Objective:To compare the impacts of external fixation of different durations on rehabilitation outcomes after open repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture.Methods:A prospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of patients with unilateral acute closed Achilles tendon rupture admitted to Peking University Third Hospital from August 2020 to August 2023. Patients were divided into Group A ( n=96), Group B ( n=347), Group C ( n=346), and Group D ( n=105) based on different postoperative immobilization durations (0, 2, 4 and 6 weeks, respectively). After all the patients received identical open repair procedure, Group A was rehabilitated immediately but the other groups were rehabilitated with the same protocol after removal of the external fixation. Four groups were compared in terms of recovery time of one-leg heel-rise height (OHRH), recovery time of light exercise (LE) in brisk walking and jogging and recovery time of range of motion (ROM). Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also compared at 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks postoperatively. Achilles tendon total rupture score (ATRS) and American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scores were evaluated at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 weeks postoperatively. Complications were recorded. Results:A total of 894 patients including 869 males and 25 females were included, aged 18-60 years [(35.0±6.3)years]. All the patients were followed up for 14-25 months [(19.0±3.0)months]. The recovery time of OHRH in Group A and B was 12.0(12.0, 12.0)weeks and 12.0(10.0, 12.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [14.0(14.0, 16.0)weeks] and D [14.0(14.0, 14.0)weeks] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05) and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). The recovery time of LE in Group A and B was 18.0(18.0, 18.0)weeks and 18.0(16.0, 18.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [20.0(20.0, 20.0)weeks] and D [20.0(20.0, 20.0)weeks] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05) and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). The recovery time of ROM in Group A and B was 6.0(6.0, 6.0)weeks and 6.0(6.0, 6.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [8.0(8.0, 10.0)weeks] and D [10.0(10.0, 10.0)weeks)] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B, and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). At 2 weeks postoperatively, the VAS scores were 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points, 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points, and 2.0(1.5, 2.0)points in Group B, C and D, lower than 5.0(5.0, 5.0)points in Group A ( P<0.05), with no significant difference among Group B, C, and D ( P>0.05). At 4 weeks postoperatively, the VAS scores were 1.0(0, 1.0)points, 1.0(0, 1.0)points, and 1.0(0.5, 1.0)points in Group B, C and D, lower than 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points in Group A ( P<0.05), with no significant difference among Group B, C, and D ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the VAS score was 0(0, 0)points in all the 4 groups, with no significant difference among them ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the VAS score was 0(0, 0)points, with lower scores in Group A and B than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 52.0(52.0, 53.8)points and 52.0(50.0, 53.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 41.0(38.0, 43.0)points and 19.0(18.0, 20.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 66.0(66.0, 68.0)points in Group A, higher than 63.0(62.0, 64.0)points, 52.0(50.0, 53.0)points, and 39.0(37.0, 40.0)points in Group B, C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group B than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) and a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 10 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 75.0(74.0, 76.0)points in Group B, higher than 69.0(69.0, 70.0)points, 72.0(66.0, 74.0)points, and 62.0(58.5, 63.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 84.0(82.0, 85.0)points in Group B, higher than 75.0(75.0, 77.0)points, 79.0(72.0, 81.0)points, and 72.0(71.0, 73.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 14 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 87.0(86.0, 87.0)points in Group B, higher than 82.0(82.0, 84.0)points, 83.0(80.0, 85.0)points, and 79.0(77.5, 80.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 16 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 87.0(87.0, 88.0)points and 88.0(87.0, 88.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 86.0(85.0, 87.0)points and 84.0(83.0, 85.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores were 94.0(94.0, 95.0)points and 95.0(94.0, 96.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 85.0(83.0, 86.0)points and 74.0(72.0, 75.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores were 100.0(99.0, 100.0)points in Group B, higher than 94.0(94.0, 95.0)points, 92.0(90.0, 93.0)points, and 83.0(82.0, 84.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group A than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) and a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 10 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points in Group B, higher than 98.0(98.0, 98.0)points, 98.0(96.8, 99.0)points, and 96.0(95.0, 97.0)points in Group A, C and D, with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points in both Group A and B, with no significant difference between them ( P>0.05), which was higher than 100.0(98.0, 100.0)points and 99.0(98.0, 99.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 14 and 16 weeks postoperatively, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points, with no significant difference among all the groups ( P>0.05). Superficial wound infection occurred in 12 patients [5.2%(5/96) in Group A, 0.6%(2/347) in Group B, 0.6%(2/346) in Group C and 2.9%(3/105) in Group D] ( P<0.01) while rerupture occurred in 16 [9.4%(9/96) in Group A, 1.2% (4/347) in Group B, 0.9%(3/105) in Group C, and 0 patient in Group D] ( P<0.01). Conclusion:For patients with unilateral acute Achilles tendon rupture, two weeks of postoperative external fixation after open repair can shorten the time of returning sports, alleviate pain, and promote functional recovery, without increasing the risk of complications.

