Metacarpophalangeal Joint Implants: II. Roentgenographic Study of the Niebauer™ Cutter Metacarpophalangeal Joint Prosthesis

A roentgenographic study was carried out on 41 Niebauer^T-^MCutter Metacarpophalangeal Joint Prosthesis from 1 to 36 month; postoperatively, a total of 105 examinations. The examinations were performed in the AP-projection and in the lateral projection by tomography in maximum active extension and flexion. The tomographic examinations revealed implant damage of three kinds: cracking within the midsection; fragmentation of the midsection; fracture of the hinge. Cracking within the midsection was found in 8 implants between 6 and 12 months postoperatively and in 1 implant later than 12 months. Later examinations revealed fragmentation of the midsection in 2 implants previously showing cracks. Hinge fracture was observed in 22 implants. Implant damage was found in a total frequency of 26/41. Bone reaction was found on the tomograms in all the operated joints, and could not be evaluated on the AP-projections. A bony spur was found to develop on the metacarpal bone volarly at the site of the osteotomy in 35 joints. In 2 of these the bony spur reached the base of the proximal phalanx, causing anchylosis. Bone resorption was found in 23 joints, constantly dorsally in the metacarpal bone and volarly in the proximal phalanx. The mechanism of the implant damage is discussed with respect to the shearing forces in the joint and the two materials of differing elasticity constituting the implant. The bone reaction is discussed with respect to the intended fixation of the intramedullary stems.     

Preoperative Anemia in Total Joint Arthroplasty: Is It Associated with Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

Background  

Anemia is common in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Numerous studies have associated anemia with increased risk of infection, length of hospital stay, and mortality in surgical populations. However, it is unclear whether and to what degree preoperative anemia in patients undergoing TJA influences postoperative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and mortality.     

How Reliable Are Textured Implants Used in Breast Surgery? A Review of 510 Implants

Five hundred ten implants were used in 273 patients. The follow-up was between 3 months and 8 years. Four hundred nineteen prostheses were used for subglandular breast augmentation, 91 for subpectoral breast reconstruction. All the breasts were checked personally: 397 augmented breasts and 86 reconstructed breasts—94.7%. The objective criterion was the Baker classification: grades I and II, good result; and grades III and IV, poor result. Results were as follows: Baker I, 397 breasts; Baker II, 78 breasts (I + II, 98.3%); Baker III, 5 breasts; Baker IV, 3 breasts (III + IV, 1.7%). Three prostheses were removed after 3, 4, and 6 years because the textured surface was totally damaged. Two bilumen prostheses lost the saline fluid. The complication rate due to the implants was very low.     

Joint arthroplasty and infection: where do we stand?

With the field of orthopedic surgery making tremendous advances, no one arena has changed more dramatically then total joint arthroplasty. While this kind of surgery has improved quality of life for many patients, it is not without complications. When they do occur, these complications can be devastating and inflict immense burden on patients and the society. Currently, the rate of periprosthetic joint infection ranges from 0.25% to 2.0%. As the number of total joint arthroplasty procedures is expected to rise considerably, these percentages will impose a financial burden on the field of adult reconstruction. The purpose of our paper is to discuss preventative measures that can be taken to curtail infections, the proper diagnosis of such infections, and the appropriate treatment options.     

Patient Retention and Replacement Trends After Saline Breast Implants: Are Deflations Inflationary?

