Staged diagnosis of septic hip endoprosthesis loosening with laboratory parameters and antigranulocyte scintigraphy

AIM: The value of serial diagnosis of septic loosening of hip endoprosthesis using laboratory parameters and antigranulocytes scintigraphy was investigated and compared to joint aspiration. METHOD: In 35 patients with intraoperative verification of infection, we calculated sensitivity, specify and prevalence dependent positive and negative predictive values for antigranulocyte scintigraphy, laboratory tests and the most suitable combination of both. We also calculated predictive values of joint aspiration using sensitivity and specify values given in the literature. RESULTS: From negative and positive predictive values, of the sedimetation rate and leukocyte count provided no increase of information. We found the same result for positive predictive values of C-reactive protein. For antigranulocyte scintigraphy alone, we found a distinct but still unsatisfying increase of information. Nevertheless, in both cases infection could be excluded definitely. Therefore, the combination of C-reactive protein and antigranulocyte scintigraphy was suitable and the positive predictive values of this combination were only about 5% lower than those of joint aspiration. But with joint aspiration, infection could not be excluded. CONCLUSION: A positive result in serial diagnosis using C-reactive protein and antigranulocyte scintigraphy leads to an distinct increase in the probability of infection which is comparable to that of joint aspiration. The additional advantages of this procedure are the certain exclusion of infection and the absence of invasiveness.     

Exposure for revision: total hip replacement

The author uses four basic approaches for the majority of revision total hip replacements (THRS). The posterior approach is used for most simple revisions of loose endoprostheses, short, loose, cemented stems, and straightforward cup revisions. The key technical maneuvers are the soft tissue releases necessary to adequately displace the proximal femur anteriorly. The sliding trochanteric osteotomy is used when greater exposure of the femoral shaft is necessary to remove implant materials, to treat deformities or fractures, when abductor tension must be adjusted, or when enhanced acetabular exposure is required. Proper orientation of the osteotomy and excision of anterior pseudocapsule are necessary to mobilize the muscular osseous sleeve created by this approach. The extended trochanteric osteotomy is recommended for the most difficult femoral revisions, including the removal of well-fixed cementless and cemented components. The lateral 1/3 of the femoral shaft is removed as far distally as necessary. Careful attention to the creation, elevation, mobilization, and fixation of the osteotomized fragment is important in avoiding fracture or nonunion. The combined AP extensile approach is used for the most difficult acetabular reconstructions, including total acetabular allografting. Cadaveric training and possibly general, vascular, or urologic surgical assistance is recommended for this difficult approach.     

台湾地区人工髋与膝关节首次置换与翻修术的对比分析

目的探讨华人的人工髋与膝关节手术的置换与翻修术的分布情形。方法本研究通过1996～2004年台湾健康保险局数据库中人工髋与膝关节的手术资料共186084例,包括169310例首次置换以及16774例翻修手术的数据。结果因髋关节疾病而进行首次置换的发生率较膝关节疾病稍高（2004年每十万人发生率为55．94比54．17）。全髋关节置换术在45～65岁年龄层最多占40％;半髋关节置换术在75岁以上年龄层占54％;全膝关节置换术在65岁以上年龄层占73％。首次人工髋与膝关节手术平均每年花费分别为3400万与3600万美金。结论本研究结果除了显示台湾每年人工髋与膝关节手术量以及翻修手术的数量逐年增加,也显示华人的关节适应证与好发年龄层与白种人是有所差异的。     

The Oxford hip scores for primary and revision hip replacement

We have used the Oxford hip score to monitor the progress of 1908 primary and 279 revision hip replacements undertaken since the start of 1995. Our review programme began in early 1999 and has generated 3900 assessments. The mean pre-operative scores for primary and revision cases were 40.95 and 40.11, respectively. The mean annual score for primary replacement at between 12 and 84 months ranged between 20.60 and 22.57. A comparison of cross-sectional and longitudinal data showed no significant differences. All post-operative reviews showed a significant improvement (p < or = 0.0001). The 50- to 60-year-old group scored significantly better than the patients over 80 years of age up to 48 months (p < 0.01). A subgroup of 826 National Health Service (NHS) and 397 private patients, treated by the senior author (2292 Oxford assessments), had a higher (i.e. worse) mean pre-operative score for the NHS patients (p < or = 0.001). The private patients scored better than the NHS group up to 84 months (p < 0.05). Patients treated by a surgeon performing more than 100 replacements each year had a significantly better outcome up to five years than those operated on by surgeons performing fewer than 20 replacements each year. The age of the patients at the time of operation, and their pre-operative level of disability, have both been identified as affecting the long-term outcome. Awareness of the influence of these factors should assist surgeons to provide balanced advice.     