Objective:To compare the impacts of external fixation of different durations on rehabilitation outcomes after open repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture.Methods:A prospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of patients with unilateral acute closed Achilles tendon rupture admitted to Peking University Third Hospital from August 2020 to August 2023. Patients were divided into Group A ( n=96), Group B ( n=347), Group C ( n=346), and Group D ( n=105) based on different postoperative immobilization durations (0, 2, 4 and 6 weeks, respectively). After all the patients received identical open repair procedure, Group A was rehabilitated immediately but the other groups were rehabilitated with the same protocol after removal of the external fixation. Four groups were compared in terms of recovery time of one-leg heel-rise height (OHRH), recovery time of light exercise (LE) in brisk walking and jogging and recovery time of range of motion (ROM). Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also compared at 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks postoperatively. Achilles tendon total rupture score (ATRS) and American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scores were evaluated at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 weeks postoperatively. Complications were recorded. Results:A total of 894 patients including 869 males and 25 females were included, aged 18-60 years [(35.0±6.3)years]. All the patients were followed up for 14-25 months [(19.0±3.0)months]. The recovery time of OHRH in Group A and B was 12.0(12.0, 12.0)weeks and 12.0(10.0, 12.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [14.0(14.0, 16.0)weeks] and D [14.0(14.0, 14.0)weeks] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05) and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). The recovery time of LE in Group A and B was 18.0(18.0, 18.0)weeks and 18.0(16.0, 18.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [20.0(20.0, 20.0)weeks] and D [20.0(20.0, 20.0)weeks] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05) and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). The recovery time of ROM in Group A and B was 6.0(6.0, 6.0)weeks and 6.0(6.0, 6.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [8.0(8.0, 10.0)weeks] and D [10.0(10.0, 10.0)weeks)] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B, and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). At 2 weeks postoperatively, the VAS scores were 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points, 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points, and 2.0(1.5, 2.0)points in Group B, C and D, lower than 5.0(5.0, 5.0)points in Group A ( P<0.05), with no significant difference among Group B, C, and D ( P>0.05). At 4 weeks postoperatively, the VAS scores were 1.0(0, 1.0)points, 1.0(0, 1.0)points, and 1.0(0.5, 1.0)points in Group B, C and D, lower than 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points in Group A ( P<0.05), with no significant difference among Group B, C, and D ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the VAS score was 0(0, 0)points in all the 4 groups, with no significant difference among them ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the VAS score was 0(0, 0)points, with lower scores in Group A and B than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 52.0(52.0, 53.8)points and 52.0(50.0, 53.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 41.0(38.0, 43.0)points and 19.0(18.0, 20.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 66.0(66.0, 68.0)points in Group A, higher than 63.0(62.0, 64.0)points, 52.0(50.0, 53.0)points, and 39.0(37.0, 40.0)points in Group B, C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group B than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) and a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 10 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 75.0(74.0, 76.0)points in Group B, higher than 69.0(69.0, 70.0)points, 72.0(66.0, 74.0)points, and 62.0(58.5, 63.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 84.0(82.0, 85.0)points in Group B, higher than 75.0(75.0, 77.0)points, 79.0(72.0, 81.0)points, and 72.0(71.0, 73.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 14 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 87.0(86.0, 87.0)points in Group B, higher than 82.0(82.0, 84.0)points, 83.0(80.0, 85.0)points, and 79.0(77.5, 80.