Aims. Periprosthetic joint
Aims. A revision for periprosthetic joint
Aims. The aim of this study was to examine whether socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher risk of
Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours
the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed
to the fight against
Aims. We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint
Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for
Aims. Periprosthetic hip-joint
Aims. There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint
Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint
Aims. This study aims to assess the relationship between history of pseudotumour formation secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and periprosthetic joint
Aims. Current diagnostic tools are not always able to effectively identify periprosthetic joint
Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with
Aims. One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint
Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade
Aims. The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to
Aims. Periprosthetic joint
Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in
Aims. Hip fracture is a common condition of the older, frailer person. This population is also at risk from SARS-CoV-2
Aims. The aims of this study were to develop an in vivo model of periprosthetic joint
Aims. Large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) has demonstrated unexpected high failure rates and pseudotumour formation. The purpose of this prospective cohort study is to report ten-year results in order to establish revision rate, prevalence of pseudotumour formation, and relation with whole blood cobalt levels. Methods. All patients were recalled according to the guidelines of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association. They underwent clinical and radiographical assessments (radiograph and CT scan) of the hip prosthesis and whole blood cobalt ion measurements. Overall, 94 patients (95 hips) fulfilled our requirements for a minimum ten-year follow-up. Results. Mean follow-up was 10.9 years (10 to 12), with a cumulative survival rate of 82.4%. Reason for revision was predominantly pseudotumour formation (68%), apart from loosening, pain,