Background  This study aimed to examine serial operative trends with patients who have experienced surgical implant deflation. In addition, the economic impact of deflation on practice caseload was analyzed. Methods  A retrospective review was conducted to examine patients who experienced deflation from 2000 to 2007. Patient demographics, implant data, and the presence of secondary (performed at explantation) or tertiary (performed later) procedures were examined. Financial information was tabulated to determine the economic multiplier effect (i.e. the expected value of revenue from secondary and tertiary procedures divided by explantation cost) of taking on deflation cases in a practice. Results  For this study, 285 patients with an average age of 38.4 years were identified. The average time to explantation was 50 months. Slightly more than half of the patients (55%) had both implants replaced at the time of explantation, whereas 59% switched to silicone implants and 41% continued with saline implants. A larger implant was chosen by 54% of the patients (average increase, 82 ml), whereas 18% underwent secondary procedures at the time of explantation including mastopexy (n = 22), facial rejuvenation (n = 8), liposuction (n = 7), or a combination of the two (n = 8). Tertiary procedures were performed for 31% of the patients after their explantation/reimplantation (average time frame, 13 months). The tertiary procedures included replacement with silicone (33.7%), liposuction (24.7%), abdominoplasty (11.2%), facial rejuvenation (13.5%), or nonsurgical rejuvenation using Botox, Restylane, or laser procedure (33.7%). Economic multiplier analysis showed that the financial impact of revenue derived from implant deflation on downstream practice revenue is 1.02. Conclusion  At the time of explantation, replacement with silicone after saline deflation is common (59% of patients). In this study, patients who chose replacement with saline had a significant tendency to replace with silicone (33%) as a tertiary procedure. Saline deflation represents a substantial opportunity for practice development. In particular, it has a positive impact on patient retention for additional aesthetic surgical or nonsurgical procedures. Economic multiplier analysis can be used to quantify the financial impact of saline deflation. Presented at The Aesthetic Meeting 2008, American Society Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2 May 2008.     

Total Joint Arthroplasty Surgery: Does Day of Surgery Matter?

Length of stay (LOS) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) impacts the expense to the hospital. Our purpose was to evaluate the impact that day of surgery has on postoperative LOS. 547 patients who had a primary TJA at two tertiary care hospitals were identified retrospectively. TJA patients admitted on day of surgery and who had primary elective surgery were included in our sample. Patients were subdivided into one of four groups: those who had operations on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday respectively. Patients who had surgery on Thursday and Friday had significantly longer LOS when compared to Monday and Tuesday. This variation in LOS between the groups may be due to inconsistencies in weekend functionality, less experienced part-time staffing, and inaccessibility of rehabilitation personnel.     

Definition of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Is There a Consensus?

Background  

The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to pose a challenge. While many diagnostic criteria have been proposed, a gold standard for diagnosis is lacking. Use of multiple diagnostic criteria within the joint arthroplasty community raises concerns in patient treatment and comparison of research pertaining to PJI.     

Total Joint Arthroplasty: Should Patients Have Preoperative Dental Clearance?

Obtaining dental clearance prior to elective total joint arthroplasty is a common practice; however, little published data exist to justify this requirement. Dental clearance data for 365 elective total knee and total hip arthroplasty patients were gathered prospectively. Of these patients, 358 (average age of 62.4 years; 157 men and 201 women; 152 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), 16 revision TKA arthroplasties, one conversion TKA, 168 primary total hip (THAs) arthroplasties and 21 revision THA arthroplasties) proceeded to surgery and follow-up data were available for 355. A comparison group of 218 hip fracture patients (average age of 78.7 years; 52 men and 109 women; 137 THA and 81 hemiarthroplasties) with no preoperative dental clearance who were treated with hip arthroplasty was extracted retrospectively from an institutional database. Follow-up data were available for 161 of these patients. The incidence of dental pathology in the elective arthroplasty group was 8.8%. Early postoperative infection requiring surgical treatment occurred in six patients (1.7%) in the dental clearance elective arthroplasty group and in four patients (2.5%) in the hip fracture arthroplasty group. No statistical difference was found between the two groups. This suggests that the perceived need for routine preoperative dental screening for all hip and knee arthroplasty patients should be reassessed.     

Femoral Neck Notching in Dual Mobility Implants: Is This a Reason for Concern?

