Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 7 of 7
Results per page:
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 11_Supple_A | Pages 14 - 18
1 Nov 2012
Lombardi, Jr AV Barrack RL Berend KR Cuckler JM Jacobs JJ Mont MA Schmalzried TP

Since 1996 more than one million metal-on-metal articulations have been implanted worldwide. Adverse reactions to metal debris are escalating. Here we present an algorithmic approach to patient management. The general approach to all arthroplasty patients returning for follow-up begins with a detailed history, querying for pain, discomfort or compromise of function. Symptomatic patients should be evaluated for intra-articular and extra-articular causes of pain. In large head MoM arthroplasty, aseptic loosening may be the source of pain and is frequently difficult to diagnose. Sepsis should be ruled out as a source of pain. Plain radiographs are evaluated to rule out loosening and osteolysis, and assess component position. Laboratory evaluation commences with erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, which may be elevated. Serum metal ions should be assessed by an approved facility. Aspiration, with manual cell count and culture/sensitivity should be performed, with cloudy to creamy fluid with predominance of monocytes often indicative of failure. Imaging should include ultrasound or metal artifact reduction sequence MRI, specifically evaluating for fluid collections and/or masses about the hip. If adverse reaction to metal debris is suspected then revision to metal or ceramic-on-polyethylene is indicated and can be successful. Delay may be associated with extensive soft-tissue damage and hence poor clinical outcome.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 92-B, Issue 4 | Pages 469 - 476
1 Apr 2010
Shimmin AJ Walter WL Esposito C

The survivorship of contemporary resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip using metal-on-metal bearings is better than that of first generation designs, but short-term failures still occur. The most common reasons for failure are fracture of the femoral neck, loosening of the component, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, reaction to metal debris and malpositioning of the component. In 2008 the Australian National Joint Registry reported an inverse relationship between the size of the head component and the risk of revision in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Hips with a femoral component size of ≤ 44 mm have a fivefold increased risk of revision than those with femoral components of ≥ 55 mm irrespective of gender. We have reviewed the literature to explore this observation and to identify possible reasons including the design of the implant, loading of the femoral neck, the orientation of the component, the production of wear debris and the effects of metal ions, penetration of cement and vascularity of the femoral head. Our conclusion is that although multifactorial, the most important contributors to failure in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip are likely to be the design and geometry of the component and the orientation of the acetabular component.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 1 | Pages 1 - 7
1 Jan 2009
Robinson AHN Pasapula C Brodsky JW

A comprehensive review of the literature relating to the pathology and management of the diabetic foot is presented. This should provide a guide for the treatment of ulcers, Charcot neuro-arthropathy and fractures involving the foot and ankle in diabetic patients.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 89-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1553 - 1560
1 Dec 2007
Gaston MS Simpson AHRW

This paper reviews the current literature concerning the main clinical factors which can impair the healing of fractures and makes recommendations on avoiding or minimising these in order to optimise the outcome for patients. The clinical implications are described.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 88-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1272 - 1278
1 Oct 2006
Giannoudis PV Schneider E

Despite advances in the prevention and treatment of osteoporotic fractures, their prevalence continues to increase. Their operative treatment remains a challenge for the surgeon, often with unpredictable outcomes. This review highlights the current aspects of management of these fractures and focuses on advances in implant design and surgical technique.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 87-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1595 - 1604
1 Dec 2005
Hadjipavlou AG Tzermiadianos MN Katonis PG Szpalski M


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 87-B, Issue 5 | Pages 593 - 603
1 May 2005
Harvey A Thomas NP Amis AA