Implant fracture of modular revision stems is a major complication after total hip arthroplasty revision (rTHA). Studies looking at specific modular designs report fracture rates of 0.3% to 0.66% whereas fractures of monobloc designs are only reported anecdotally. It is unclear whether the overall re-revision rate of modular designs is higher and if, whether stem fractures or other revision reasons are responsible for this elevation. All revisions within 5 years after implantation of a revision stems (n. 0. =13,900; n. 5. =2506) were analysed using Cox regression with design (modular: n=17, monobloc: n=27), BMI, Sex and Elixhauser Score as independent variables. One stage and two stage revisions were analysed separately (1-stage: modular n= 7,102; monobloc n= 4,542; 2-stage: 1,551 / 704). The revision volume of the hospitals was also considered (low: <20 revisions, medium: 21–50 revisions, high: >50 revisions). For the 1-stage revisions, the re-revision risk after 4 years was 14,3% [13.2%, 15.5%] for monobloc and 17.4% [16.40%, 18.40%] for modular stems (p< 0.001). Stem fracture was the reason for re-revision in 2.4% of the modular (fracture rate 0.42%) and 0.6% of the monobloc revisions. The difference in re-revision rates between the designs was mainly due to differences in dislocation and stem loosening. For the 2-stage revisions, the revision risks for either design were similar (21.7% [18,5%, 25.4%] vs. 23.0% [20.8%, 25.4%]; p=0.05). Patient characteristics influenced the comparison between the two designs in the 1-stage group but very little in the 2-stage group. Modular revision stem fractures only contribute very minor to re-revision risk. In 2-stage revisions, no difference in overall re-revision rates between designs was observed. This might indicate that the differences observed for 1-stage procedures are due to differences between the patient cohorts, not reflected by the parameters available or surgeon choice

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).

Aims

During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing.

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.

Introduction. Frame HI is the #Days for device removal/cm. IM Nail HI is less relevant (31–45 D/cm). Albizzia HI was 33 D/cm (1991–2003). Patients felt fine approximately 1M after end of lengthening (EoL), resuming normal life and sports. This sometimes resulted in implants fractures (e.g. skying before bone fusion). Ideally, the full fusion should occur at the EoL. We decided to shorten the HI to reach this target, optimising all parameters. Materials & Methods. The evolution of care has been monitored over a 32-year clinical experience with a fully weight-bearing nails (Albizzia then G-nail). Monitoring was with X-rays, DEXA, blood bone activity, and in London with special 5G CBCT Scans. We implemented several changes in the Care of patients and measured them according to the ‘Five Principles’ (stability, function, ‘Roads-vascular supply’, ‘Materials-calories’ and ‘Workers-BFC’, with actions on food intake, activity levels and on muscle and bone vascular growths. Results. Preop: training (vascularity, muscle force). Op & Postop: spine morphine, IM sawing preserving BFC, controlled hypo-pressure, low hydration, 50 cm leg elevation, walking, resistance bike, full motion (drainage, muscle reactivation), discharge 3–4h postop (including bilateral). Postop daily intense gym training. POD07-21: Distraction increased to fight non-linear hyper-ossification (44–50 mm gain at POD30) +/- aided by NSAIDs. HI decreased to 12–20D/cm, sometimes 8D/cm with some ‘soft fusion’ during lengthening, hardening within 1W after EoL. Conclusions. The surgeon is not a passive X-rays observer, but has an active role in changing the healing speed and decreasing HI for patient safety. Electro/Magnetic nails (torque 1 Nm) may be clocked by bone fusion, which does not occur with the G-Nail (19 Nm). An holistic vision for patients and treatments at several levels is essential to accelerate bone healing, and to return fast to full normal life, after a short ‘lengthening parenthesis’

The April 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Lengthening behaviour of magnetically controlled growing rods in early-onset scoliosis: a multicentre study; LDL, cholesterol, and statins usage cause pseudarthrosis following lumbar interbody fusion; Decision-making in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Does the interfacing angle between pedicle screws and support rods affect clinical outcomes after posterior thoracolumbar fusion?; Returning to the grind: how workload influences recovery post-lumbar spine surgery; Securing the spine: a leap forward with s2 alar-iliac screws in adult spinal deformity surgery.

