Cementless Revision TKA with Bone Grafting of Osseous Defects Restores Bone Stock with a Low Revision Rate at 4 to 10 years

Background  

Addressing bone loss in revision TKA is challenging despite the array of options to reconstruct the deficient bone. Biologic reconstruction using morselized loosely-packed bone graft potentially allows for augmentation of residual bone stock while offering physiologic load transfer. However it is unclear whether the reconstructions are durable.     

Revision shoulder arthroplasty with a reverse shoulder prosthesis

Introduction

Revision shoulder arthroplasty presents many unique and complex challenges when glenoid bone loss is involved. A distorted and medialized anatomy prevents the proper mechanics of the reverse prosthesis with regard to deltoid tension and ultimate function. This paper highlights one surgeon’s experience using structural allograft for glenoid bone loss.

Patients and methods

In all, 20 patients for a total of 24 surgeries with a medialized glenoid and/or substantial glenoid bone loss of grade IIB or higher were evaluated in this retrospective study. The allograft surgeries were performed as a one-stage procedure except for three patients. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP2) was added to supplement incorporation in all cases. Four patients had two separate allograft procedures. Eight of the allograft procedure were femoral shaft, eleven of the allografts were femoral neck/head, and five of the allograft procedures were from proximal humerus. A graft was considered a success if they had at least 12 months of clinical and radiographic follow-up without subsequent removal of the graft or radiographic failure. Patients with less than 12 months of follow-up were included if the graft was removed or had early failure.

Results

All femoral shaft allografts except one failed, and during revision surgery it was often noted that the graft was cracked where the peripheral screws had been drilled. In nine patients the graft was still in place at last follow-up, seven of these were femoral neck/head allografts. Five grafts were removed secondary to infection. Average follow-up was 24 months (range 5–45 months).

Conclusions

Femoral neck allografts are an option in patients with substantial bone loss. The authors do not recommend use of femoral shaft allografts.

     

What is the Rate of Revision Discectomies After Primary Discectomy on a National Scale?

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® - Lumbar discectomy has been shown to be clinically beneficial in numerous studies for appropriately selected patients. Some patients, however,...     

What Is the Dislocation and Revision Rate of Dual-mobility Cups Used in Complex Revision THAs?

BackgroundDual-mobility cups have been shown to reduce the dislocation risk after THA. Although dual-mobility cups can be a useful strategy to mitigate against recurrent dislocation after revision surgery, few clinical studies have focused on the results of complex revision THAs with extensive bone and soft-tissue loss or in patients who have undergone more than one previous surgical procedure.Questions/purposes(1) What is the survival free from revision for dislocation of dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THAs? (2) What is the survival free from any dislocation?MethodsBetween January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013, 327 patients underwent a complex revision THA that included an acetabular revision, defined as preexisting massive bone loss in the acetabulum (at least Paprosky Type 2B) and/or proximal femur (at least Paprosky Type 3), substantial gluteal soft-tissue involvement, at least two previous surgical procedures or a one-stage septic revision, or history of dislocation. All 327 complex revision patients received a dual-mobility cup. Of those, 34% (111) were lost to follow-up before 5 years and were not known to have reached a study endpoint (revision for dislocation, and any dislocation) before then, leaving 216 patients for analysis. For patients with bilateral hip surgeries only the first operated hip was included for analysis. The median (range) follow-up duration was 69 months (60 to 110). The primary endpoint was dislocation or re-revision for dislocation. Fifty-six percent (120 of 216) of the patients were women and 44% (96 of 216) were men. The mean age of the patients was 69 ± 9 years. The patients underwent a median of four surgical procedures (1 to 4) before the index procedure (the revision evaluated in this study). A survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; any dislocation or revision for dislocation was determined as the endpoint.ResultsThe dislocation-free survival rates were 96% (95% confidence interval 92 to 98) at 5 years and 82% (95% CI 72 to 89) at 9 years. The overall dislocation rate was 11% (24 of 216 patients) at the final follow-up interval. Survival free of revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 96 to 100) at 5 years and 85% (95% CI 75 to 92) at 9 years.ConclusionsDual-mobility cups used in complex revision THA in this series had a higher rate of dislocation and revision than expected, based on earlier studies of dislocations of these components. Although we believe dual-mobility cups are still the first choice of implant if the patient has instability, these cups should be used cautiously if severe bone loss or soft-tissue involvement is present.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.     

