Aim. One of the most challenging problems in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is periprosthetic infection. A major problem that arises in septic revision TKA (RTKA) are extended bone defects. In case of extended bone defects revision prostheses with metaphyseal sleeves are used. Only a few studies have been published on the use of metaphyseal sleeves in RTKA - none were septic exclusive. The aim of our study was to determine the implant survival, achieved osseointegration as well as the radiological mid-term outcomes of
Angular proximal femoral deformities increase the technical complexity of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The goals were to determine the long-term implant survivorship, risk factors, complications, and clinical outcomes of contemporary primary THAs in this difficult cohort. Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 119 primary THAs performed in 109 patients with an angular proximal femoral deformity between 1997 and 2017. The deformity was related to previous femoral osteotomy in 85%, and developmental or metabolic disorders in 15%. 53% had a predominantly varus angular deformity. The mean age was 44 years, mean BMI was 29 kg/m. 2. , and 59% were female. An uncemented
Shoulder arthroplasty is effective at restoring function and relieving pain in patients suffering from glenohumeral arthritis; however, cortex thinning has been significantly associated with larger press-fit stems (fill ratio = 0.57 vs 0.48; P = 0.013)1. Additionally, excessively stiff implant-bone constructs are considered undesirable, as high initial stiffness of rigid fracture fixation implants has been related to premature loosening and an ultimate failure of the implant-bone interface2. Consequently, one objective which has driven the evolution of humeral stem design has been the reduction of stress-shielding induced bone resorption; this in-part has led to the introduction of short stems, which rely on
Introduction. Modularity in femoral stem designs allow surgeons to independently control leg length, offset, and femoral version in revision or complex primary THA cases. Initial enthusiasm in these modular stems has been tempered by recognition of modular junction failures. This study evaluates mean 5-year clinical results and survival rates of a 3-part titanium alloy modular femoral implant with unique taper geometries and a metaphyseal plasma spray surface. The current results are presented after pre-market independent fatigue testing performed by Orthopaedic Laboratory (Greenwald) and previously published early clinical results in 2006. Low plasticity burnishing (LPB) was added in 2005 to further strengthen the neck metaphyseal modular junction. The modular stem component is a polished cylindrical splined clothespin design. Our hypothesis is that these unique modular junctions succeed in offering the advantages of modularity without failure at this midterm follow-up period. Methods. Between May 2010 and July 2016, 32 total hip arthroplasties were performed using a 3-part femoral stem with neck-metaphyseal-stem modular junctions. Surgeries were either the final stage of a two-stage revision for infection, revision THR for loosening, or a revision of a previous non-prosthetic replacement procedure. Patients were entered into an IRB-approved registry and followed with x-rays, HHS, Oxford scores, and patient satisfaction scores. Patients who failed to return for routine follow-up were contacted by phone or email. Two patients had died with their implants intact. Six patients could not be reached for an updated follow-up. One stem was revised for loosening at 33 months due to failed osseointegration in a patient with chronic renal failure. This removed stem was submitted for taper exam and sectioning. Results. There were 23 patients for evaluation at a mean 61 months (range 21–98). Mean patient age at implantation was 56 (range 25–88), BMI was 27 (range 20–40). There were no modular junction failures. Modular junctions examined in the retrieved implant did not demonstrate any abnormalities other than normal wear properties. HHS and OHS scores both improved between pre-op and final follow-up, 23 to 85 and 17 to 43, respectively. Average patient satisfaction score at final follow-up was 9.8 out of 10 (min 8, max 10). Radiographic examination showed stem subsidence > 2mm and radiolucencies around the metaphyseal cone in 1 patient, the same patient who required implant removal. Radiolucencies were seen along the polished stem tip in 43% of cases, spot welding at the distal metaphyseal cone in 67% of cases, and mild proximal-medial stress shielding in 33% of cases. Conclusion. This unique 3-part modular stem with
Introduction. The optimal management of severe tibial and/or femoral bone loss in a revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has not been established. Reconstructive methods include structural or bulk allografts, impaction bone-grafting with or without mesh augmentation, custum prosthetic components, modular metal augmentations of prosthesis and tumor prosthesis. Recently
Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of transphyseal ACL reconstruction technique in skeletally immature patients. Material &
Methods: Between 2002 and 2008, twenty knees in twenty skeletally immature patients with a mean chronological age of 13.2 years (range, 7 to 16.2 years) underwent transphyseal reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with use of an autogenous quadrupled hamstrings-tendon graft with
The February 2014 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup. 360 . looks at: length of stay; cementless
Introduction.