Periprosthetic femur fracture (PPF) are heterogeneous, complex, and thought to be increasingly prevalent. The aims were to evaluate PPF prevalence, casemix, management, and outcomes. This nationwide study included all PPF patients aged >50 years from 16 Scottish hospitals in 2019. Variables included: demographics; implant and fracture factors; management factors, and outcomes. There were 332 patients, mean age 79.5 years, and 220/332 (66.3%) were female. One-third (37.3%) were ASA1-2 and two-thirds (62.3%) were ASA3+, 91.0% were from home/sheltered housing, and median Clinical Frailty Score was 4.0 (IQR 3.0). Acute medical issues featured in 87/332 (26.2%) and 19/332 (5.7%) had associated injuries. There were 251/332 (75.6%) associated with a proximal femoral implant, of which 232/251 (92.4%) were arthroplasty devices (194/251 [77.3%] total hip, 35/251 [13.9%] hemiarthroplasty, 3/251 [1.2%] resurfacing). There were 81/332 (24.4%) associated with a distal femoral implant (76/81 [93.8%] were total knee arthroplasties). In 38/332 (11.4%) there were implants proximally and distally. Most patients (268/332; 80.7%) were treated surgically, with 174/268 (64.9%) requiring fixation only and 104/268 (38.8%) requiring an arthroplasty or combined solution. Median time to theatre was longer for arthroplasty versus fixation procedures (120 vs 46 hours), and those requiring inter-hospital transfer waited longer (94 vs 48 hours). Barriers to investigating PPF include varied classification, coding challenges, and limitations of existing registries. This is the first study to examine a national PPF cohort and presents important data to guide service design and research. Additional findings relating to fracture patterns, implant types, surgeon skill-mix, and outcomes are reported herein

Aims

The risk of mechanical failure of modular revision hip stems is frequently mentioned in the literature, but little is currently known about the actual clinical failure rates of this type of prosthesis. The current retrospective long-term analysis examines the distal and modular failure patterns of the Prevision hip stem from 18 years of clinical use. A design improvement of the modular taper was introduced in 2008, and the data could also be used to compare the original and the current design of the modular connection.

Aims

Post-traumatic periprosthetic acetabular fractures are rare but serious. Few studies carried out on small cohorts have reported them in the literature. The aim of this work is to describe the specific characteristics of post-traumatic periprosthetic acetabular fractures, and the outcome of their surgical treatment in terms of function and complications.

Aims

The Vantage Total Ankle System is a fourth-generation low-profile fixed-bearing implant that has been available since 2016. We aimed to describe our early experience with this implant.

Aims

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) following hip arthroplasty are complex injuries. This study evaluates patient demographic characteristics, management, outcomes, and risk factors associated with PPF subtypes over a decade.

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze how proximal radial neck resorption (PRNR) starts and progresses radiologically in two types of press-fit radial head arthroplasties (RHAs), and to investigate its clinical relevance.

The benefit of dual mobility cup (DMC) for primary total hip arthroplasties (THA) is still controversial. This study aimed to compare 1) the complications rate, 2) the revisions rate, 3) the survival rate after monobloc DMC compared to large femoral heads (LFH) in primary THA. Between 2010 and 2019, 2,075 primary THA using cementless DMC or LFH were included. Indications for DMC were patients older than 70 years old or with high risk of dislocation. Every other patient received a LFH. Exclusion criteria were cemented implants, femoral neck fracture, a follow-up of less than one year. 1,940 THA were analyzed: 1,149 DMC (59.2%), 791 LFH (40.8%). The mean age was 73 ±9.2 years old in DMC group and 57 ±12 in LFH group. The complications and the revisions have been assessed retrospectively. The mean follow-up was 41.9 months ±14 [12–134]. There were significantly fewer dislocations in DMC group (n=2; 0.17%) compared to LFH group (n=8; 1%) (p=0.019). The femoral head size had no impact on the dislocations rate in LFH group (p=0.70). The overall complication rate in DMC (n=59; 5.1%) and LFH (n=53; 6.7%) were not statistically different (p=0.21). No specific complication was attributed to the DMC. In DMC group, 18 THA (1.6%) were revised versus 15 THA in LFH group (1.9%) (p= 0.71). There was no statistical difference for any cause of revisions in both groups. The cup aseptic revision-free survival rates at 5 years were 98% in DMC group and 97.3% in LFH group (p=0.78). Monobloc DMC had a lower risk of dislocation in a high-risk population than LFH in a low-risk population at the mid-term follow-up. There was no significant risk of specific complications or revisions for DMC in a large cohort. Monobloc DMC can be safely used in a selected high-risk population

