Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 8 | Pages 715 - 720
23 Aug 2024
Shen TS Cheng R Chiu Y McLawhorn AS Figgie MP Westrich GH

Aims

Implant waste during total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant cost to the USA healthcare system. While studies have explored methods to improve THA cost-effectiveness, the literature comparing the proportions of implant waste by intraoperative technology used during THA is limited. The aims of this study were to: 1) examine whether the use of enabling technologies during THA results in a smaller proportion of wasted implants compared to navigation-guided and conventional manual THA; 2) determine the proportion of wasted implants by implant type; and 3) examine the effects of surgeon experience on rates of implant waste by technology used.

Methods

We identified 104,420 implants either implanted or wasted during 18,329 primary THAs performed on 16,724 patients between January 2018 and June 2022 at our institution. THAs were separated by technology used: robotic-assisted (n = 4,171), imageless navigation (n = 6,887), and manual (n = 7,721). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of implant waste during primary THA.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 4 | Pages 260 - 268
1 Apr 2024
Broekhuis D Meurs WMH Kaptein BL Karunaratne S Carey Smith RL Sommerville S Boyle R Nelissen RGHH

Aims

Custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) play an important role in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and pelvic tumour resection procedures. Accurate CTAC positioning is essential to successful surgical outcomes. While prior studies have explored CTAC positioning in rTHA, research focusing on tumour cases and implant flange positioning precision remains limited. Additionally, the impact of intraoperative navigation on positioning accuracy warrants further investigation. This study assesses CTAC positioning accuracy in tumour resection and rTHA cases, focusing on the differences between preoperative planning and postoperative implant positions.

Methods

A multicentre observational cohort study in Australia between February 2017 and March 2021 included consecutive patients undergoing acetabular reconstruction with CTACs in rTHA (Paprosky 3A/3B defects) or tumour resection (including Enneking P2 peri-acetabular area). Of 103 eligible patients (104 hips), 34 patients (35 hips) were analyzed.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1020 - 1029
1 Sep 2023
Trouwborst NM ten Duis K Banierink H Doornberg JN van Helden SH Hermans E van Lieshout EMM Nijveldt R Tromp T Stirler VMA Verhofstad MHJ de Vries JPPM Wijffels MME Reininga IHF IJpma FFA

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between fracture displacement and survivorship of the native hip joint without conversion to a total hip arthroplasty (THA), and to determine predictors for conversion to THA in patients treated nonoperatively for acetabular fractures.

Methods

A multicentre cross-sectional study was performed in 170 patients who were treated nonoperatively for an acetabular fracture in three level 1 trauma centres. Using the post-injury diagnostic CT scan, the maximum gap and step-off values in the weightbearing dome were digitally measured by two trauma surgeons. Native hip survival was reported using Kaplan-Meier curves. Predictors for conversion to THA were determined using Cox regression analysis.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 7 | Pages 388 - 400
8 Jul 2021
Dall’Ava L Hothi H Henckel J Di Laura A Tirabosco R Eskelinen A Skinner J Hart A

Aims

The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants.

Methods

We compared two groups, one made via 3D-printing (n = 7) and the other using conventional techniques (n = 7). We collected implant details, type of surgery and removal technique, patient demographics, and clinical history. Bone integration was assessed by macroscopic visual analysis, followed by sectioning to allow undecalcified histology on eight sections (~200 µm) for each implant. The outcome measures considered were area of bone attachment (%), extent of bone ingrowth (%), bone-implant contact (%), and depth of ingrowth (%), and these were quantified using a line-intercept method.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 12 | Pages 857 - 869
1 Dec 2020
Slullitel PA Coutu D Buttaro MA Beaule PE Grammatopoulos G

As our understanding of hip function and disease improves, it is evident that the acetabular fossa has received little attention, despite it comprising over half of the acetabulum’s surface area and showing the first signs of degeneration. The fossa’s function is expected to be more than augmenting static stability with the ligamentum teres and being a templating landmark in arthroplasty. Indeed, the fossa, which is almost mature at 16 weeks of intrauterine development, plays a key role in hip development, enabling its nutrition through vascularization and synovial fluid, as well as the influx of chondrogenic stem/progenitor cells that build articular cartilage. The pulvinar, a fibrofatty tissue in the fossa, has the same developmental origin as the synovium and articular cartilage and is a biologically active area. Its unique anatomy allows for homogeneous distribution of the axial loads into the joint. It is composed of intra-articular adipose tissue (IAAT), which has adipocytes, fibroblasts, leucocytes, and abundant mast cells, which participate in the inflammatory cascade after an insult to the joint. Hence, the fossa and pulvinar should be considered in decision-making and surgical outcomes in hip preservation surgery, not only for their size, shape, and extent, but also for their biological capacity as a source of cytokines, immune cells, and chondrogenic stem cells.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(12):857–869.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 2, Issue 6 | Pages 96 - 101
1 Jun 2013
Harvie P Whitwell D

Objectives

Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) have been available to the orthopaedic community for more than a decade, with little improvement in service provision to this increasingly large patient group. Improvements in adjuvant and neo-adjuvant treatments have increased both the number and overall survival of patients living with MBD. As a consequence the incidence of complications of MBD presenting to surgeons has increased and is set to increase further. The British Orthopaedic Oncology Society (BOOS) are to publish more revised detailed guidelines on what represents ‘best practice’ in managing patients with MBD. This article is designed to coincide with and publicise new BOOS guidelines and once again champion the cause of patients with MBD.

Methods

A series of short cases highlight common errors frequently being made in managing patients with MBD despite the availability of guidelines.