Fate of the Retained Acetabular Component During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BackgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to estimate re-revision rates due to aseptic loosening of retained acetabular components after revision total hip arthroplasty.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched until June 11, 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and consensus was reached with the involvement of a third investigator. Rates of re-revision due to aseptic loosening from 6 studies were aggregated using random effects model after a logit transformation and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.ResultsAn assessment of the re-revision rates of retained acetabular components due to aseptic loosening in revision total hip arthroplasty was reported in 6 studies involving 669 cases. The pooled re-revision rate was 12.6% (95% confidence interval 8.4-18.4) with a mean study follow-up of 8.6 years. The rate of re-revision due to aseptic loosening of retained acetabular components was 6.8% (95% confidence interval 3.4-13.3). In the univariate meta-regression analysis, mean age at index revision surgery was significantly associated with the rate of re-revision due to aseptic loosening (R² = 99.98%, P < .0001).ConclusionBased on this exploratory analysis, revision hip procedures with retentions of well-fixed acetabular components generally have a low risk of failure during mid-term to long-term follow-ups.     

Reoperation rates and risk factors for revision 4 years after dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine

Background Context

The concept of dynamic stabilization (DS) of the lumbar spine for treatment of degenerative instability has been introduced almost two decades ago. Dynamic stabilization follows the principle of controlling movement in the coronal plane by providing load transfer of the spinal segment without fusion and, at the same time, reducing side effects such as adjacent segment disease (ASD). So far, only little is known about revision rates after DS due to ASD and screw loosening (SL).

Survivorship and Radiographic Evaluation of Metaphyseal Cones With Short Cemented Stems in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the survivorship and radiographic outcomes of a single design of metaphyseal cone used in conjunction with short cemented stems.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) patients (June 2015 to December 2017) using porous titanium femoral or tibial cones in conjunction with short cemented stems (50-75 mm). Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Survivorship, complications, and a modified Knee Society Radiographic score were analyzed.ResultsForty-nine rTKAs were included in the study (12 femoral cones, 48 tibial cones). Varus-valgus constraint was used in 28 (57%) and a hinged bearing was used in 3 (6%) of these constructs. The majority were index rTKAs of primary components (86%), performed for aseptic loosening (51%) and reimplantation following staged treatment for infection (37%). Median follow-up was 39 months (range 25-58). Using a modified Knee Society Radiographic score, all constructs were classified as stable. Postoperatively, 4 rTKAs were complicated by recurrent infection (8%), periprosthetic fracture 2 (4%), and superficial wound infection 1 (2%). Seven rTKAs (14%) required reoperation. The majority of reoperations (4 rTKAs) were debridement and irrigation with implant retention for infection. Metaphyseal cone constructs with short cemented stems demonstrated 100% survivorship free of revision for aseptic loosening without evidence of radiographic loosening in any case.ConclusionOur results demonstrate excellent outcomes with the use of metaphyseal cones with short cemented stems at mid-term follow-up. This construct avoids the use of long-stem fixation with the associated extraction difficulty, end of stem pain, and potential for malposition at the joint line.Level of EvidenceIV, Case Series.     

Stability of the implant/abutment joint in a single-tooth external-hexagon implant system: clinical and mechanical review

Rigorous efforts have recently been made to reduce the recurrence of implant/abutment joint failure in single‐tooth implant restorations. However, the current knowledge about the stability of implant/abutment joints in an external hexagon implant system is incomplete. We reviewed clinical data regarding single‐tooth implant treatment with Brånemark implants, specifically the CeraOne abutment system (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden). In vitro studies on joint stability were systematically assessed. Bending overload and the presence of misfit at the implant/abutment joint interface are the critical mechanical conditions that can make the joint unstable. Appropriate joint fitness and proper alignment of the implant should be assessed, and occlusal adjustment by narrowing the restoration width and flattening cuspal inclination should be applied to avoid bending moments caused by the lateral component of occlusal forces. Sufficient clinical reports of longer duration that evaluate and verify longer‐term success of the newly manufactured joint components were unavailable.     