BackgroundDual mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) implants have been advocated for patients at risk for impingement due to abnormal spinopelvic mobility. Impingement against cobalt-chromium acetabular bearings, however, can result in notching of titanium femoral stems. This study investigated the incidence of femoral stem notching associated with DM implants and sought to identify risk factors.MethodsA multicenter retrospective study reviewed 256 modular and 32 monoblock DM components with minimum 1-year clinical and radiographic follow-up, including 112 revisions, 4 conversion THAs, and 172 primary THAs. Radiographs were inspected for evidence of femoral notching and to calculate acetabular inclination and anteversion. Revisions and dislocations were recorded.ResultsTen cases of femoral notching were discovered (3.5%), all associated with modular cylindrospheric cobalt-chromium DM implants (P = .049). Notches were first observed radiographically at mean 1.3 years after surgery (range 0.5-2.7 years). Notch location was anterior (20%), superior (60%), or posterior (20%) on the prosthetic femoral neck. Notch depth ranged from 1.7% to 20% of the prosthetic neck diameter. Eight cases with notching had lumbar pathology that can affect spinopelvic mobility. None of these notches resulted in stem fracture, at mean 2.7-year follow-up (range 1-7.6 years). There were no dislocations or revisions in patients with notching.ConclusionFemoral notching was identified in 3.5% of DM cases, slightly surpassing the dislocation rate in a cohort selected for risk of impingement and instability. Although these cases of notching have not resulted in catastrophic failures thus far, further study of clinical sequelae is warranted. Component position, spinopelvic mobility, and implant design may influence risk.     

Periprosthetic Bone Resorption and Sigmoid Notch Erosion Around Ulnar Head Implants: A Concern?

Metallic ulnar head implants have been proposed not only to solve symptomatic radioulnar impingement after Darrach or Sauvé-Kapandji procedures, but also to prevent such an impingement when treating arthritic distal radioulnar joint. This article prospectively analyzes a series of ulnar head implants with special reference to bone resorption at the prosthesis collar and erosion of the sigmoid notch of the distal radius at an average follow-up of 32 months (minimum 24 months).     

Rheumatoid Arthritis,Disease Modifying Agents,and Periprosthetic Joint Infection: What Does a Joint Surgeon Need to Know?

The incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 1.6× greater than in patients undergoing the same procedure for osteoarthritis. This higher risk “may” be due to the immunosuppressive therapies for RA patients including corticosteroids, such as prednisone, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate. There is a debate about the role of DMARDs in increasing the incidence of subsequent PJI. Studies show conflicting results, with some demonstrating no significant increase in the rates of PJI and some finding otherwise. The International Consensus Meeting on PJI recommended that DMARDs should be halted prior to an elective total joint arthroplasty based on their half-life. Moreover, the International Consensus Meeting stated that cessation of immunosuppressant medications should be performed in consultation with and under the direction of the treating physician. In this review, we aimed to provide an introduction to the available treatment options and cover the recommendations on the treatment protocols for RA patients who undergo elective total joint arthroplasty.     

Isolated Patellofemoral Joint Arthroplasty: Can Preoperative Bone Scans Predict Survivorship?

BackgroundIsolated patellofemoral joint arthritis has been identified in 10% of the population presenting with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Patient selection is important in order to improve survivorship following PF arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to compare the use of a preoperative bone scan vs a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to identify the patient with isolated PF arthritis.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of 32 patients undergoing isolated PF arthroplasty for PF arthritis using the same implant design. Sixteen consecutive patients received a preoperative bone scan to confirm isolated PF arthritis. These patients were matched by age and gender to patients where an MRI was used to determine isolated PF arthritis. The bone scan cohort contained 13 females and three males with an average age of 48 years and average follow-up of 52 months. There was no significant difference in age, body mass index, follow-up, or preoperative range of motion between the groups. The MRI and bone scan results were reported by a radiologist specializing in orthopedic radiology.ResultsSurvivorship was 100% in the PF arthroplasty group selected using a preoperative bone scan. Revision surgery with conversion to TKA was required in 5 of 16 patients (31%) when an MRI was used to identify isolated PF arthritis. Revision in all patients in the MRI group was due to progression of knee arthritis in the tibial-femoral joint. There were no cases of implant-related failures.ConclusionPatellofemoral arthroplasty using a modern design implant demonstrated 100% survivorship when a preoperative bone scan was used for patient selection to confirm isolated PF arthritis. In the group where only an MRI was used, there was a 31% failure due to progression of the disease. Based on this study, we would recommend the use of a bone scan as a tool in the selection criteria for patients undergoing PF arthroplasty.     