Introduction. Tibial component loosening is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include isolated tibial component revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons who are unfamiliar with the existing implant or have a “let's just start over attitude.” This option adds morbidity versus isolated tibial exchange. While isolated tibial exchange has lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging with regard to exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options. Methods. Patients revised for isolated aseptic tibial loosening were identified from 2012–2017. Patients with revision implants, or those revised for infection, instability, osteolysis, or femoral component loosening were excluded. 161 patients met these criteria, 85 patients had an isolated tibial revision and 76 had revision of both components despite having only a loose tibial component. Patient demographics as well as clinical and radiographic outcomes were recorded for each cohort. Results. Patient demographical information, including age, gender, and BMI were statistically similar between the two cohorts. Median follow-up was 3.5 years. Supplemental
Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains the main cause of failure in primary and revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Local delivery of antibiotics, mainly antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC), is commonly employed to prevent PJI. Over the past decade, tantalum and porous titanium have been successfully utilized as
Bone loss creates a challenge to achieving fixation in revision TKR. Failure to achieve
Metaphyseal bone loss, due to loosening, osteolysis or infection, is common with revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Small defects can be treated with screws and cement, bone graft, and non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Large defects can be treated with bulk structural allograft, impaction grafting, or highly porous metal cones. The AORI classification of bone loss in revision TKA is very helpful with pre-operative planning. Type 1 defects do not require augments or graft—use revision components with stems. Type 2A defects should be treated with non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Type 2B and 3 defects require a bulk structural allograft or porous metal cone. Highly-porous metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. Both femoral (full or partial) and tibial (full, stepped, or cone+plate) cones are available. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve
Introduction. The use of stems in TKA revision surgery is well established. Stems off-load stress over a broad surface area of the diaphysis and help protect the metaphyseal interface areas from failure. Stems can provide an area of extra fixation. Uncemented Stems. Pros and Cons. Advantages. (1) Expeditious, (2) Compatible with intramedullary based revision instrumentation (3) Easy to remove if necessary (4) By filling diaphysis they help guarantee axial alignment. Disadvantages. (1) They help off load stress, but how much fixation do they really provide? (2) They don't fit all canal deformities, and under some circumstances can actually force implants into malalignment. (3) ? potential for end of stem pain. Cemented Stems. Pros and Cons. Advantages. (1) Cemented stem adds fixation in fresh metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone. (2) Proven 10-year track record. (3) Allow the surgeon to adjust for canal geometry abnormalities. Disadvantages. (1) More difficult to remove, if required. (2) They don't fill the canal so they don't guarantee alignment as well under most circumstances. Results. Favorable results with uncemented and cemented stems have been reported in several series. Cemented stems have longer term data. Technique Issues. Uncemented Stems. (1) Take advantage of offset bolts, tibial trays, stems to fit the stem/implant to the patient's anatomy. (2) Don't let the stem force you into suboptimal implant position. (3) Longer stems can be narrower but help engage more diaphysis. (4) Do a good job of restoring/uncovering cancellous bone in metaphysis for cement interdigitation. The cement provides the fixation. Cemented Stems. (1) Intra-operative x-ray with trials helps guarantee optimal alignment. (2) Use cement restrictors. (3) Cement tibia/femur separately.