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 16 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 87.0(87.0, 88.0)points and 88.0(87.0, 88.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 86.0(85.0, 87.0)points and 84.0(83.0, 85.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores were 94.0(94.0, 95.0)points and 95.0(94.0, 96.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 85.0(83.0, 86.0)points and 74.0(72.0, 75.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores were 100.0(99.0, 100.0)points in Group B, higher than 94.0(94.0, 95.0)points, 92.0(90.0, 93.0)points, and 83.0(82.0, 84.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group A than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) and a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 10 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points in Group B, higher than 98.0(98.0, 98.0)points, 98.0(96.8, 99.0)points, and 96.0(95.0, 97.0)points in Group A, C and D, with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points in both Group A and B, with no significant difference between them ( P>0.05), which was higher than 100.0(98.0, 100.0)points and 99.0(98.0, 99.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 14 and 16 weeks postoperatively, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points, with no significant difference among all the groups ( P>0.05). Superficial wound infection occurred in 12 patients [5.2%(5/96) in Group A, 0.6%(2/347) in Group B, 0.6%(2/346) in Group C and 2.9%(3/105) in Group D] ( P<0.01) while rerupture occurred in 16 [9.4%(9/96) in Group A, 1.2% (4/347) in Group B, 0.9%(3/105) in Group C, and 0 patient in Group D] ( P<0.01). Conclusion:For patients with unilateral acute Achilles tendon rupture, two weeks of postoperative external fixation after open repair can shorten the time of returning sports, alleviate pain, and promote functional recovery, without increasing the risk of complications.

Objective: By comparing different repairing effects of different methods on articular cartilage defects in rabbit model, the ability of a new bioactive glass scaffold to repair cartilage defect was studied. Methods: We prepared the PSC/CS bone cement by mixing the bioactive glass (BG) powder composed of 10.8%P₂O₅-54.2%SiO₂-35%CaO (PSC), chitosan solution (CS) and calcium sulfate hemihydrate (CSH), then the bone cement was sized by a mold to form cylindrical scaffold. In vivo experiment, 18 male rabbits were divided into three groups randomly, including blank group, BG group and TGF-β1 group, which was added TGF-β1 into BG scaffold. Both knees of each rabbit were made cartilage defect for the same group, and no intervention was applied in B group, then implanted scaffolds into defects in both experimental groups. At 6 and 12 weeks after surgery, observed the macroscopic growth, histologic staining and collagen II immunohistochemistry (IHC), and the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) and Wakitani score were used to analyze the experimental results quantitatively. Results: At 6 weeks after surgery, there was no obvious difference between blank group and BG groups, but the macroscopic result of TGF-β1 group was better than the other two groups and its ICRS score 4.67±0.52 points was statistically higher than BG group 2.83±0.75 points (t=-2.817, P=0.015). As to the comparison of histologic staining and Wakitani socre among three groups, no statistical difference was observed (blank group=13.67±0.52, BG group=13.83±0.41, TGF-β1 group=13.33±1.03). At 12 weeks after surgery, there was still no obvious difference between blank and BG groups, while the results of macroscopic observation and ICRS score in TGF-β1 group were significantly higher than them 9.01±0.63 points (blank group vs TGF-β1 group: t=-2.289, P=0.022; BG group vs TGF-β1 group: t=-2.326, P=0.020). More importantly, much deeper positive staining were observed in TGF-β1 group, and the Wakitani score was higher than the other two groups (blank group=9.83±1.33, BG group=9.51±1.05, TGF-β1 group=6.50±1.38, blank group vs TGF-β1 group: t=-2.771, P=0.007; BG group vs TGF-β1 group: t=-2.756, P=0.006). By comparing the degree of histologic staining and Col II expression with normal cartilage, the regenerated tissue in TGF-β1 group was similar. Conclusion Single PSC/CS scaffold doesn’t possess excellent ability to repair cartilage defect. When TGF-β1 was added into PSC/CS bioactive glass, the scaffold was able to promote cartilage defect repair, and the regenerated tissue was similar to normal cartilage.