Patient Dissatisfaction After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: The Patient Perspective

BackgroundDespite improvements in surgical technique and implant longevity, some patients continue to report dissatisfaction after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). As patient satisfaction is increasingly used as a quality metric, the objective of this study was to gain better understanding of satisfaction with total joint arthroplasty from the patient perspective.MethodsFive hundred fifty-one primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a minimum of 1-year follow-up and were responsive to a satisfaction survey were analyzed. The incidence, predictive factors, and subjective reasoning for patient dissatisfaction were assessed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.ResultsPatient satisfaction was 89% for THA and 88% for TKA. Hispanic race was the most significant predictor of dissatisfaction (P = .037). The most common reasons for dissatisfaction after THA were persistent pain (N = 14/34, 41%), functional limitation (N = 12/34, 35%), surgical complication and reoperation (N = 4/34, 12%), staff or quality of care issues (N = 2/34, 6%), and slow recovery (N = 2/34, 6%). The most common reasons for dissatisfaction after TKA were persistent pain (N = 19/46, 41%), functional limitation (N = 12/46, 26%), surgical complication and reoperation (N = 8/46, 17%), staff or quality of care issues (N = 5/46, 11%), and unmet expectations (N = 2/46, 4%).ConclusionWhile persistent pain and functional limitation are the 2 leading reasons for dissatisfaction in both TKA and THA, a subset of patients view satisfaction as an evaluation of the process by which care is delivered. Patient satisfaction is not solely a reflection of surgical outcome and should be interpreted with caution. Potential for incomplete pain relief or full functional recovery should be discussed during preoperative counseling. Empathic care is also important and should be encouraged to enhance the overall patient experience.     

Reading the Small Print – Labelling Recommendations for Orthopaedic Implants

INTRODUCTION

There exist, currently, no clear guidelines regarding standards for surgical implant labelling. Dimensions of the laminar flow canopies in orthopaedic use fixes the distance at which implant labels can be read. Mistakes when reading the label on an implant box can pose health risks for patients, and financial consequences for medical institutions.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Using scientifically validated tools such as the Snellen Chart Formula, a theoretical minimum standard for text on implant labels was reached. This theoretical standard was then tested under real operating conditions. After discovering a minimum practical standard for implant labels, the authors then audited current labels in use on a wide range of orthopaedic implant packages. Furthermore, other non-text-related labelling problems were also noted.

RESULTS

There is a definite minimum standard which should be observed when implant labels are manufactured. Implants in current use bear labels on the packaging that are of an insufficient standard to ensure patient safety in theatre.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have established text parameters that will increase the legibility of implant labels. In the interests of improving risk management in theatre, therefore, the authors propose a standard for orthopaedic implant labelling, and believe this will provide a useful foundation for further discussion between the orthopaedic community and implant manufacturers.     

Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Are Patients With Multiple Prosthetic Joints at Risk?

Patients who present with a periprosthetic joint infection in a single joint may have multiple prosthetic joints. The risk of these patients developing a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint is unknown. Our purposes were (1) to identify the risk of developing a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint and (2) to describe the time span and organism profile to the second prosthetic infection. We retrospectively identified 55 patients with periprosthetic joint infection who had another prosthetic joint in place at the time of presentation. Of the 55 patients, 11 (20%) developed a periprosthetic joint infection in a second joint. The type of organism was the same as the first infection in 4 (36%) of 11 patients. The time to developing a second infection averaged 2.0 years (range, 0-6.9 years).