The present study demonstrates that arthroscopic capsulolabral repair with suture anchor fixation can restore the stability
of the glenohumeral joint and can provide a reliable improvement in subjective and objective outcome measures.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
ORIGINAL ABSTRACT CITATION: “”Arthroscopic Repair of Circumferential Lesions of the Glenoid Labrum”" (2009;91:2795-802).”
“A series of 5-substituted-arylidene-3-substituted-benzyl-thiazolidine-2,4-dione derivatives were synthesized and studied for their glucose lowering capability against alloxan induced diabetic rats. Compounds 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 2(b) and 2(c) showed appreciable antidiabetic activity compared to standard drug rosiglitazone. The anisaldehyde based thiazolidinedione compounds 1(a) and 2(a) displayed very less activity than the click here other synthesized compounds. Interestingly, 2-methoxy group containing compound 1(d) showed highest activity.”
“BACKGROUND: Despite its technical complexity, arthroscopic tibial inlay reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament has biomechanical advantages over transtibial procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results check details of arthroscopic tibial inlay single-bundle and double-bundle techniques with those of the conventional
transtibial single-bundle technique.
METHODS: We evaluated twenty-nine patients treated with primary posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and followed for longer than two years. Eight patients were treated with a transtibial single-bundle procedure; eleven, with an arthroscopic inlay single-bundle procedure; and ten, with an arthroscopic inlay double-bundle procedure. An Achilles tendon allograft was used in
all cases. Each patient was evaluated on the basis of the Lysholm AZD5582 solubility dmso knee score, the mean side-to-side difference in tibial translation as measured on Telos stress radiographs, and the side-to-side difference in the range of motion of the knee.
RESULTS: The mean side-to-side difference (and standard deviation) in posterior tibial translation differed significantly between the arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle group (3.6 +/- 1.43 mm) and the transtibial single-bundle group (5.6 +/- 2.0 mm) (p = 0.023), although there was no significant difference between the arthroscopic inlay single-bundle group (4.7 +/- 1.62 mm) and the transtibial group (p = 0.374). The mean range of motion and Lysholm scores were similar among the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite its technical difficulty, the arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle technique is our preferred method of reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament because it stabilizes posterior tibial translation better than do the other two methods.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.