scholarly journals Fracture of the cone of a morse taper junction in revision arthroplasty of the hip

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Schuh ◽  
Werner Kachler ◽  
Stefan Sesselmann ◽  
Wolfgang Honle ◽  
Tarun Goyal
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty

Extended Routine Follow-up of Primary Uncomplicated Hip and Knee Arthroplasty is not Necessary

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 266-271
Author(s):  
Georgina Kakra Wartemberg ◽  
Thomas Goff ◽  
Simon Jones ◽  
James Newman
Keyword(s):  
Aseptic Loosening ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Effective System ◽  
Knee Revision Surgery ◽  
Knee Revision

Aims: To create a more effective system to identify patients in need of revision surgery. Background: There are over 160,000 total hip and knee replacements performed per year in England and Wales. Currently, most trusts review patients for up to 10 years or more. When we consider the cost of prolonged reviews, we cannot justify the expenditure within a limited budget. Study Design & Methods: We reviewed all patients' notes that underwent primary hip and knee revision surgery at our institution, noting age, gender, symptoms at presentation, referral source, details of the surgery, reason for revision and follow up history from primary surgery. Results: There were 145 revision arthroplasties (60 THR and 85 TKR) that met our inclusion criteria. Within the hip arthroplasty group, indications for revision included aseptic loosening (37), dislocation (10), and infection (3), periprosthetic fracture, acetabular liner wear and implant failure. All thirty-seven patients with aseptic loosening presented with pain. Twenty-five were referred from general practice with new symptoms. The remaining were clinic follow-ups. The most common reason for knee revision was aseptic loosening (37), followed by infection (21) and then progressive osteoarthritis (8). Most were referred from GP as a new referral or were clinic follow-ups. All patients were symptomatic. Conclusion: All the patients that underwent revision arthroplasty were symptomatic. Rather than yearly follow up, we recommend a cost-effective system. We are implementing a 'non face-to-face' system. Patients would be directly sent a questionnaire and x-ray form. The radiographs and forms will be reviewed by an experienced arthroplasty surgeon. The concerning cases will be seen urgently in a face-to-face clinic.

scholarly journals 3D Printed Acetabular Components for Complex Revision Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Yao ◽  
Daniel Mark George ◽  
Vijai Ranawat ◽  
Chris John Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Acetabular Components

scholarly journals Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative periprosthetic fractures following primary and revision hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos Bissias ◽  
Angelos Kaspiris ◽  
Athanasios Kalogeropoulos ◽  
Konstantinos Papoutsis ◽  
Nikolaos Natsioulas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Periprosthetic Fractures ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Potential Risk Factors ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Objectives The increasing number of hip arthroplasties (HA), due to the growing elderly population, is associated with the risk of femoral periprosthetic fractures (FPFs). The purpose of this study was to identify potential risk factors for the development of FPFs after HA. Methods A systematic review was conducted in five data bases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl, ICTRP) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines up to May 2019, using the key words “risk factor,” “periprosthetic fracture,” and “hip replacement or arthroplasty.” Meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes of HA and subgroup analysis based on the factors that were implicated in FPFs was performed. Results Sixteen studies were included (sample size: 599,551 HA patients, 4253 FPFs, incidence 0.71%). Risk factors statistically associated with increased incidence of FPFs were female gender (+ 40%), previous revision arthroplasty surgery (× 3 times), and the presence of rheumatoid arthritis (× 2.1 times), while osteoarthritis (− 57%), cement application (− 59%), and insertion of Biomet (− 68%) or Thompson’s prosthesis (− 75%) were correlated with low prevalence of FPFs. Obesity, cardiac diseases, advanced age, bad general health (ASA grade ≥ 3), and use of Exeter or Lubinus prosthesis were not linked to the appearance of FPFs. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggested that female gender, rheumatoid arthritis, and revision arthroplasty are major risk factors for the development of FPFs after a HA. In those patients, frequent follow-ups should be planned. Further prospective studies are necessary to clarify all the risk factors contributing to the appearance of FPFs after HA.

scholarly journals Outcomes and Risk Factors in Prosthetic Joint Infections by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative Bacteria: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 340
Author(s):  
Raquel Bandeira da Silva ◽  
Mauro José Salles
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Postoperative Hematoma ◽  
Prosthetic Joint ◽  
Prosthetic Joint Infections

Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), including multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens, are gaining importance in the aetiology of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). This retrospective observational study identified independent risk factors (RFs) associated with MDR-GNB PJI and their influence on treatment outcomes. We assessed MDR bacteria causing hip and knee PJIs diagnosed at a Brazilian tertiary hospital from January 2014 to July 2018. RFs associated with MDR-GNB PJI were estimated by bivariate and multivariate analyses using prevalence ratios (PRs) with significance at p < 0.05. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to evaluate treatment outcomes. Overall, 98 PJI patients were analysed, including 56 with MDR-GNB and 42 with other bacteria. Independent RFs associated with MDR-GNB PJI were revision arthroplasty (p = 0.002), postoperative hematoma (p < 0.001), previous orthopaedic infection (p = 0.002) and early infection (p = 0.001). Extensively drug-resistant GNB (p = 0.044) and comorbidities (p = 0.044) were independently associated with MDR-GNB PJI treatment failure. In sum, MDR-GNB PJI was independently associated with previous orthopaedic surgery, postoperative local complications and pre-existing infections and was possibly related to selective pressure on bacterial skin colonisation by antibiotics prescribed for early PJI. Infections due to MDR-GNB and comorbidities were associated with higher treatment failure rates.

Influence of revision arthroplasty on bone/cement interface shear strength

1987 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 824
Author(s):  
J.E. Bechtold ◽  
Y. Dohmae ◽  
R.E. Sherman ◽  
R.B. Gustilo
Keyword(s):  
Shear Strength ◽  
Bone Cement ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Interface Shear Strength ◽  
Interface Shear ◽  
Cement Interface

scholarly journals Comparing the Diagnostic Value of Serum D-Dimer to CRP and IL-6 in the Diagnosis of Chronic Prosthetic Joint Infection

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2917
Author(s):  
Thomas Ackmann ◽  
Burkhard Möllenbeck ◽  
Georg Gosheger ◽  
Jan Schwarze ◽  
Tom Schmidt-Braekling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Musculoskeletal Infection ◽  
Prosthetic Joint ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Low Sensitivity ◽  
D Dimer

Introduction: D-dimer is a diagnostic criterion for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) in 2018. The aim of this study was to evaluate the serum D-dimer values in comparison to C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) for the diagnosis of PJI. Materials and Methods: We included 119 patients (50 women, 69 men; 71 knees, 48 hips) undergoing revision arthroplasty with preoperative assessment of CRP, IL-6, and serum D-dimer. Cases were classified as infected or aseptic based on the MSIS criteria of 2018. Receiver operating curves and Youden’s index were used to define an ideal cut-off value and sensitivity and specificity for the individual parameters, and respective combinations were calculated using cross-tables. Results: The median D-dimer level (2320 vs. 1105 ng/mL; p < 0.001), the median CRP level (4.0 vs. 0.5 mg/dL; p < 0.001), and the median IL-6 level (21.0 vs. 5.0 pg/mL; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the group of PJI compared to the group with aseptic failure. The calculated optimal cut-off values were 2750 ng/mL (AUC 0.767) for D-dimer, 1.2 mg/dL (AUC 0.914) for CRP, and 10.0 pg/mL (AUC 0.849) for IL-6. D-dimer showed a sensitivity of 38% and specificity of 94%, whereas the CRP and IL-6 had sensitivities of 88% and 76%, and specificities of 87% and 92%, respectively. Conclusion: In comparison with CRP and IL-6, serum D-dimer showed low sensitivity and specificity in our cohort. While CRP and IL-6 combination had the highest sensitivity, a combination of Il-6 and D-dimer or CRP and IL-6 had the highest specificity.

scholarly journals Acetabular Cup Revision Arthroplasty Using Morselized Impaction Allograft

Hip & Pelvis ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joong-Myung Lee ◽  
Tae-ho Kim
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Cup ◽  
Cup Revision

scholarly journals GRAM STAIN DETECTION OF INFECTION DURING REVISION ARTHROPLASTY

1996 ◽  
Vol 78-B (5) ◽  
pp. 838-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. F. Chimento ◽  
S. Finger ◽  
R. L. Barrack
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Gram Stain
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document