Revision total hip arthroplasty using a cementless tapered revision stem in patients with a mean age of 82 years

Purpose

A tapered straight cementless stem was used for revision in a group of old and very old patients. We wanted to know whether the use of this implant could achieve satisfactory results despite age and osteoporosis.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data of 77 elderly patients (77 hips) who underwent revision in cemented and uncemented primary total hip arthroplasties (THA). The patients had a mean age of 82.2 years (range, 75–92 years) at revision surgery. They were monitored for a mean follow up of 7.1 years (range, 5.0–10.2 years). During the minimum follow-up period 11 patients died of unrelated causes, leaving 66 patients (66 hips) for evaluation.

Results

During the period of study three stems failed due to aseptic loosening, three hips dislocated and were successfully treated by closed reduction and bracing. No infection, osteolysis or significant stress shielding around the stems was observed. The survivorship at an average of 7.1-year follow-up was 95.5%.

Conclusions

These results indicate that this stem is an excellent alternative in revision THA in patients of 75 years or older.

     

Is Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty a Reasonable Alternative for Revision Arthroplasty?

Background  

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) improves function in selected patients with complex shoulder problems. However, we presume patient function would vary if performed primarily or for revision and would vary with other patient-specific factors.     

Is a One-Step Sleeve Gastrectomy Indicated as a Revision Procedure After Gastric Banding? Data Analysis from a Quality Assurance Study of the Surgical Treatment of Obesity in Germany

Background

Since 1 January 2005, the outcomes of bariatric surgeries have been examined in Germany. All data are registered prospectively in cooperation with the Institute of Quality Assurance in Surgery at Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg.

Methods

Data are collected in an online data bank. Data collection began in 2005 for the results of gastric banding (GB) and in 2006 for sleeve gastrectomies (SGs). In addition to primary bariatric operations, data regarding the complications of revision procedures and redo operations have been analyzed. Participation in the quality assurance study is required for all certified centers in Germany.

Results

SGs are a popular redo operation after failed gastric banding. Using the German Bariatric Surgery Registry, we analyzed data from 137 SGs that were used in a one-step approach after GB and 37 SGs that were used in a two-step approach. Leakage rates for primary SGs dropped to 1.9 %. The incidence of leakage after a one-step SG after GB is significantly higher (4.4 %) than for a two-step approach (0 %).

Conclusion

SGs are popular procedures after failed GB in Germany, but the complication rates for one-step band removal are higher than for a two-step approach. After examining the data, we suggest performing band removal and SG as a two-step procedure. Further analysis is necessary to evaluate the optimal time period between band removal and SG. Follow-up investigations must be performed to determine if SG is an effective and safe option after GB.     

Is Conversion TKA a Primary or Revision? Clinical Course and Complication Risks Approximating Revision TKA Rather Than Primary TKA

BackgroundConversion total knee arthroplasty (convTKA) is associated with increased resource utilization and costs compared with primary TKA. The purpose of this study is to compare 1) surgical time, 2) hospitalization length (LOS), 3) complications, 4) infection, and 5) readmissions in patients undergoing convTKA to both primary TKA and revision TKA patients.MethodsThe American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried from 2008 to 2018. Patients undergoing convTKA (n = 1,665, 0.5%) were defined by selecting Current Procedural Terminology codes 27,447 and 20,680. We compared the outcomes of interest to patients undergoing primary TKA (n = 348,624) and to patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA (n = 8213). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the relative risk of postoperative complications.ResultsCompared with patients undergoing primary TKA, convTKA patients were younger (P < .001), had lower body mass index (P < .001), and were less likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologist class III/IV (P < .001). These patients had significantly longer operative times (122.6 vs 90.3 min, P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), increased risks for any complication (OR 1.94), surgical site infection (OR 1.84), reoperation (OR 2.18), and readmissions (OR 1.60) after controlling for confounders. Compared with aseptic TKA revisions, operative times were shorter (122.6 vs 148.2 min, P < .001), but LOS (2.91 vs 2.95 days, P = .698) was similar. Furthermore, relative risk for any complication (P = .350), surgical site infection (P = .964), reoperation (P = .296), and readmissions (P = .844) did not differ.ConclusionConversion TKA procedures share more similarities with revision TKA rather than primary TKA procedures. Without a distinct procedural and diagnosis-related group, there are financial disincentives to care for these complex patients.Level of EvidenceII.     

