Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 8 of 8
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 1 | Pages 3 - 8
1 Jan 2021
Costa-Paz M Muscolo DL Ayerza MA Sanchez M Astoul Bonorino J Yacuzzi C Carbo L

Aims. Our purpose was to describe an unusual series of 21 patients with fungal osteomyelitis after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R). Methods. We present a case-series of consecutive patients treated at our institution due to a severe fungal osteomyelitis after an arthroscopic ACL-R from November 2005 to March 2015. Patients were referred to our institution from different areas of our country. We evaluated the amount of bone resection required, type of final reconstructive procedure performed, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) functional score. Results. A total of 21 consecutive patients were included in the study; 19 were male with median age of 28 years (IQR 25 to 32). All ACL-R were performed with hamstrings autografts with different fixation techniques. An oncological-type debridement was needed to control persistent infection symptoms. There were no recurrences of fungal infection after median of four surgical debridements (IQR 3 to 6). Five patients underwent an extensive curettage due to the presence of large cavitary lesions and were reconstructed with hemicylindrical intercalary allografts (HIAs), preserving the epiphysis. An open surgical debridement was performed resecting the affected epiphysis in 15 patients, with a median bone loss of 11 cm (IQR 11.5 to 15.6). From these 15 cases, eight patients were reconstructed with allograft prosthesis composites (APC); six with tumour-type prosthesis (TTP) and one required a femoral TTP in combination with a tibial APC. One underwent an above-the-knee amputation. The median MSTS functional score was 20 points at a median of seven years (IQR 5 to 9) of follow-up. Conclusion. This study suggests that mucormycosis infection after an ACL-R is a serious complication. Diagnosis is usually delayed until major bone destructive lesions are present. This may originate additional massive reconstructive surgeries with severe functional limitations for the patients. Level of evidence: IV. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;2(1):3–8


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 5 | Pages 338 - 356
10 May 2023
Belt M Robben B Smolders JMH Schreurs BW Hannink G Smulders K

Aims

To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search string included multiple synonyms of the following keywords: "revision TKA", "outcome" and "prognostic factor". We searched for studies assessing the association between at least one prognostic factor and at least one outcome measure after rTKA surgery. Data on sample size, study design, prognostic factors, outcomes, and the direction of the association was extracted and included in an evidence map.


Aims

Achievement of accurate microbiological diagnosis prior to revision is key to reducing the high rates of persistent infection after revision knee surgery. The effect of change in the microorganism between the first- and second-stage revision of total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) on the success of management is not clear.

Methods

A two-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted to review the outcome of patients who have undergone two-stage revision for treatment of knee arthroplasty PJI, focusing specifically on isolated micro-organisms at both the first- and second-stage procedure. Patient demographics, medical, and orthopaedic history data, including postoperative outcomes and subsequent treatment, were obtained from the electronic records and medical notes.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 3 | Pages 173 - 181
1 Mar 2022
Sobol KR Fram BR Strony JT Brown SA

Aims

Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 8 | Pages 638 - 645
1 Aug 2021
Garner AJ Edwards TC Liddle AD Jones GG Cobb JP

Aims

Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics.

Methods

Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 5 | Pages 305 - 313
3 May 2021
Razii N Clutton JM Kakar R Morgan-Jones R

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two-stage revision has traditionally been considered the gold standard of treatment for established infection, but increasing evidence is emerging in support of one-stage exchange for selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of single-stage revision TKA for PJI, with mid-term follow-up.

Methods

A total of 84 patients, with a mean age of 68 years (36 to 92), underwent single-stage revision TKA for confirmed PJI at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. In all, 37 patients (44%) were treated for an infected primary TKA, while the majority presented with infected revisions: 31 had undergone one previous revision (36.9%) and 16 had multiple prior revisions (19.1%). Contraindications to single-stage exchange included systemic sepsis, extensive bone or soft-tissue loss, extensor mechanism failure, or if primary wound closure was unlikely to be achievable. Patients were not excluded for culture-negative PJI or the presence of a sinus.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 1, Issue 3 | Pages 29 - 34
13 Mar 2020
Stirling P Middleton SD Brenkel IJ Walmsley PJ

Introduction

The primary aim of this study was to describe a baseline comparison of early knee-specific functional outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using metaphyseal sleeves with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. The secondary aim was to compare incidence of complications and length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.

Methods

Patients undergoing revision TKA for all diagnoses between 2009 and 2016 had patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected prospectively. PROMs consisted of the American Knee Society Score (AKSS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12). The study cohort was identified retrospectively and demographics were collected. The cohort was matched to a control group of patients undergoing primary TKA.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 10_Supple_A | Pages 3 - 8
1 Oct 2015
Murray DW Liddle AD Dodd CAF Pandit H

There is a large amount of evidence available about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability in the usage of UKA.

The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken whenever appropriate.

The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least 20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate for these broad indications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):3–8.