The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement

Peri-prosthetic fracture after joint replacement in the lower limb is associated with significant morbidity. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of peri-prosthetic fracture after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) over a ten-year period using a population-based linked dataset. Between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2008, 52,136 primary THRs, 8726 revision THRs, 44,511 primary TKRs, and 3222 revision TKRs were performed. Five years post-operatively, the rate of fracture was 0.9% after primary THR, 4.2% after revision THR, 0.6% after primary TKR and 1.7% after revision TKR. Comparison of survival analysis for all primary and revision arthroplasties showed peri-prosthetic fractures were more likely in females, patients aged > 70 and after revision arthroplasty. Female patients aged > 70 should be warned of a significantly increased risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after hip or knee replacement. The use of adjuvant medical treatment to reduce the effect of peri-prosthetic osteoporosis may be a direction of research for these patients.     

人工髋关节置换术后翻修病例分析

目的分析人工髋关节置换术后翻修的原因,评价全髋翻修术的临床效果。方法本组33例34髋。初次关节置换类型:全髋置换21例,双杯髋关节置换1例,人工股骨头置换11例。翻修原因:无菌性松动23例24髋,髋臼位置不良1例1髋,股骨头置换后髋臼磨损5例5髋,感染4例4髋。翻修距初次手术时间:1年以内5髋,1～2年1髋,5～10年18髋,10～13年10髋。翻修假体类型:非骨水泥型假体20髋,混合型假体7髋,骨水泥型假体7髋。结果平均随访3.5年。1例术后半年发生股骨柄松动进行再翻修,其余病例假体保留,优良率为82.4%。结论翻修的最常见原因为无菌性松动,人工股骨头置换时髋臼磨损也是翻修原因之一,对较年轻的股骨颈骨折患者,如行假体置换,最好采用全髋关节置换。翻修术采用非骨水泥型假体较好。     

Age at hip or knee joint replacement surgery predicts likelihood of revision surgery

We compared revision and mortality rates of 4668 patients undergoing primary total hip and knee replacement between 1989 and 2007 at a University Hospital in New Zealand. The mean age at the time of surgery was 69 years (16 to 100). A total of 1175 patients (25%) had died at follow-up at a mean of ten years post-operatively. The mean age of those who died within ten years of surgery was 74.4 years (29 to 97) at time of surgery. No change in comorbidity score or age of the patients receiving joint replacement was noted during the study period. No association of revision or death could be proven with higher comorbidity scoring, grade of surgeon, or patient gender. We found that patients younger than 50 years at the time of surgery have a greater chance of requiring a revision than of dying, those around 58 years of age have a 50:50 chance of needing a revision, and in those older than 62 years the prosthesis will normally outlast the patient. Patients over 77 years old have a greater than 90% chance of dying than requiring a revision whereas those around 47 years are on average twice as likely to require a revision than die. This information can be used to rationalise the need for long-term surveillance and during the informed consent process.     

人工髋关节置换术后翻修术的临床分析

目的　对人工髋关节置换术后翻修的原因、治疗方法及疗效进行综合评价 ,以避免或减少翻修术的发生。方法　总结本院 1991～ 2 0 0 0年收治的人工髋关节置换术后翻修术病例 ,从翻修术的原因、治疗方法及疗效等方面进行系统的分析比较。结果　 10年间我院施行翻修术 98例。翻修术的原因以髋臼磨损为主 ,占 45 .92 %。其他依次为假体松动、感染、脱位、假体位置不良、柄远端股骨骨折和人工髋关节强直等 ,非假体松动原因而行翻修术 79例 ,占翻修病例总数的 80 .5 8%。 2次及以上翻修术的主要原因是习惯性脱位和感染。翻修术方式主要采用生物学固定。合并髋臼骨缺损 2 9例 ,股骨侧骨缺损 2 5例 ,自体或异体骨植骨修复骨缺损 2 5例。平均随访 63 .9个月 ,Harris评分翻修术后优良率 82 .2 8%。结论　翻修术的主要原因是髋臼磨损 ,多次翻修术的原因主要是假体习惯性脱位和感染。翻修术应以生物学固定为主。为避免或减少翻修术的发生和次数 ,在行初次人工关节置换术时 ,应严格掌握手术适应证 ,规范手术操作 ,减少术后并发症     

