Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
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


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_6 | Pages 13 - 13
2 May 2024
Wijesekera M East J Chan CD Hadfield J As-Sultany M Kassam A Petheram T Jones HW Palan J Jain S
Full Access

This large UK multicentre study evaluates clinical outcomes and identifies factors associated with local complication following PFR for non-oncological conditions. 132 patients across four UK centres underwent PFR from 01/08/2004-28/03/2023 with median follow-up of 1.9 (Q10.5-Q34.2) years. 75 (56.8%) patients were female and the mean age was 74.0 (SD 11.7) years. 103 (78%) patients had Charleston Comorbidity Index ≥3. ASA class was III or IV in 66.6%. Indications were infected revision (39, 29.5%), periprosthetic fracture (36, 27.3%), acute trauma (30, 22.7%), aseptic revision (17, 12.9%), failed trauma (nine, 6.8%) and complex primary arthroplasty (one, 0.8%). The primary outcome was the local complication rate. Secondary outcomes were systemic complications, reoperation and mortality rates. Comparisons were made with t-tests and Chi2 tests to investigate patient and surgical factors associated with local complication. Statistical significance was p<0.05. There were 37(28.0%) local complications. These were 18 (13.6%) dislocations, eight (6.1%) prosthetic joint infections, four (3.0%) haematomas, three (2.3%) superficial infections, one (0.8%) wound dehiscence, one (0.8%) sciatic nerve palsy and one (0.8%) femoral perforation. Dislocation mostly occurred in conventional articulations (12, 9.1%) followed by dual-mobility cups (three, 2.3%), constrained cups (two, 1.5%) and hemiarthroplasty (one, 0.8%). Median time to local complication was 30 (Q14-Q3 133) days. Seven (5.3%) patients developed a systemic complication. Thirty-three (25.0%) patients underwent reoperation. Thirty-day and one-year mortality rates were 3.8% and 12.1%, respectively. Longer surgical waiting times (7.9 \[SD 16.9) versus 2.6 \[SD 4.4\] days, p<0.001) and longer operating times (212.5 \[SD 71.8\] versus 189.4 \[SD 59.3\] mins, p=0.0450) were associated with local complication. Due to its high complication rate, PFR should be a salvage option when performed for non-oncological indications. Conventional articulations should be avoided. PFR should be delivered in a timely manner and ideally as dual-consultant cases to reduce operating time


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 3 | Pages 229 - 235
11 Mar 2022
Syam K Unnikrishnan PN Lokikere NK Wilson-Theaker W Gambhir A Shah N Porter M

Aims. With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results. At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion. Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 3 | Pages 312 - 317
1 Mar 2015
Amanatullah DF Howard JL Siman H Trousdale RT Mabry TM Berry DJ

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging when there is severe loss of bone in the proximal femur. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision THA in patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss treated with a fluted, tapered, modular femoral component. Between January 1998 and December 2004, 92 revision THAs were performed in 92 patients using a single fluted, tapered, modular femoral stem design. Pre-operative diagnoses included aseptic loosening, infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Bone loss was categorised pre-operatively as Paprosky types III-IV, or Vancouver B3 in patients with a peri-prosthetic fracture. The mean clinical follow-up was 6.4 years (2 to 12). A total of 47 patients had peri-operative complications, 27 of whom required further surgery. However, most of these further operations involved retention of a well-fixed femoral stem, and 88/92 femoral components (97%) remained in situ. Of the four components requiring revision, three were revised for infection and were well fixed at the time of revision; only one (1%) was revised for aseptic loosening. The most common complications were post-operative instability (17 hips, 19%) and intra-operative femoral fracture during insertion of the stem (11 hips, 12%). Diaphyseal stress shielding was noted in 20 hips (22%). There were no fractures of the femoral component. At the final follow-up 78% of patients had minimal or no pain.

Revision THA in patients with extensive proximal femoral bone loss using the Link MP fluted, tapered, modular stem led to a high rate of osseointegration of the stem at mid-term follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:312–17.