Revision surgery after triple-cup arthroplasty

1999 ◽  
Vol 119 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 0380-0383
Author(s):  
M. Nozawa ◽  
K. Shitoto ◽  
T. Hirose ◽  
K. Sasaki ◽  
H. Kajihara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Cup Arthroplasty

Revision surgery after triple-cup arthroplasty

1999 ◽  
Vol 119 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 380-383
Author(s):  
M. Nozawa ◽  
K. Shitoto ◽  
T. Hirose ◽  
K. Sasaki ◽  
H. Kajihara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Cup Arthroplasty

Mid-term results of a cementless primary press-fit cup in acetabular revision surgery

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Kolbe ◽  
B Zimmer ◽  
P Matheis ◽  
M Streit ◽  
T Gotterbarm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision ◽  
Press Fit ◽  
Mid Term Results

The impact of increasing interbody fusion levels at the fractional curve on lordosis, curve correction, and complications in adult patients with scoliosis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Dominic Amara ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Shane Burch ◽  
Vedat Deviren ◽  
Christopher P. Ames ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pelvic Incidence ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Curve Correction ◽  
Surgery Rates

OBJECTIVERadiculopathy from the fractional curve, usually from L3 to S1, can create severe disability. However, treatment methods of the curve vary. The authors evaluated the effect of adding more levels of interbody fusion during treatment of the fractional curve.METHODSA single-institution retrospective review of adult patients treated for scoliosis between 2006 and 2016 was performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: fractional curves from L3 to S1 > 10°, ipsilateral radicular symptoms concordant on the fractional curve concavity side, patients who underwent at least 1 interbody fusion at the level of the fractional curve, and a minimum 1-year follow-up. Primary outcomes included changes in fractional curve correction, lumbar lordosis change, pelvic incidence − lumbar lordosis mismatch change, scoliosis major curve correction, and rates of revision surgery and postoperative complications. Secondary analysis compared the same outcomes among patients undergoing posterior, anterior, and lateral approaches for their interbody fusion.RESULTSA total of 78 patients were included. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, prior surgery, fractional curve degree, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, pelvic incidence − lumbar lordosis mismatch, sagittal vertical axis, coronal balance, scoliotic curve magnitude, proportion of patients undergoing an osteotomy, or average number of levels fused among the groups. The mean follow-up was 35.8 months (range 12–150 months). Patients undergoing more levels of interbody fusion had more fractional curve correction (7.4° vs 12.3° vs 12.1° for 1, 2, and 3 levels; p = 0.009); greater increase in lumbar lordosis (−1.8° vs 6.2° vs 13.7°, p = 0.003); and more scoliosis major curve correction (13.0° vs 13.7° vs 24.4°, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences among the groups with regard to postoperative complications (overall rate 47.4%, p = 0.85) or need for revision surgery (overall rate 30.7%, p = 0.25). In the secondary analysis, patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) had a greater increase in lumbar lordosis (9.1° vs −0.87° for ALIF vs transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF], p = 0.028), but also higher revision surgery rates unrelated to adjacent-segment pathology (25% vs 4.3%, p = 0.046). Higher ALIF revision surgery rates were driven by rod fracture in the majority (55%) of cases.CONCLUSIONSMore levels of interbody fusion resulted in increased lordosis, scoliosis curve correction, and fractional curve correction. However, additional levels of interbody fusion up to 3 levels did not result in more postoperative complications or morbidity. ALIF resulted in a greater lumbar lordosis increase than TLIF, but ALIF had higher revision surgery rates.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in revision surgery for restenosis after posterior decompression

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. E11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Kudo ◽  
Ichiro Okano ◽  
Tomoaki Toyone ◽  
Akira Matsuoka ◽  
Hiroshi Maruyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Spinal Canal ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dural Tears

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of revision interbody fusion surgery between lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with propensity score (PS) adjustments and to investigate the efficacy of indirect decompression with LLIF in previously decompressed segments on the basis of radiological assessment.METHODSA retrospective study of patients who underwent revision surgery for recurrence of neurological symptoms after posterior decompression surgery was performed. Postoperative complications and operative factors were evaluated and compared between LLIF and PLIF/TLIF. Moreover, postoperative improvement in cross-sectional areas (CSAs) in the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen was evaluated in LLIF cases.RESULTSA total of 56 patients (21 and 35 cases of LLIF and PLIF/TLIF, respectively) were included. In the univariate analysis, the LLIF group had significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03) and neurological deficits (p = 0.042), whereas the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), surgical site infections (SSIs) (p = 0.02), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p < 0.001). After PS adjustments, the LLIF group still showed significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03), and the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), EBL (p < 0.001), and operating time (p = 0.04). The PLIF/TLIF group showed a trend toward a higher incidence of SSI (p = 0.10). There was no statistically significant difference regarding improvement in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between the 2 surgical procedures (p = 0.77). The CSAs in the spinal canal and foramen were both significantly improved (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSLLIF is a safe, effective, and less invasive procedure with acceptable complication rates for revision surgery for previously decompressed segments. Therefore, LLIF can be an alternative to PLIF/TLIF for restenosis after posterior decompression surgery.

Evaluation of aseptic loosening of knee prostheses by quantitative bone scintigraphy

2008 ◽  
Vol 47 (04) ◽  
pp. 163-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Steiner ◽  
S. Laurich ◽  
R. Bauer ◽  
J. Kordelle ◽  
R. Klett
Keyword(s):  
Aseptic Loosening ◽  
Bone Scintigraphy ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Knee Prostheses ◽  
Treatment Regimes ◽  
Golden Standard ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Asymptomatic Control

SummaryIn not infected knee prostheses bone scintigraphy is a possible method to diagnose mechanical loosening, and therefore, to affect treatment regimes in symptomatic patients. However, hitherto studies showed controversial results for the reliability of bone scintigraphy in diagnosing loosened knee prostheses by using asymptomatic control groups. Therefore, the aim of our study was to optimize the interpretation procedure and to evaluate the accuracy using results from revision surgery as standard. Methods: Retrospectively, we were able to examine the tibial component in 31 cemented prostheses. In this prostheses infection was excluded by histological or bacteriological examination during revision surgery. To quantify bone scintigraphy, we used medial and lateral tibial regions with a reference region from the contralateral femur. Results: To differentiate between loosened and intact prostheses we found a threshold of 5.0 for the maximum tibia to femur ratio of the both tibial regions and a threshold of 18% for the difference of the ratio of both tibial regions. Using these thresholds, values of 0.9, 1, 0.85, 1, and 0.94 were calculated for sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy, respectively. To get a sensitivity of 1, we found a lower threshold of 3.3 for the maximum tibia to femur ratio. Conclusion: Quantitative bone scintigraphy appears to be a reliable diagnostic tool for aseptic loosening of knee prostheses with thresholds evaluated by revision surgery results being the golden standard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document