Variation and trends in reasons for knee replacement revision: a multi-registry study of revision burden

Background and purpose — Studies describing time-related change in reasons for knee replacement revision have been limited to single regions or institutions, commonly analyze only 1st revisions, and may not reflect true caseloads or findings from other areas. We used revision procedure data from 3 arthroplasty registries to determine trends and differences in knee replacement revision diagnoses.Patients and methods — We obtained aggregated data for 78,151 revision knee replacement procedures recorded by the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR), the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), and the Kaiser Permanente Joint Replacement Registry (KPJRR) for the period 2003–2017. Equivalent diagnosis groups were created. We calculated the annual proportions of the most common reasons for revision.Results — Infection, loosening, and instability were among the 5 most common reasons for revision but magnitude and ranking varied between registries. Over time there were increases in proportions of revisions for infection and decreases in revisions for wear. There were inconsistent proportions and trends for the other reasons for revision. The incidence of revision for infection showed a uniform increase.Interpretation — Despite some differences in terminology, comparison of registry-recorded revision diagnoses is possible, but defining a single reason for revision is not always clear-cut. There were common increases in revision for infection and decreases in revision for wear, but variable changes in other categories. This may reflect regional practice differences and therefore generalizability of studies regarding reasons for revision is unwise.

Although the survivorship of knee arthroplasty has improved over the last 15 years, the increased volume of primary knee replacement has led to growing numbers of revision procedures (Kumar et al. 2015, Patel et al. 2015). A prior study we undertook outlined changes in the volume and incidence of revision rates in Sweden, Australia, and the Kaiser Permanente registry from the USA (Lewis et al. 2020b).Factors influencing revision change with time. Patient factors may affect the rate of primary procedures, such as rising patient and surgeon acceptance of knee replacement (Hamilton et al. 2015), increasing rates of osteoarthritis (Hunter and Bierma-Zeinstra 2019), growing use in younger patients (Leyland et al. 2016, Karas et al. 2019), and also survivorship, such as longer life expectancy, increasing obesity, and higher physical activity of those receiving a replacement (Hamilton et al. 2015). In addition, prosthesis designs change to improve perceived shortcomings such as wear, instability, and patellofemoral pain and tracking (Lewis et al. 2020a). Methods to improve surgical precision, such as computer navigation (Jones and Jerabek 2018), image-derived instrumentation (Kizaki et al. 2019), and robotic assistance (Jacofsky et al. 2016) may decrease revision requirements (Price et al. 2018)These changing factors alter the reasons for revision. Previous studies observed a decrease in revisions for wear and loosening (Sharkey et al. 2014, Thiele et al. 2015), and related this to improved prosthesis design and materials. Other studies note infection is now the most common reason for revision (Koh et al. 2017, Postler et al. 2018). Studies of changing knee replacement failure modes are limited by being derived from single institutions or regions and may not accurately reflect what is occurring elsewhere (Sharkey et al. 2014, Thiele et al. 2015, Dyrhovden et al. 2017, Koh et al. 2017, Lum et al. 2018, Postler et al. 2018). Additionally, these studies do not show the true revision burden as they are restricted to 1st revision procedures, or only revisions of previous total knee replacements (TKR), and do not include revisions of partial knee replacement procedures.Combining registry data can be difficult due to inconsistency in the definition of revision (Liebs et al. 2015), and lack of consensus in defining modes of failure, with different terminologies used (Niinimaki 2015, Siqueira et al. 2015). Some have attempted to overcome this by defining equivalent diagnoses (Havelin et al. 2011, Paxton et al. 2011, Rasmussen et al. 2016).We determined variations and trends in reasons for knee replacement revision using data on all knee arthroplasty revision procedures from the national registries of Sweden and Australia and the institutional registry of Kaiser Permanente in the USA by using equivalent diagnosis groups (Table 1, see Supplementary data).     

