Mega-endoprosthesis over the last two decades have played a significant role in management of non-neoplastic cases for limb salvage for a variety of indications involving bone loss, infection, fracture and failed revision surgery. This is a retrospective case control study comparing outcomes of Mega-Endoprosthesis (MEP) in non-neoplastic cases with periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), with previous history of PJI and aseptic revision. Failure was defined as persistence/recurrence of infection, all cause revision, and antibiotic suppression during the follow up period. Secondary aims were identification of causative organisms, resistance profile and causative factors for revision surgery. A total of 122 patients undergoing 133 MEPs were identified between January 2012 and December 2020. 60 procedures were categorised as group 1 (infection; 50%), 20 as group 2 (previous history of infection; 16.7%), and 53 controls (no infection; 44.2%). Mean age of the cohort was 70.97 years (37.16–94.17), with a mean follow-up of 44.5 months (0.2–179) including patients lost to follow up.Aim
Method
Revision total hip arthroplasty is a complex procedure and becoming more common. Acetabular implant loosening or fracture has previously been treated with a cup and cage construct. Recent studies have shown significant failure rates with Cup Cage constructs in more complex 3B and 3C Acetabular revisions. As a result the use of 3D printed custom made acetabular components has become more common. We present 5 cases with severe acetabular bone loss that were treated with 3D printed acetabular components. The components were manufactured by OSSIS medical in New Zealand. The patient's original femoral stem was retained in all cases. Pre operatively the implant design was approved by the arthroplasty team prior to final manufacture. Implants were provided with a sterilisable model used intraoperatively for reference.Introduction
Method
The induced membrane technique (IMT) or Masquelet technique is a two-step surgical procedure used to treat bony defects (traumatic or resulting from tumoral resections) and pseudo arthroses, even caused by infections. The relatively small case series reported, sometimes with variants to the original technique, make it difficult to assess the real value of the technique. Aim of this study was then to undertake a systematic review of the literature with a particular focus on bone union, infection eradication and complication rates. A systematic review was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Individual Patient Data (PRISMA-IPD) guidelines. PubMed and other medical databases were searched using “Masquelet technique” and “induced membrane technique” keywords. English, French or Italian written articles were included if dealing with IMT employed to long bones in adults and reporting at least 5 cases with a 12 months minimum follow-up. Clinical and bone defect features, aetiology, surgical data, complications, re-interventions, union and infection eradication rates were recorded into a database. Fischer's exact test and unpaired t-test were used for the statistical analysis on the individual patient's data.Aim
Method
The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic shoulder infections has not been established, with a lack of randomised comparative studies. This systematic review compares the infection eradication rate and functional outcomes after single- or two-stage shoulder exchange arthroplasty, to permanent spacer implant or resection arthroplasty. Full-text papers and those with an abstract in English published from January 2000 to June 2014, identified through international databases, were reviewed. Those reporting the success rate of infection eradication after a single-stage exchange, two-stage exchange, resection arthroplasty or permanent spacer implant were included, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months and sample size of 5 patients. Eight original articles reporting the results after resection arthroplasty (n = 83), 6 on single-stage exchange (n = 75), 13 on two-stage exchange (n = 142) and 8 papers on permanent spacer (n = 68) were included. The average infection eradication rate was 86.7% at a mean follow-up of 39.8 months (SD 20.8) after resection arthroplasty, 94.7% at 46.8 months (SD 17.6) after a single-stage exchange, 90.8% at 37.9 months (SD 12.8) after two-stage exchange, and 95.6% at 31.0 months (SD 9.8) following a permanent spacer implant. The difference was not statistically significant. Regarding functional outcome, patients treated with single-stage exchange had statistically significant better postoperative Constant scores (mean 51, SD 13) than patients undergoing a two-stage exchange (mean 44, SD 9), resection arthroplasty (mean 32, SD 7) or a permanent spacer implant (mean 31, SD 9) (p=0.029). However, when considering studies comparing pre- and post-operative Constant scores, the difference was not statistically significant. This systematic review failed to demonstrate a clear difference in infection eradication and functional improvement between all four treatment modalities for established periprosthetic shoulder infection. The relatively low number of patients and the methodological limitations of the studies available point out the need for well designed multi-center trials to further assess the best treatment option of peri-prosthetic shoulder infection.