Do Rerevision Rates Differ After First-time Revision of Primary THA With a Cemented and Cementless Femoral Component?

Background

Worldwide use of cementless fixation for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is on the rise despite some evidence from the world’s registries suggesting inferior survivorship compared with cemented techniques. The patterns of bone loss associated with failed cementless and cemented THAs may prejudice the results of future revision procedures; however, this has not been documented.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to compare (1) the risk for rerevision of first revision THA; (2) the patterns of femoral bone loss at the time of first revision of primary THA; (3) the reasons for first revision of primary THA; and (4) the time to first revision of primary THA between primary cementless and cemented femoral components.

Methods

Primary THAs with cemented (n = 1791) and uncemented (n = 805) femoral components that subsequently sustained first revision of the femoral component were identified from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry (DHR). As of 2012, 120,988 primary THAs and 19,282 revisions were registered in the DHR with completeness of 97% and 90% for primary and revision THA, respectively. Median followup for revisions of primary THA with cemented and cementless femoral component was 4 years (range, 0–17 years) and 2 years (range, 0–16 years), respectively. Survival of first revision THA, with second revision of the femur as outcome, was evaluated using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) adjusting for potential confounding. All patient- and surgery-related data are collected from Danish medical databases. Recording of bone defects in the DHR is based on surgeons’ intraoperative findings.

Results

With the numbers studied, we found no differences in the risk of second revision between the overall cohort between cementless and cemented techniques (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.97–1.80; p = 0.076); however, a second revision for any reason was more likely in patients < 70 years old in whom the index arthroplasty was performed using a cementless technique (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01–2.17; p = 0.046). Increasingly severe femoral bone defects of type II (30% [532 of 1791] versus 13% [104 of 805]; p < 0.001) type III (11% [200 of 1791] versus 2% [12 of 805]; p < 0.001) and type IV (1% [26 of 1791] versus 0.4% [three of 805]; p = 0.016) were more frequent at revisions of cemented femoral components compared with cementless femoral components. Indications for first revision differed between primary cemented and uncemented femoral components, because a larger proportion of cemented femoral components was revised as a result of aseptic loosening compared with cementless femoral components (74% [1329 of 1791] versus 25% [197 of 805]; p < 0.001), whereas a larger proportion of cementless femoral components was revised as a result of a fracture compared with cemented femoral components (46% [371 of 805] versus 10% [168 of 1791]; p < 0.001). Failure before 5 years was more likely in cementless femoral components than cemented femoral components (91% [733 of 805] versus 44% [749 of 1791], p < 0.001).

Conclusions

We found no differences in the risk of second revision in the overall cohort between cementless and cemented techniques; however, we observed an increased risk for rerevision THA performed on patients < 70 years whose index THAs were performed using cementless components when looking at all causes for revision, even after adjusting for the most likely confounding factors. Our data suggest that increased use of cementless fixation in primary THA may lead to inferior survivorship of first revision THA.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

Damage Assessment of Retrieved Birmingham Monoblock Cups: Is Conversion to Dual-Mobility Head a Viable Revision Option?

Background

A novel revision technique for failed hip resurfacings involves retention of the acetabular cup, if well-fixed, which is mated to dual-mobility (DM) prosthesis in a traditional hip replacement configuration. It is unknown whether existing damage on the retained cup will result in unacceptable wear of the DM prosthesis.

Revision of failed traditional fundoplication using EsophyX® transoral fundoplication

Background

Laparoscopic revision of failed traditional fundoplication is difficult and involves risk of gastric, esophageal, and vagal nerve injury that is higher than that of the primary fundoplication. This study assessed feasibility and clinical outcomes of the transoral approach to revision of loose Nissen.

Methods

Between November 2009 and August 2011, a total of 11 patients underwent transoral repair as opposed to 70 patients who underwent laparoscopic or open revision of a failed fundoplication. Subjective and objective outcomes were evaluated with the GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire and the reflux symptom index (RSI) questionnaire and ambulatory pH testing. The competency of the new antireflux barrier was evaluated by endoscopy. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare pre- and postoperative variables.