针刀松懈术联合手法治疗脊柱侧弯的临床观察

目的:探讨针刀松懈术联合手法对脊柱侧弯的治疗有效性,并做随访记录。方法:选取2012年1月至2016年9月期间宜昌市中心人民医院收治的脊柱侧弯患者34例,并分为2组,观察组使用针刀松懈术配合手法进行治疗,对照组佩戴支具进行治疗,比较2组患者的治疗总有效,以及在治疗前后VAS评分差异和Cobb角矫正效果,对针刀松懈术联合手法使用的有效性和可行性进行深入探讨。结果:观察组的优良率为94.12%高于对照组的82.35%,且前者的治疗效果为优的患者高达70.59%远远大于后者的29.41%,P0.05;但是观察组平均评分更低为(2.6±0.5),对照组为(4.8±1.9)分,P0.05;观察组矫正率为50.4%,对照组的平均矫正率为20.7%,P0.05,2组治疗前后Cobb角比较均有统计学意义,P0.05;术后半年进行随访,观察组平均身高增加了(5.1±0.6)cm,对照组为(4.6±0.7)cm,P0.05。结论:针刀松懈术联合手法治疗不但可以有效缓解患者疼痛,还能起到一个良好的矫正效果,增加身高,提高预后,是一个可靠的、有效的治疗脊柱侧弯的方案。     

Cemented vs Uncemented Femoral Components: A Randomized,Controlled Trial at 10 Years Minimum Follow-Up

BackgroundThe type of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) fixation (cemented or uncemented) is still subject to debate. The aim of this study is to assess the survival rate, clinical outcomes, and radiological results of TKA according to the fixation type.MethodsA total of 130 patients were randomly assigned to either the cement group (cemented femoral and tibial implants) or the hybrid group (cemented tibial implant, uncemented femoral implant). The inclusion criteria were patients between 50 and 90 years old who underwent primary TKA for osteoarthritis between 2004 and 2005 without a history of open knee surgery. Revisions and complications were reported, as well as clinical scores and radiological signs of loosening.ResultsOne hundred eighteen patients had complete data at 10 years of minimum follow-up (59 in each group). The mean age was 72 years old. The mean follow-up was 13 years. The survival rate was 98% at 13 years in both groups (1 aseptic loosening at 2 years in the cement group, 1 septic loosening in the hybrid group). The complication rate in the cement group was 8.5% (n = 5) vs 12.1% (n = 7) in the hybrid group (P = .8). The clinical results were not significantly different. In the cement group, 25% of patients (n = 15) had radiolucent lines at 10 years. In the hybrid group, 33% of patients had bone transparencies, not evolving or symptomatic.ConclusionAt a minimum follow-up of 10 years, there were no significant differences between cemented TKA and hybrid TKA for the survivorship, the complication rate, the clinical scores, or the radiological signs of loosening.Level of EvidenceI.     

Short-Term Follow-Up of Patellar Component Revision in Patients With Isolated Patellar Component Loosening

BackgroundThe etiology of patellar component loosening can be multifactorial, including component malposition, trauma, infection, and poor implant design. These cases may be managed with isolated patellar component revision or simultaneous patellar component with femoral and/or tibial component revision. Isolated patellar revision in the setting of aseptic loosening historically has had limited success with high rates of repeat revision.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of 75 cases diagnosed with patellar component loosening that underwent revision. Patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Cases were categorized as either isolated patellar (IP) revision or patellar with femoral and/or tibial component (P + O) revisions. Survivorship and re-revision causes were compared between groups. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, estimated blood loss, range of motion, and length of stay.ResultsFifty patients underwent IP revision, and 25 patients had P + O revision. Overall survivorship at the 2-year follow-up interval was 94.6%. Survivorship of IP revision undertaken for aseptic loosening was 94%. Survivorship of P + O revision was 96%. Eight percent of patients required reoperation from the P + O revision group, while 12% of patients in the IP revision group underwent a reoperation. Patients undergoing IP revision had better postoperative range of motion, lower surgical times, lower estimated blood loss, and decreased length of stay.ConclusionIP revision demonstrates excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes comparable to P + O revision. When appropriate, IP revision should be considered as a potential treatment option.Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort study.