology preventing deep flexion in patients with osteoarthritis

Purpose. Pain and stiffness from elbow arthritides can be reliably improved with arthroscopic osteocapsular ulnohumeral arthroplasty (OUA) in selected patients. Post-operative continuous passive motion (CPM) may be helpful in reducing hemarthrosis, improving soft-tissue compliance and maintaining the range of motion (ROM) established intra-operatively. There is only one published series of arthroscopic OUA and CPM was used in a minority of those patients. We hypothesized that a standardized surgical and post-operative CPM protocol would lead to rapid recovery and sustained improvement in ROM. Method. Thirty patients with painful elbow contractures underwent limited open ulnar nerve decompression and arthroscopic OUA at our institution by a single fellowship trained upper limb reconstruction surgeon. All patients underwent CPM for three days in-hospital with a continuous peripheral nerve block, followed by gradual weaning of CPM at home over two weeks. ROM using a goniometer was assessed at discharge, cessation of CPM (2 weeks) and final follow-up. The main outcome was elbow flexion, extension and total arc of motion. Paired students t-test was used to compare pre and post-operative ROM. Results. The median age was 45 (14–68) years, 77% were male, 73% had the dominant side affected and the most common pre-operative diagnosis was arthritis (50% post-traumatic, 30% primary osteoarthritis). Mean last follow-up was 7 months (range 2 weeks to 2 years). The mean pre-operative range of motion was 119 flexion, −32 extension and a total arc of 8719. At cessation of CPM, the mean flexion was 135, extension −7 and total arc 12711. At last follow-up flexion was maintained at a mean of 134 (p=0.6) but some extension was lost (mean −15, p<0.05) and total arc of motion decreased to 11820 (p<0.05). However, only two patients failed to maintain a functional arc of >100 and the amount of pre-operative contracture was correlated (r=0.73) with final arc of motion. Complications included only two transient ulnar neuropraxias. Only three patients required post-CPM bracing or physiotherapy. Conclusion. We present excellent improvement in short-term ROM following arthroscopic OUA using a standardized post-operative CPM protocol. These results are equal or better than open and non-CPM results published in the literature and alleviate the need for lengthy post-operative physiotherapy and splinting protocols in the majority of patients. A comparative study of CPM and non-CPM post-operative regimens after arthroscopic OUA is warranted to determine the true influence of CPM