Results

All 11 patients evidenced loosening of the Nissen fundoplication without evidence of hiatal failure. Mean age was 57 years, BMI was 25.1 kg/m², and 4 of 11 (36 %) were female. Indications for operation were abnormal pH-metry off PPIs (6), impedance/pH on PPIs (3), esophagitis (1), and evidence of free reflux on barium swallow (1). One patient developed a postoperative bleed requiring transfusion. Two patients had laparoscopic revision at 6 and 8 months after the transoral procedure. At a median follow-up of 14 (range = 6–28) months, 8/10 patients reported resolution of their primary symptoms. Eight patients had pH testing off PPIs both pre- and postoperatively; median % time with pH <4 improved by dropping from 8.1 % (21–4.8 %) to 0.6 % (13.4–0.01 %) (p = 0.008). Esophageal acid exposure normalized in 5/6 patients. Mean GERD-HRQL score improved significantly by dropping from 28.6 (10.6) preoperatively to 6.7 (6.1) post-TIF (p = 0.016). Mean RSI score improved more than 50 % in 5/7 patients.

Conclusion

Transoral revision of failed traditional fundoplication without herniation is technically feasible. It results in symptomatic and objective improvement of GERD without the risks of laparoscopic dissection for a majority of patients.     

Revision of the Keller’s procedure – pilot study

Keller’s excisional arthroplasty has become a popular procedure for the treatment of osteoarthrosis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint, and exceptional rates of success have been reported in the literature. However, a number of reports on its limitations have also been published. We report our technique and the results of a pilot study in 3 patients for the revision of a failed Keller’s procedure. Arthrodesis of the first MTP joint was performed in patients after a Keller’s procedure had failed. A 1/3 semitubular plate was used to stabilize an interposition bone graft, between the first metatarsal and proximal phalanx. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 months (mean 8 months). Each patient reported excellent pain relief and return to full mobility.     

Does Revision of an Acetabular Shell With Insertion of an Uncemented Constrained Liner Confer Benefit Over Cementing Into a Well-Ingrown Shell?

BackgroundDuring revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), a constrained acetabular liner (CAL) may be inserted to enhance hip stability. It is unclear, however, whether cementation of a CAL into a retained cup offers an advantage compared to revision of the acetabular cup and insertion of an uncemented CAL. The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes and survivorship between the 2 methods.MethodsWe identified a total of 177 patients who underwent revision THA with a specific CAL at our center between July 2004 and May 2019 (114 cup revisions and insertion of an uncemented CAL, 63 cementations of a CAL into a retained cup). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis was performed for implant survival free from aseptic failure of the CAL for both cohorts.ResultsThe average follow-up time was 7.2 and 7.02 years for the cemented and uncemented cohort, respectively (P = .55). Five patients (7.93%) in the cemented CAL group experienced failure of the CAL, whereas 10 patients (8.77%) in the uncemented CAL cohort experienced failure (P = .21). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis demonstrated comparable survivorship at 10 years (P = .055).ConclusionThe results of our study suggest comparable survivorship between cementing a CAL into a retained cup and inserting an uncemented CAL in a revised acetabular cup. As a result of these findings along with the benefits associated with cementing a CAL, we encourage surgeons to readily consider this option in the management of recurrent instability.     

Does a Cemented Cage Improve Revision THA for Severe Acetabular Defects?

Background  

Evidence suggests a growing incidence of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) including a subset with large acetabular defects. Revision THA for severe acetabular bone loss is associated with a relatively high rate of mechanical failure.     

Surgical Technique: Revision ACL Reconstruction With a Rectangular Tunnel Technique

Background  

We developed the rectangular tunnel ACL reconstruction (RT ACLR) using a 10-mm wide bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) graft through rectangular tunnels with a rectangular aperture to reduce tunnel size: the cross-sectional area of the tunnels of 50 mm² (5 × 10 mm) in RT ACLR is less than that of 79 mm² in a conventional 10-mm round tunnel technique presuming the technique would be more suitable in revision ACLR with previous improperly placed tunnels.