Introduction. Osseointegration has emerged as a promising alternative to rehabilitating with a traditional socket mounted prosthesis. Advantages have been reported to include improved functional mobility, better osseoperception, improved comfort, reduced pain, better biomechanical alignment and better gait, which all lead to a less restricted lifestyle and significantly improved quality of life. A major concern of the Osseointegrated approach lies in the risk of infections occurring from the permanent transcutaneous opening often referred to as the stoma. Several systematic reviews have indicated that the occurrence of minor infections can be quite common, serious complications are reported to be rare. In addition to commonly anticipated complications including fractures, surgical debridements or revisions, we have identified several significant events in which a patient may require to be readmitted and go through additional surgery. The objective of this study is to examine the rate of occurrence and reports on the best management practices of serious complications across a multi-centre review of more than 1000 osseointegration surgeries. Materials & Methods. A detailed analysis has been performed on all osseointegration surgeries performed by the Osseointegration Group of Australia and it's affiliates between since 2010. The majority of surgeries took place in Australia, the United States, the Middle East as well as in Europe. All events leading to a re-admission and subsequent re-operation have been identified through hospital operation records and pooled together for meta-analysis. Events identified include: revision of implants, periprosthetic fracture fixation, surgical debridement due to infections, neurectomies and soft- tissue refashioning. Results. Over 800 surgeries have been identified with a minimum 12-month follow-up time and included in this study. These included tibial, femoral and humeral, radial-ulnar and transpelvic osseointegration cases. The majority of these were performed using a single stage protocol. While general complications such as infection and soft tissue refashioning are common, serious events such as revision and fracture are rare. Interestingly, the rate of debridements and soft-tissue refashions were found to be higher among patients who were operated using a two-stage surgery. Among all cases, there were a total of 399 re-operation events recorded which occurred among 163 patients, indicating a high recurrence rate among the same patients. We recorded a total of 112 washouts, 93 neurectomies, 117 soft tissue refashions, 53 implant revisions and 24 periprosthetic fracture fixations. Conclusions. Many events leading to readmission after the primary surgery may not necessarily be graded as a complication of the osseointegration technique. This study has identified several addition possible reasons in which an osseointegration patient may need to be re-admitted into hospital for additional surgery. It was identified that through the implementation of improved surgical techniques and rehabilitation protocols, the rate of several of these re-operation events can be largely reduced, thus improving the overall outcomes of patients undergoing osseointegration surgery

Introduction. Approximately 2,000 Skeletal transcutaneous osseointegration (STOI) procedures have been performed worldwide as of 2020, more than half of which have been performed by the Osseointegration Group of Australia using a press-fit technique with either ILP or OPL implant designs. Despite the consistently demonstrated clinical benefits, concerns regarding potential complications following STOI have slowed its widespread adoption. As more patients are followed for a longer period of time, longitudinal studies have confirmed complication rates are very acceptable, similar to those of total ankle and total elbow replacements. One of the major risk category is implant removal. The primary goal of this study was to investigate the complications and technical issues associated with transtibial osseointegration implant removal due to any cause. The focus here will be on the press-fit ILP and OPL implants, including the indications for removal and patient outcomes following removal. Materials & Methods. A review of our osseointegration registry between November 2010 and March 2022 was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients who have undergone removal of a transtibial osseointegration implant due to any cause. Selected patients either had a follow-up of at least two years or had their index osseointegration surgery at least two years prior to when the study was performed. Patients who have had osseointegration at other anatomic levels, and patients who underwent simultaneous total knee replacement with transtibial osseointegration were excluded from the registry search. Results. There were a total of 148 transtibial osseointegration procedures performed during the study period, with 97 (65.5%) performed in males and 51 (34.5%) performed in females. The average age at first stage osseointegration procedure is 50.4 years (range 16.8–87.9, SD 14.1). In the study cohort of 22 cases requiring implant removals, 12 (54.5%) were male and 10 (45.5%) were female. The average age at first stage osseointegration procedure in this cohort is 51.3 (range 37.4–82.6, SD 10.7) and average BMI 30.3 (range 21.9–40.9, SD 5.8). Although men comprised the majority of removals, women had a greater relative risk (Fisher exact test p=0.032). The average duration from time of STOI to removal was 2.6 years (range 0.1–6.8, SD 1.9) within this 11.5 year follow-up period. The most frequent indication was infection (54.6%, n=12) followed equally by pain (13.6%, n=3), aseptic loosening (13.6%, n=3) and implant fracture (13.6%, n=3), and lastly failure to integrate (4.6%, n=1). Conclusions. Of the 22 removals, 12 were reimplanted at the same anatomical level (10 were reimplanted within 6 months, 1 within 12 months, and 1 within 24 months). 11 of these cases currently wear their prosthetic legs for more than 13 hours daily. 1 case was recently reimplanted and still completing their loading program. Of the patients who were not reimplanted at the same anatomical level, 1 required proximal amputation with transfemoral osseointegration. 3 patients converted to traditional socket prostheses (TSP) due to pain, and 1 underwent proximal amputation and converted to TSP due to infection. 3 cases are currently awaiting transtibial osseointegration reimplantation, and 1 patient was deceased. 1 patient was lost to follow-up

