Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Methods: This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars. Results: No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient. Conclusion The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.