Although the Fitmore Hip Stem has been on the market for almost 15 years, it is still not well documented in randomized controlled trials. This study compares the Fitmore stem with the CementLeSs (CLS) in several different clinical and radiological aspects. The hypothesis is that there will be no difference in outcome between stems. In total, 44 patients with bilateral hip osteoarthritis were recruited from the outpatient clinic at a single tertiary orthopaedic centre. The patients were operated with bilateral one-stage total hip arthroplasty. The most painful hip was randomized to either Fitmore or CLS femoral component; the second hip was operated with the femoral component not used on the first side. Patients were evaluated at three and six months and at one, two, and five years postoperatively with patient-reported outcome measures, radiostereometric analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and conventional radiography. A total of 39 patients attended the follow-up visit at two years (primary outcome) and 35 patients at five years. The primary outcome was which hip the patient considered to have the best function at two years.Aims
Methods
Metaphyseal bone loss, due to loosening, osteolysis or infection, is common with revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Small defects can be treated with screws and cement, bone graft, and non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Large defects can be treated with bulk structural allograft, impaction grafting, or highly porous metal cones. The AORI classification of bone loss in revision TKA is very helpful with preoperative planning. Type 1 defects do not require augments or graft—use revision components with stems. Type 2A defects should be treated with non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Type 2B and 3 defects require a bulk structural allograft or porous metal cone. Trabecular metal (TM) metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. Both femoral (full or partial) and tibial (full, stepped, or cone+plate) TM cones are available. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve
Expedient removal of a well fixed total knee replacement relates to obtaining access to the fixation surfaces so as to disrupt the bone implant or bone cement interfaces. The first point is wide exposure, most commonly with a modification of a quads snip procedure. Fixation surface disruption is achieved with a combination of saws, high speed burrs and osteotomes. More extensive
Humeral resurfacing arthroplasty has been advocated as an alternative to stemmed humeral component designs given its ability to preserve proximal bone stock. Further, these implants have become more attractive given the possibility of stem-related complications including humeral fracture, stress shielding, and osteolysis; complications that may necessitate fixation, revision to long stem components, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. As more total shoulder arthroplasties are performed in younger patient populations, the likelihood of increased revision procedures is inevitable. Maintaining proximal bone stock in these cases with use of a resurfacing arthroplasty not only facilitates explant during revision arthroplasty, but preservation of proximal metaphyseal bone facilitates reimplantation of components. Clinical results of these resurfacing components have demonstrated favorable results similar to stemmed designs. Unfortunately, resurfacing arthroplasty may not be as ideal as was hoped with regard to recreating native humeral anatomy. Further, resurfacing arthroplasty may increase the risk of peri-prosthetic humeral fracture, and lack of a formal humeral head cut makes glenoid exposure more difficult, which may be associated with a higher degree of neurovascular injury. Stemless humeral components are designed for strong
Introduction. The use of stems in TKA revision surgery is well established. Stems off-load stress over a broad surface area of the diaphysis and help protect the metaphyseal interface areas from failure. Stems can provide an area of extra fixation. Uncemented Stems: Advantages – Expeditious; Compatible with intramedullary based revision instrumentation; Easy to remove if necessary; By filling diaphysis they help guarantee axial alignment. Disadvantages - They help off load stress, but how much fixation do they really provide?; They don't fit all canal deformities, and under some circumstances can actually force implants into malalignment; ? potential for end of stem pain. Cemented Stems: Advantages - Cemented stem adds fixation in fresh metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone; Proven 10-year track record; Allow the surgeon to adjust for canal geometry abnormalities. Disadvantages - More difficult to remove if required; They don't fill the canal so they don't guarantee alignment as well under most circumstances. Results:. Favorable results with uncemented and cemented stems have been reported in several series; Cemented stems have longer term data. Technique Issues: Uncemented Stems - Take advantage of offset bolts, tibial trays, stems to fit the stem/implant to the patient's anatomy. Don't let the stem force you into suboptimal implant position; Longer stems can be narrower but help engage more diaphysis; Do a good job of restoring/uncovering cancellous bone in metaphysis for cement interdigitation. The cement provides the fixation. Cemented Stems - Intraoperative x-ray with trials helps guarantee optimal alignment; Use cement restrictors; Cement tibia/femur separately.
