Patients with Aims
Methods
Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs. Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 96 nonagenarians who underwent 97 aseptic revisions (78 hips and 19 knees) between 1997 and 2018. The most common indications were aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture for both revision THAs and revision TKAs. Mean age at revision was 92 years (90 to 98), mean BMI was 27 kg/m2 (16 to 47), and 67% (n = 65) were female. Mean time between primary and revision was 18 years (SD 9). Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and compared to age- and sex-matched control populations. Reoperation risk was assessed using cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. Mean follow-up was five years.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of α defensin (AD) lateral flow assay (LFA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in comparison to conventional synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear neutrophil percentage (PMN%) analysis. Patients undergoing joint aspiration for evaluation of pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) were considered for inclusion. Synovial fluids from 99 patients (25 THA and 74 TKA) were analyzed by WBC count and PMN% analysis, AD LFA, and AD ELISA. WBC and PMN% cutoffs of ≥ 1,700 cells/mm3 and ≥ 65% for TKA and ≥ 3,000 cells/mm3 and ≥ 80% for THA were used, respectively. A panel of three physicians, all with expertise in orthopaedic infections and who were blinded to the results of AD tests, independently reviewed patient data to diagnose subjects as with or without PJI. Consensus PJI classification was used as the reference standard to evaluate test performances. Results were compared using McNemar’s test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis.Aims
Methods
The aim of our study was to describe the characteristics,
treatment, and outcomes of patients with periprosthetic joint infection
(PJI) and normal inflammatory markers after total knee arthroplasty
(TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). In total 538 TKAs and 414 THAs underwent surgical treatment for
PJI and met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative erythrocyte sedimentation
rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein level (CRP) were reviewed to identify
the seronegative cohort. An age- and gender-matched cohort was identified
from the remaining patients for comparison. Overall, 4% of confirmed
infections were seronegative (21 TKA and 17 THA). Of those who underwent
pre-operative aspiration, cultures were positive in 76% of TKAs
(n = 13) and 64% of THAs (n = 7). Cell count and differential were
suggestive of infection in 85% of TKA (n = 11) and all THA aspirates
(n = 5). The most common organism was coagulase-negative Cite this article:
We have developed a novel method of calculating the radiological magnification of the hip using two separate radio-opaque markers. We recruited 74 patients undergoing radiological assessment following total hip replacement. Both the new double marker and a conventional single marker were used by the radiographer at the time of x-ray. The predicted magnification according to each marker was calculated, as was the true radiological magnification of the components. The correlation between true and predicted magnification was good using the double marker (r = 0.90, n = 74, p <
0.001), but only moderate for the single marker (r = 0.50, n = 63, p <
0.001). The median error was significantly less for the double marker than for the single (1.1% The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.