Aims

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR.

The April 2023 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Displaced femoral neck fractures in patients aged 55 to 70 years: internal fixation or total hip arthroplasty?; Tibial plateau fractures: continuous passive motion approves range of motion; Lisfranc fractures: to fuse or not to fuse, that is the question; Is hardware removal after clavicle fracture plate fixation beneficial?; Fixation to coverage in Grade IIIB open fractures – what’s the time window?; Nonoperative versus locking plate fixation in the proximal humerus; Retrograde knee nailing or lateral plate for distal femur fractures?

Traditional socket prosthesis (TSP) rehabilitation for amputees is associated with substantial dissatisfaction due to poor mobility and pain from soft tissue squeezing. Osseointegration (OI), eliminates skin compression and prosthesis fit issues, providing superior mobility and quality of life (QOL) for most amputees. The potential for OI to benefit patients with exceptionally poor mobility is understudied. To address this knowledge gap, this project investigated the mobility and QOL changes. A retrospective review was performed to identify transfemoral amputees who presented with wheelchair-bound mobility (K0) and had at least five years of post-osseointegration follow-up. Outcome measures included changes in mobility (K-level, daily prosthesis wear hours, Timed Up and Go (TUG), 6 minute walk test (6MWT)) and QOL (Questionnaire for persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (QTFA); Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF36). Adverse events recorded included debridement for infection, implant revision surgery, fractures, and implant failures. 9 patients with mean age 48.2±7.7 (range 34-59) years were included. The proportion of patients achieving K-level >2 improved from 0/9=0% to [9/9=100%], p<0.001. The 6MWT improved from 0±0 to 320.65±57 meters (p<0.001). The TUG improved from incapable to 10.68±2.7 seconds (p<0.001). Statistically significant QOL metrics included QTFA global score (33.33±31 vs 68.52±21, p=0.039), SF36 physical component score (30.03±6.3 vs 42.34±12, p=0.023) and the SF36 mental component score (47.89±8.8 vs 51.95±10.4, p=0.332). Six patients required operative intervention to address complications. Five developed infections: three had debridement, and 2 required implant removal and reimplantation. Osseointegration does confer significant sustained mobility and quality of life improvement for wheelchair bound transfemoral amputees. All 9 K0 patients had statistically improved mobility and QOL after osseointegrated reconstruction. This supports osseointegration as an effective rapid and long-term rehabilitation alternative for patients who have the neurologic and muscular capacity to walk but are unable due to issues related to their TSP

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

The December 2022 Wrist & Hand Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy for early-stage Dupuytren’s disease; Patient experiences of scaphoid waist fractures and their treatment; Postoperative complications following open a1 pulley release for a trigger finger or thumb; How certain are findings in distal radius fractures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials; Partial wrist denervation in wrist osteoarthritis: patient-reported outcomes and objective function; Dorsal bridge plating versus bridging external fixation for management of complex distal radius fractures; How is reduction lost in distal radius fractures in females aged 50 years and older; The HAND-Q: psychometrics of a new patient-reported outcome measure for clinical and research applications.