The T1 pelvic angle (T1PA) provides a consistent global measure of sagittal alignment independent of compensatory mechanisms and positional changes. However, it may not explicitly reflect alignment goals that correlate with a lower risk of complications. This study assessed the value of T1PA in achieving sagittal alignment goals in patients with an adult spinal deformity (ASD). Patients aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone surgery for ASD and had complete baseline data and at least two-year postoperative, radiological, and health-related quality of life follow-up were included. A total of 596 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 61.5 years (SD 13.4); 78.8% females; mean BMI 27.8 kg/m2 (SD 5.9); mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 1.9 (SD 1.8)). The primary outcome was development of mechanical complications. Cohorts were based on postoperative T1PA (T1PA < 10° or > 30° = unfavourable vs T1PA 10° to 30° = favourable). Adjustments for confounders with separate analyses were done using multivariable logistic regression analysis.Aims
Methods
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture commonly leads to post-traumatic osteoarthritis, regardless of surgical reconstruction. This study uses standing MRI to investigate changes in contact area, contact centroid location, and tibiofemoral alignment between ACL-injured knees and healthy controls, to examine the effect of ACL reconstruction on these parameters. An upright, open MRI was used to directly measure tibiofemoral contact area, centroid location, and alignment in 18 individuals with unilateral ACL rupture within the last five years. Eight participants had been treated nonoperatively and ten had ACL reconstruction performed within one year of injury. All participants were high-functioning and had returned to sport or recreational activities. Healthy contralateral knees served as controls. Participants were imaged in a standing posture with knees fully extended.Aims
Methods
It is unclear why ACL rupture increases osteoarthritis risk, regardless of ACL reconstruction. Our aims were: 1) to establish the reliability and accuracy of a direct method of determining tibiofemoral contact in vivo with UO-MRI, 2) to assess differences in knees with ACL rupture treated nonoperatively versus operatively, and 3) to assess differences in knees with ACL rupture versus healthy knees. We recruited a convenience sample of patients with prior ACL rupture. Inclusion criteria were: 1) adult participants between 18–50 years old; 2) unilateral, isolated ACL rupture within the last five years; 3) if reconstructed, done within one year from injury; 4) intact cartilage; and 5) completed a graduated rehabilitation program culminating in return to sport or recreational activities. Participants were excluded if they had other ligament ruptures, osteoarthritis, an incompletely rehabilitated injury, were prohibited from undergoing MRI, or had a history of ACL re-rupture. Using the UO-MRI, we investigated tibiofemoral contact area, centroid location, and six degrees of freedom alignment under standing, weightbearing conditions with knees extended. We compared patients with ACL rupture treated nonoperatively versus operatively, and ACL ruptured knees versus healthy control knees. We assessed reliability using the intra-class correlation coefficient, and accuracy by comparing UO-MRI contact area with a 7Tesla MRI reference standard. We used linear mixed-effects models to test the effects of ACL rupture and ACL reconstruction on contact area. We used a paired t test for centroid location and alignment differences in ACL ruptured knees versus control knees, and the independent t test for differences between ACL reconstruction and no reconstruction. Analyses were performed using R version 3.5.1. We calculated sample size based on a previous study that showed a contact area standard deviation of 13.6mm2, therefore we needed eight or more knees per group to detect a minimum contact area change of 20mm2with 80% power and an α of 0.05. We recruited 18 participants with ACL rupture: eight treated conservatively and 10 treated with ACL reconstruction. There were no significant differences between the operative and nonoperative ACL groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, time since injury, or functional knee scores (IKDC and KOOS). The UO-MRI demonstrated excellent inter-rater, test-retest, and intra-rater reliability with ICCs for contact area and centroid location ranging from 0.83–1.00. Contact area measurement was accurate to within 5% measurement error. At a mean 2.7 years after injury, we found that ACL rupture was associated with a 10.4% larger medial and lateral compartment contact areas (P=0.001), with the medial centroid located 5.2% more posterior (P=0.001). The tibiae of ACL ruptured knees were 2.3mm more anterior (P=0.003), and 2.6° less externally rotated (P=0.010) relative to the femur, than contralateral control knees. We found no differences between ACL reconstructed and nonreconstructed knees. ACL rupture was associated with significant mechanical changes 2.7 years out from injury, which ACL reconstruction did not restore. These findings may partially explain the equivalent risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in patients treated operatively and nonoperatively after ACL rupture.