Timing of the revision total hip replacement

The purpose of this article is to define guidelines in regard to timing of revision surgery for total hip replacement. One important variable, in addition to incapacitating pain, is the presence of progressive bone loss associated with loose implants. Indications for revision are presented based on the immediacy of the situation. Timing for revision is categorized as immediate, delayed up to 6 months, delayed beyond 6 months, and elective. Clinical examples of indications are included. Useful diagnostic studies for evaluating the need for revision surgery are discussed. These procedures include several types of arthrography to aid in differential diagnosis.     

Bilateral hip and knee replacement for rheumatoid arthritis

A series of 19 patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis had replacement of both hips and both knees. They are reviewed after a mean follow-up of 27 months. The preferred programme is to replace hips before knees. Pain was relieved in all the patients and function was improved in all but two. Severe rheumatoid disease and prolonged immobilisation before the operations were not contra-indications to a successful outcome, but the presence or the development of cervical myelopathy combined with gross upper limb deformity militated against a good result.     

人工髋关节置换术后翻修原因分析

目的:分析人工髋关节置换术后翻修的原因,并评价其疗效。方法:本组30例(31髋)行人工髋关节置换术后翻修术,男12例,女18例,平均年龄63.1岁(47~74岁)。初次关节置换类型:全髋置换19例(20髋),人工股骨头置换11例。翻修原因:3例(3髋)为感染性松动,余均为无菌性松动。翻修距初次手术时间:1年以内1髋,2~3年3髋,8~10年21髋,10~15年6髋。翻修假体类型:均为混合型假体,国产12例(12髋),进口18例(19髋)。X线评价包括翻修前骨缺损,翻修前后的下肢长度,股骨偏心距,前倾角。临床功能评价采用Harris评分。结果:30例均获随访,平均随访时间4.1年,术后所有患者双下肢基本等长(差距小于1 cm)。偏心距、前倾角、颈干角恢复至初次手术前水平,术后3个月均完全负重,髋关节疼痛除2例外其余完全缓解,至最后1次随访时,按Harris评分,优16髋,良10髋,可4髋,差1髋。无感染及髋关节脱位发生。结论:翻修的常见原因为无菌性松动、髋臼磨损和感染性松动;髋关节翻修是一种近期疗效满意的方法。     

Total hip and knee replacement surgery

Total hip and knee replacements are becoming increasingly prevalent and an increasing range of techniques and materials are now available. We review the indications, the key issues regarding surgical and material options and the complications of total joint replacement surgery for the hip and knee.     

Predictive factors for failure after total knee replacement revision

Purpose

We used the Optetrak Condylar Constrained (CCK) implant, a modular and constrained knee implant as replacement for a failed primary arthroplasty, to assess the survivorship, the complications, the clinical, radiological, and functional situation, and the quality of life of those patients in whom a CCK had been implanted in recent years in order to find predictive pre-operative conditions of survival and clinical outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of 125 CCK implanted between 1999 and 2005. The mean follow-up was nine years (range, seven to 13). Mean age was 73.6 years. A total of 78 % of the revised TKA were cemented and 66 % were CR. We assessed the pre-operative, the operative and the postoperative conditions studying the medical files of all the patients. In order to study the functional and clinical situation we used the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score and the Knee Society score (KSS), both clinical and functional. We analysed all the X-rays using the Knee Society Roentgenographic evaluation. The quality of life was studied using the Oxford knee score (OKS).

Results

The mean results of the KSS clinical and the KSS functional were 68.24 and 63.85, respectively. There were not any conditions associated with poor results of the knees (p > 0.05). The global survival at 24 months was 92.7 %, at 60 months 87.8 % and at 96 months it was 87.8 %. There were some conditions associated with poor survival of the knees, e.g. patients were younger than 70 years old, rheumatic diseases, kidney faliure, tibial tuberosity osteotomy, PS primary arthroplasty, revision before five years and septic loosening.

Conclusions

Based on these results there are some pre-operative factors that change the survival of the total knee replacement revision.