Pelvic tilt is minimally changed by total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND While surgical navigation offers the opportunity to accurately place an acetabular component, questions remain as to the best goal for acetabular component positioning in individual patients. Overall functional orientation of the pelvis after surgery is one of the most important variables for the surgeon to consider when determining the proper goal for acetabular component orientation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES We measured the variation in pelvic tilt in 30 patients before THA and the effect of THA on pelvic tilt in the same patients more than a year after THA. METHODS Each patient had a CT study for CT-based surgical navigation and standing and supine radiographs before and after surgery. Pelvic tilt was calculated for each of the radiographs using a novel and validated two-dimensional/three-dimensional matching technique. RESULTS Mean supine pelvic tilt changed less than 2°, from 4.4° ± 6.4° (range, -7.7° to 20.8°) before THA to 6.3° ± 6.6° (range, -5.7° to 19.6°) after THA. Mean standing pelvic tilt changed less than 1°, from 1.5° ± 7.2° (range, -13.1° to 12.8°) before THA to 2.0° ± 8.3° (range, -12.3° to 16.8°) after THA. Preoperative pelvic tilt correlated with postoperative tilt in both the supine (r(2) = 0.75) and standing (r(2) = 0.87) positions. CONCLUSIONS In this population, pelvic tilt had a small and predictable change after surgery. However, intersubject variability of pelvic tilt was high, suggesting preoperative pelvic tilt should be considered when determining desired acetabular component positioning on a patient-specific basis.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.