Aims

In elderly patients with osteoarthritis and protrusio who require arthroplasty, dislocation of the hip is difficult due to migration of the femoral head. Traditionally, neck osteotomy is performed in situ, so this is not always achieved. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to describe a partial resection of the posterior wall in severe protrusio.

Aims

The aim of this study is to report the results of a case series of olecranon fractures and olecranon osteotomies treated with two bicortical screws.

Aims. To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision. Patients and Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression modelling. Results. Intra-operative complications occurred in 40 revisions (1.6%). The cumulative five-year patient survival rate was 95.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 92.3 to 97.8). Re-revision surgery was performed in 192 hips (7.6%). The cumulative five-year implant survival rate was 89.5% (95% CI 87.3 to 91.3). Predictors of re-revision were high body mass index at revision (subhazard ratio (SHR) 1.06 per kg/m. 2 . increase, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09), modular component only revisions (head and liner with or without taper adapter; SHR 2.01, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.38), ceramic-on-ceramic revision bearings (SHR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.80), and acetabular bone grafting (SHR 2.10, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.07). These four factors remained predictive of re-revision when the missing data were imputed. Conclusion. The short-term risk of re-revision following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD was comparable with that reported in the NJR following all-cause non-MoMHA revision surgery. However, the factors predictive of re-revision included those which could be modified by the surgeon, suggesting that rates of failure following ARMD revision may be reduced further. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1020–7

Objectives. Few studies have assessed outcomes following non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. All non-MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014 were included (185 hips in 185 patients). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using Cox regression. Results. Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n = 11) of the 185 cases. The cumulative four-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9 to 99.5). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n = 25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (0.1 to 3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%; n = 8), dislocation/subluxation (24%; n = 6), and aseptic loosening (24%; n = 6) were the most common re-revision indications. The cumulative four-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI 76.7 to 88.9). Multivariable analysis identified three predictors of re-revision: multiple revision indications (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78; 95% CI 1.03 to 7.49; p = 0.043); selective component revisions (HR = 5.76; 95% CI 1.28 to 25.9; p = 0.022); and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR = 3.08; 95% CI 1.01 to 9.36; p = 0.047). Conclusions. Non-MoMHAs revised for ARMD have a high short-term risk of re-revision, with important predictors of future re-revision including selective component revision, multiple revision indications, and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings. Our findings may help counsel patients about the risks of ARMD revision, and guide reconstructive decisions. Future studies attempting to validate the predictors identified should also assess the effects of implant design (metallurgy and modularity), given that this was an important study limitation potentially influencing the reported prognostic factors. Cite this article: G. S. Matharu, A. Judge, D. W. Murray, H. G. Pandit. Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:405–413. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0017.R2

The April 2015 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Distal clavicular resection not indicated in cuff repair?; Platelet-rich plasma in rotator cuff repair; Radial head geometry: time to change?; Heterotopic ossification in elbow trauma; Another look at heterotopic ossification in the humerus; Triceps on for total elbow arthroplasty?; Predicting outcomes in rotator cuff repair; Deltoid fatty infiltration and reverse shoulder arthroplasty

The August 2014 Foot & Ankle Roundup360 looks at: calcaneotibial nail in ankle fractures; reamer irrigator aspirator for ankle fusion; periprosthetic bone infection; infection in ankle fixation; cheap and cheerful OK in MTP fusion plates; sliding fibular graft for peroneal tendon pathology and fusion for failed ankle replacement.

The February 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether arthroscopic acromioplasty is a cost-effective intervention; shockwave therapy in cuff tear; whether microfracture relieves short-term pain in cuff repair; the promising early results from L-PRF augmented cuff repairs; rehabilitation following cuff repair; supination strength following biceps tendon rupture; whether longer is better in humeral components; fatty degeneration in a rodent model; and the controversial acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

The October 2013 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Young and impinging; Clothes, weather and femoral heads?; Go long, go cemented; Surgical repair of the abductors?; Aspirin for DVT prophylaxis?; Ceramic-on-polyethylene: a low-wear solution?; ALVAL and ASR™: the story continues….; Salvaging Legg-Calve-Perthes’ disease

The April 2013 Children’s orthopaedics Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: improving stress distribution in dysplastic hips; the dangers of fashion; the natural history of supracondylar fractures; ankles that perform well as knees; intra-articular hip pathology at osteotomy; the safe removal of flexible nails; supracondylar fracture fixation; and talipes.

The April 2013 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: the margin for error; new money for old risks; hindquarter amputation; custom tumour jigs; preserving the tibial epiphysis; how long is long enough?; genomics and radiation-induced bone tumours; and India ink.