Jun Kit He
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Jun Kit He has a total of 16 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ashish Shah
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Orthopaedics, United States
2 shared publications - John T. Wilson
Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine
2 shared publications - Aaradhana J. Jha
Orthopaedics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
1 shared publication Amit M. Momaya
Department of Orthopaedics, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, 951 18th St. S, 35205 Birmingham, AL, USA
1 shared publication- Andrew S. Moon
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
1 shared publication - Bradley Alexander
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 29 August 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Indian Journal of Orthopaedics
- Vol. 55 (S1) , 135-141
Mini-open vs. Transfibular Approach for Ankle Arthrodesis, Which Approach is Superior in Joint Preparation: A Cadaver Study
Background Arthrodesis is considered the gold standard for end-stage ankle arthritis in patients who fail conservative management. Achieving union is paramount while minimizing complications. An essential item for successful union is preparation of the articular surface. Our study aims to evaluate the difference in joint preparation between direct lateral and dual mini-open approaches. Materials and Methods Ten below knee fresh-frozen specimens were used for this study. Five were prepared through lateral approach, and five using dual mini-incisions. After preparation, all ankles were dissected and images of tibial plafond and talar articular surfaces were taken. Surface areas of articulating facets and unprepared cartilage of talus, distal tibia, and distal fibula were measured and analyzed. Results A greater amount of total surface area was prepared with the mini-open approach in comparison to the transfibular approach. Percentage of prepared surface area of total articulating surface (including talus and tibia/fibula), talus, tibia, and fibula with the transfibular approach were 76.9%, 77.7%, and 75%, respectively. Percentages were 90.9%, 92.9%, and 88.6% with the mini-open approach. When excluding medial gutter, there was no significant difference between techniques (83.94% vs. 90.85%, p = 0.1412). Conclusion Joint preparation with the mini-open approach is equally efficacious as the transfibular approach for the tibiotalar joint. The mini-open approach does provide superior preparation of the medial gutter and inferior tibial surface which may help to increase union rates and decreased complications. Level of Evidence V.
- 29 August 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Indian Journal of Orthopaedics
- Vol. 55 (S1) , 135-141
Mini-open vs. Transfibular Approach for Ankle Arthrodesis, Which Approach is Superior in Joint Preparation: A Cadaver Study
Background Arthrodesis is considered the gold standard for end-stage ankle arthritis in patients who fail conservative management. Achieving union is paramount while minimizing complications. An essential item for successful union is preparation of the articular surface. Our study aims to evaluate the difference in joint preparation between direct lateral and dual mini-open approaches. Materials and Methods Ten below knee fresh-frozen specimens were used for this study. Five were prepared through lateral approach, and five using dual mini-incisions. After preparation, all ankles were dissected and images of tibial plafond and talar articular surfaces were taken. Surface areas of articulating facets and unprepared cartilage of talus, distal tibia, and distal fibula were measured and analyzed. Results A greater amount of total surface area was prepared with the mini-open approach in comparison to the transfibular approach. Percentage of prepared surface area of total articulating surface (including talus and tibia/fibula), talus, tibia, and fibula with the transfibular approach were 76.9%, 77.7%, and 75%, respectively. Percentages were 90.9%, 92.9%, and 88.6% with the mini-open approach. When excluding medial gutter, there was no significant difference between techniques (83.94% vs. 90.85%, p = 0.1412). Conclusion Joint preparation with the mini-open approach is equally efficacious as the transfibular approach for the tibiotalar joint. The mini-open approach does provide superior preparation of the medial gutter and inferior tibial surface which may help to increase union rates and decreased complications. Level of Evidence V.
- 1 April 2019
- Published by Elsevier in Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research
- Vol. 105 (2) , 375-382
Current concepts in vitamin D and orthopaedic surgery
- 1 April 2019
- Published by Elsevier in Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research
- Vol. 105 (2) , 375-382
Current concepts in vitamin D and orthopaedic surgery
- Open Access
- 9 October 2018
- Published by Springer Nature in Cureus
- Vol. 10 (10) , e3436
Is Use of Bone Cement for Treatment of Second Metatarsal Stress Fractures Safe? A Case Report
Metatarsal stress fractures are common injuries of the foot and can be a source of chronic pain without appropriate management. Conservative management is first line, but surgery may be indicated in athletes, cases of nonunion, and fractures of the fifth metatarsal. We report a case of a 34-year-old female who presented to clinic for intractable pain of the left foot secondary to a stress fracture of the left second metatarsal, which had been previously treated with injectable acrylic bone cement. Calcium sulfate hydroxyapatite cement has a multitude of applications in orthopedic surgery, but to our knowledge no studies have documented its use in the treatment of metatarsal stress fractures. Our findings suggest that injectable calcium sulfate hydroxyapatite cement is not a suitable stand-alone treatment in fractures of the second metatarsal.
- 9 October 2018
- Published by Springer Nature in Cureus
- Vol. 10 (10) , e3436
Open AccessIs Use of Bone Cement for Treatment of Second Metatarsal Stress Fractures Safe? A Case Report
Metatarsal stress fractures are common injuries of the foot and can be a source of chronic pain without appropriate management. Conservative management is first line, but surgery may be indicated in athletes, cases of nonunion, and fractures of the fifth metatarsal. We report a case of a 34-year-old female who presented to clinic for intractable pain of the left foot secondary to a stress fracture of the left second metatarsal, which had been previously treated with injectable acrylic bone cement. Calcium sulfate hydroxyapatite cement has a multitude of applications in orthopedic surgery, but to our knowledge no studies have documented its use in the treatment of metatarsal stress fractures. Our findings suggest that injectable calcium sulfate hydroxyapatite cement is not a suitable stand-alone treatment in fractures of the second metatarsal.