We had previously reported on early outcomes on a new fluted, titanium, monobloc stem with a three degree taper that has been designed for challenging femoral reconstruction in the setting of extensive bone loss. The aim of this study was to report its mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data carried out at a single institution between Jan 2017 and Dec 2019. 85 femoral revisions were performed using a new tapered, fluted, titanium, monobloc (TFTM) revision stem. Complications, clinical and radiographic data were obtained from medical records and a locally maintained database. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). All post-operative radiographs were analysed for subsidence, osteolysis and femoral cortical bone remodelling. Mean follow-up was 60 months (range 28–84 months). Subsidence of 1.2 mm was noted in one patient. No cases of clinically significant subsidence (10 mm) were observed. At final follow-up, a statistically significant improvement was noted in functional outcome scores. The mean OHS preoperatively and at final follow-up were 24 (SD 13) and 42 (SD15). p = 0.04 mean difference 18 (95% CI 15–22). The mean WOMAC scores preoperatively and at final follow-up were 62 (SD23) and 88 (SD7) respectively (p < 0.001, mean difference 26; 95% CI 21–34). No stem fractures were noted within the follow-up period. Two patients had revision of the stem's one for infection and another for persistent pain. Positive mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes have been observed with this tapered, fluted, titanium, monobloc stem. Based on these results, this implant may be considered as a viable option in the majority of uncemented femoral revisions.
The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the current evidence for or against this up-and-coming treatment modality. A comprehensive literature search in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Exclusion criteria included patients < 18 years of age, follow-up <11 months, and a score < 6 on the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool.Aim
Method
A septic revision of an artificial joint is routinely split up in a so-called Nine fresh frozen cadaveric hips were used and primary THA was undertaken via a direct anterior approach. Before implantation of the components varying amounts of fluorescent powder (GloGerm) were deposited, simulating bacterial infection. Second, a one-step exchange was performed via a posterolateral approach. After implant removal, debridement, and lavage, randomization determined which clean phase protocol was followed, i.e. no, some or full additional measures. Finally, the new prosthesis was re-implanted (fig. 1). In order to determine the effect of different clean phase protocols on contamination of the sterile field standardized UV light-enhanced photographs were obtained of 1) the gloves, 2) the instrument table, 3) the drapes, and 4) the wound and these were ranked on cleanliness by a blind panel of hip surgeons. In order to determine whether or not it is possible to re-implant the prosthesis completely clean, the implant was taken out again at the end of the one-step exchange and inspected for contamination under UV light.Aim
Method
