Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_6 | Pages 22 - 22
2 May 2024
Logishetty K Whitwell D Palmer A Gundle R Gibbons M Taylor A Kendrick B
Full Access

There is a paucity of data available for the use of Total Femoral Arthroplasty (TFA) for joint reconstruction in the non-oncological setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate TFA outcomes with minimum 5-year follow-up. This was a retrospective database study of TFAs performed at a UK tertiary referral revision arthroplasty unit. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing TFA for non-oncological indications. We report demographics, indications for TFA, implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and indications for re-operation. A total of 39 TFAs were performed in 38 patients between 2015–2018 (median age 68 years, IQR 17, range 46–86), with 5.3 years’ (IQR 1.2, 4.1–18.8) follow-up; 3 patients had died. The most common indication (30/39, 77%) for TFA was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or fracture-related infection (FRI); and 23/39 (59%) had a prior periprosthetic fracture (PPF). TFA was performed with dual-mobility or constrained cups in 31/39 (79%) patients. Within the cohort, 12 TFAs (31%) required subsequent revision surgery: infection (7 TFAs, 18%) and instability (5 TFAs, 13%) were the most common indications. 90% of patients were ambulatory post-TFA; 2 patients required disarticulation due to recurrent PJI. While 31/39 (79%) were infection free at last follow-up, the remainder required long-term suppressive antibiotics. This is the largest series of TFA for non-oncological indications. Though TFA has inherent risks of instability and infection, most patients are ambulant after surgery. Patients should be counselled on the risk of life-long antibiotics, or disarticulation when TFA fails


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 6 | Pages 452 - 456
1 Jun 2024
Kennedy JW Rooney EJ Ryan PJ Siva S Kennedy MJ Wheelwright B Young D Meek RMD

Aims

Femoral periprosthetic fractures are rising in incidence. Their management is complex and carries a high associated mortality. Unlike native hip fractures, there are no guidelines advising on time to theatre in this group. We aim to determine whether delaying surgical intervention influences morbidity or mortality in femoral periprosthetic fractures.

Methods

We identified all periprosthetic fractures around a hip or knee arthroplasty from our prospectively collated database between 2012 and 2021. Patients were categorized into early or delayed intervention based on time from admission to surgery (early = ≤ 36 hours, delayed > 36 hours). Patient demographics, existing implants, Unified Classification System fracture subtype, acute medical issues on admission, preoperative haemoglobin, blood transfusion requirement, and length of hospital stay were identified for all patients. Complication and mortality rates were compared between groups.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 6 | Pages 489 - 498
12 Jun 2024
Kriechling P Bowley ALW Ross LA Moran M Scott CEH

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare reoperation and revision rates of double plating (DP), single plating using a lateral locking plate (SP), or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs).

Methods

All patients with PDFF primarily treated with DP, SP, or DFA between 2008 and 2022 at a university teaching hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was revision surgery for failure following DP, SP, or DFA. Secondary outcome measures included any reoperation, length of hospital stay, and mortality. All basic demographic and relevant implant and injury details were collected. Radiological analysis included fracture classification and evaluation of metaphyseal and medial comminution.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 5 | Pages 423 - 431
1 May 2022
Leong JWY Singhal R Whitehouse MR Howell JR Hamer A Khanduja V Board TN

Aims

The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks.

Methods

The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 7, Issue 6 | Pages 12 - 15
1 Dec 2018


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 5 | Pages 25 - 26
1 Oct 2015

The October 2015 Oncology Roundup360 looks at: Radiotherapy for the radioresistant; Multiple hereditary exostosis; The total femur as a limb salvage option; Survival prediction in osteosarcoma; What happens when chondrosarcoma recurs?; Thumbs up for vascularised fibular graft; Radiotherapy and survival; Musculoskeletal tumours in pregnancy