We assessed the difference in hospital based and early clinical
outcomes between the direct anterior approach and the posterior
approach in patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA). The outcome was assessed in 448 (203 males, 245 females) consecutive
patients undergoing unilateral primary THA after the implementation
of an ‘Enhanced Recovery’ pathway. In all, 265 patients (mean age:
71 years (49 to 89); 117 males and 148 females) had surgery using
the direct anterior approach (DAA) and 183 patients (mean age: 70
years (26 to 100); 86 males and 97 females) using a posterior approach.
The groups were compared for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists
grade, body mass index, the side of the operation, pre-operative
Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and attendance at ‘Joint school’. Mean follow-up
was 18.1 months (one to 50).Aims
Patients and Methods
When using a staged approach to eradicate chronic infection after total hip replacement, systemic delivery of antibiotics after the first stage is often employed for an extended period of typically six weeks together with the use of an in situ antibiotic-eluting polymethylmethacrylate interval spacer. We report our multi-surgeon experience of 43 consecutive patients (44 hips) who received systemic vancomycin for two weeks in combination with a vancomycin- and gentamicin-eluting spacer system in the course of a two-stage revision procedure for deep infection with a median follow-up of 49 months (25 to 83). The antibiotic-eluting articulating spacers fractured in six hips (13.9%) and dislocated in five patients (11.6%). Successful elimination of the infecting organisms occurred in 38 (92.7%) of 41 hips with three patients developing superinfection with a new organism. We conclude that prolonged systemic antibiotic therapy may not be essential in the two-stage treatment of a total hip replacement for Gram-positive infection, provided that a high concentration of antibiotics is delivered locally using an antibiotic-eluting system.
The management of bone loss in revision replacement of the knee remains a challenge despite an array of options available to the surgeon. Bone loss may occur as a result of the original disease, the design of the prosthesis, the mechanism of failure or technical error at initial surgery. The aim of revision surgery is to relieve pain and improve function while addressing the mechanism of failure in order to reconstruct a stable platform with transfer of load to the host bone. Methods of reconstruction include the use of cement, modular metal augmentation of prostheses, custom-made, tumour-type or hinged implants and bone grafting. The published results of the surgical techniques are summarised and a guide for the management of bone defects in revision surgery of the knee is presented.