Generally cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become an extremely successful operation with excellent long-term results. Although it always remained a popular choice for the elderly patients in many countries, recent trends show an increased use of noncemented stems in all age populations in many national registries. So far, there has been no clear age associated recommendation, when a cemented stem should be used. Described major complications including periprosthetic fractures are usually associated with age >75 years, in many registries. Uncemented stems perform better than cemented stems in recent registries; however, unrecognised intra-operative femoral fractures may be an important reason for early failure of uncemented stems. Experimental studies have indicated that intra-operative fractures do affect implant survival, it has been shown that intra-operative and direct post-operative fractures increase the relative risk of revision during the first 6 post-operative months significantly. In addition it has been clearly shown, that uncemented stems were more frequently revised due to periprosthetic fracture during the first 2 post-operative years than cemented stems. Based on the overall femoral bone quality, especially in female patients >70 years, cemented fixation has a lower fracture risk. Based on the implant
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY. The objective of this study is to establish the medium-term clinical and radiological results with the cementless three-dimensional Vektor-Titan stem compared with conventional cementless stem, such as PerFix stem. The latter stem has a double-wedge design with a rounded distal portion for canal filling (Fig. 1). MATERIALS AND METHODS. From July, 2004, to May, 2010, fifty seven Vektor-Titan stems and 150 PerFix stems were implanted for the patients with osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, femoral neck fracture, and rheumatoid arthritis in our hospital. The results were evaluated clinically using Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores and the Merle d’Aubigne and Postel (M&P) scores. Radiographs were analyzed retrospectively. The criteria used for determining loosening were migration or a total radiolucent zone between the prosthesis/bone cement and host bone, wherein the width increased progressively or change of position, i.e., migration or subsidence of the prosthesis. Migration of the socket seen on the radiograph was defined as either the presence of a ≥2-mm position change or rotation. Position changes of the stem seen on the radiograph were defined as the presence of a progressive subsidence of ≥2 mm or change of position, e.g., varus or valgus. The follow-up period was 9.2 ± 2.6 (range, 5.0–14.0) years. RESULTS. One patient had intraoperative femoral shaft fracture and healed by conservative treatment. The mean JOA and M&P scores improved from preoperative 39.3 and 6.8 points to postoperative 90.9 and 17.2 points, respectively. Thigh pain was less frequent for Vektor-Titan stems (Table 1). Radiolucent lines was far less likely to appear for Vektor-Titan stems evaluated by Gruen's zonal analyses (Table 2). On the other hand, there were radiolucent zones of more than 90% in zone 4 with cementless PerFix stems (Table 2). There was no cases of loosening or postoperative infection. Although signs of bone atrophy were found in the proximal femur and the trochanters in 66.7 % of all cases, bone structure was radiologically normal without stress shielding in most cases (Table 2). On the contrary, there was evidence of an even denser bone structure, such as trabeculae, at the tip of the stem and the lateral implant fixation within the greater trochanter in Vektor-Titan stem cases. These findings remained unchanged over observation periods. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The cementless Vektor-Titan stem is made of Ti6AI7Nb, has got the shape of a straight three-dimensional cone. It has a high proximal volume in the form of a three-dimensional taper with longitudinal ribs. This design achieves strong primary fixation in the proximal metaphysis. Radiologically, newly formed trabeculae toward to the stem were indicative of direct biological fixation at the bone-implant interface. Medium-term results with the cementless Vektor-Titan stem show no implant loosening with stable