Many orthopedic departments provide their patients with implant-specific identification cards. These cards should assist patients in various security checks and while undergoing revision surgery, especially if performed far from the primary hospital. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate patients’ use of these cards.

In our department, each arthroplasty patient receives an implant-specific identification card. A phone survey was conducted among two groups of consecutive patients who underwent a lower limb arthroplasty – first group consisted of 108 patients operated a year earlier and second – 120 patients operated 3 years earlier. In the first group, 97 patients (90%) replied and in the second group – 83 patients (69%). The patients were asked the following: whether they received the card, where they keep it, what do they know about its purposes, and have they used the card for security or medical reasons.

17 patients (18%) in one-year group and 18 patients (22%) in three-years group didn’t remember the card. The rest of the patients knew the location of the card, but most of them (80% in one-year group and 72%in three-years group) knew only about the security usage of the card and not about the medical one. Many patients complained that they were not given adequate explanations about the card.

Implant-specific identification cards have significant value for arthroplasty patients. However, patients use them mostly for security checks. The medical usage of this card should be explained when they receive it, so the patients can assist their surgeons while performing a revision surgery.

Introduction Musculoskeletal injuries, especially fractures, cause reduced limb mobilization. The diminished limb activity promotes muscular atrophy, leading to a slower return to function. Attempts to prevent this atrophy using electrical stimulation have been described after knee reconstruction.

The Myospare percutaneous electrical stimulator has been developed to prevent immobilization related atrophy. We undertook this pilot study to assess feasibility, safety, and efficacy of applying electrical stimulation under a cast after ankle fractures.

Patients and Methods Between May and December 2004, patients who sustained closed ankle fractures requiring surgery, were recruited to participate in this study. 24 patients took part in the study, sixteen male and eight female. Age range was 18 to 62 years (average 40). All patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation using standard AO technique. A short walking cast was applied after surgery. Patients were randomized into a treatment and a control group. The experimental device was applied in the treatment group for 6 weeks. Patients were examined at 2, 6 and 12 weeks.

Evaluation included measurement of calf and ankle circumference, dorsiflexion and plantiflexion, and calculation of the ratio between the injured and uninjured side. At each visit pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog score, and patients filled out a function assessment questionnaire. Analysis was performed using chi square, t-test and repeated measures analysis.

Results All patients tolerated the stimulator well. No adverse effects were encountered. There is a trend toward improvement in calf diameter, dorsiflexion and plantarflexion. However, with the small number of patients in this study, no significant difference was apparent. Functional recovery and VAS scores were borderline higher in the treatment group at 12 weeks (p=0.043 and p=.049) when compared to baseline.

Discussion The use of the Myospare device under a cast in patients after surgical fixation of ankle fractures has been demonstrated as feasible and safe. In this pilot study a trend toward enhanced recovery was apparent in the treatment group.

Introduction: Osteolysis is a significant problem associated with hip replacement. In the early stages of osteolysis, when the implant is still stable, formal revision is technically demanding and may result in signififant bone loss. A recently described technique for acetabular component revision addresses osteolysis, retaining the acetabular cup and cementing a new polyethylene liner.

Materials and Methods: Between January 2000 and December 2003, 29 liner cementation revisions in 27 patients were performed. The mean age was 61 years (range 37–77), the mean time elapsed after the original surgery was 6.7 years (3–14). 23 of the hips (79%) were ABG (Howmedica). Only 20 (69%) of the patients were clinically symptomatic. At surgery the polyethylene was removed and osteolytic cysts were debrided. Then, the metal acetabular component was tested for stability. Obviously, only stable metal implants were not revised. The cysts were filled with bone graft or bone substitute and a new polyethylene liner was cemented in with methylmetacrilate augmented gentamicin. The patients were evaluated by modified Harris Hip Score (HHS) and by SF-12 score. The mean follow up was 25 months (10–45).

Results: The average HHS was 86/4 and its pain component was 38.8. The average physical component of SF-12 was 45.9 (19.5–57.2) and the average metal component was 54.6 (29–66.9). The post-operative HHS and the SF-12 scores were high (good or excellent) in all patients reflecting good clinical outcome. In patients who were asymptomatic prior to surgery, both the HHS and the pain score were significantly higher compared to the symptomatic patients (p< 0.01). One patient with extensive bone loss needed revision surgery due to early postoperative fracture of the acetabulum, and another patient had recurrent dislocations that required revision.

Summary: We conclude that revision of the polyethylene liner and cementation of a new one is a safe and useful technique in patients with stable acetabular shell. This is especially true for asymptomatic patients with osteolysis.