Objective To analyze the iatrogenic fractures following treatment of type 12-A humeral shaft fractures with antegrade intramedullary nails. Methods We reviewed the patients who had been treated with antegrade intramedullary nails for type 12-A humeral shaft fracture from October 2006 to March 2017. They were 13 males and 13 females with an age range from 22 to 76 years and an average age of 44. 5 years. Six of them were complicated with other fractures or radial nerve injury. We divided the patients into an iatrogenic fracture ( IF ) group and a non-iatrogenic fracture ( NIF ) group and compared gender, age, fracture type, reaming and nonunion between the 2 groups. Results The follow-up time for the 26 patients ranged from 13 to 182 weeks ( 63. 8 weeks on average ) . Of them, 7 suffered iatrogenic fracture and 4 nonunion. The union time for the other 22 patients ranged from 9 to 29 weeks ( 14. 6 weeks on average ) . All the 7 patients in the iatrogenic fracture group were treated with reaming while only 9 of the 19 patients in the non-iatrogenic fracture group were treated with reaming. Nonunion occurred in 3 patients in the iatrogenic fracture group but in only one patient in the non-iatrogenic fracture group. All the above comparisons were statistically significant between the 2 groups ( P < 0. 05 ) but there were no significant differences in comparisons between the 2 groups regarding gender, age, nail diameter, fracture type, way of locking proximal and distal screws or rate of secondary surgery ( P > 0. 05 ) . Conclusions Antegrade intramedullary nailing may cause an iatro-genic fracture in the treatment of type12-A humeral shaft fractures. The iatrogenic fracture may affect fracture union. Intraoperative reaming may be the risk factor for the iatrogenic fracture.

Objective To improve the quality of clinical biochemistry laboratory by quality indicators of pre-analytical,analytical,post-analytical phase and the whole process.Methods Analytical Phase:The Sigma values of items were calculated,applying the equation Sigma =(TEa％-Bias％)/CV％.Total allowable error (TEa) is from analyticalal specification defined in WS/T403-2012 of China,Bias％ is from the evaluation results of National Center for Clinical Laboratory (NCCL) trueness verification PT series and CV％ is from internal quality control data during the last 6 months in our lab.Normalized Sigma metrics plot was made to evaluate the analysis performance and the quality control strategies were designed accordingly.The quality goal indexes (QGI) were also calculated to propose improvement measures for items below 6 Sigma.Quality indicators of pre-,post-analytical and whole analytical phase,such as quality of specimen,critical value notification,critical value notification in time,TAT of hs-cTnT,TAT of emergency biochemical items,rewrite of laboratory reports and unacceptable performance in EQA-PT were measured in Sigma metrics too.The Sigma metrics changes before and after taking improvement measures were compared to conform the effectiveness.Results The average Sigma value of 17 biochemical tests was 5.29,of which 8 items (UA,K,ALP,CK,AMY,AST,TG,Na) achieved excellent to world class level (≥ 5 Sigma),6 items (LDH,Cre,TC,ALT,Mg,Glu) achieved marginal to good level (5 ＞ Sigma ≥ 3),BUN performed poorly (3 ＞ Sigma ≥ 2),Ca,TP performed unacceptably (Sigma ＜ 2) with serious quality defects.The Sigma values of unacceptable specimen,critical value notification,critical value notification in time,unacceptable turn around time (TAT) of hs-cTnT,unacceptable turn around time (TAT) of emergency biochemical items,rewrite of laboratory reports,unacceptable performance in EQA-PT were 4.17,3.60,2.75,1.72,3.27,4.52,3.33 respectively,rising to 4.30,4.30,2.90,2.45,3.75,4.80,3.60 accordingly after improvement.Conclusions Sigma metrics is potentially an ideal approach for clinical biochemistry laboratories management,which is helpful to find out problems,put forward improvement measures,and confirm the effectiveness,so as to achieve the purpose of continuous quality improvement.

[Summary] With the increasing global aging population, osteoporosis vertebral compression fracture ( OVCF) is getting more attention as a big challenge for orthopedic surgeons.Current therapeutic options include conservative treatment, traditional open reduction and internal fixation, percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP), and percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP).Due to excellent clinical results on pain relief and function improvement, PVP and PKP, as minimally invasive surgical techniques, now increasingly become more popular for painful OVCF.The review focused on a brief introduction of the current status of the two procedures and a discussion of the future trends of the two techniques.