Metal-on-metal total hip replacements (MoM THRs) are frequently revised. However, there is a paucity of data on clinical outcomes following revision surgery in this cohort. We report on outcomes from the largest consecutive series of revisions from MoM THRs and consider pre-revision factors which were prognostic for functional outcome. A single-centre consecutive series of revisions from MoM THRs performed during 2006–2015 was identified through a prospectively maintained, purpose-built joint registry. The cohort was subsequently divided by the presence or absence of symptoms prior to revision. The primary outcome was functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score (OHS)). Secondary outcomes were complication data, pre- and post-revision serum metal ions and modified Oxford classification of pre-revision magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In addition, the study data along with demographic data was interrogated for prognostic factors informing on post-revision functional outcome.Aims
Materials and Methods
Critics of Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) highlight poor survivorship in national joint registries and argue that revision to Total Knee Replacement (TKR) is technically difficult with inferior function and survivorship compared to primary TKR. We prospectively reviewed outcomes of UKRs in our institution undergoing early revision to a TKR, comparing conventional revisions to those performed using computer navigation. 20 cases were identified, 7 conventional and 13 navigated. 13 were male and 7 female, mean age at primary UKR was 63.6 years (range: 47–81). Mean follow up time after revision was 5.2 years (2–9.5). Mean surgical time was 152 mins in conventional revisions and 163 mins for navigated. 43% of conventional cases required revision stems or augments, compared to 15% of conventional cases. Mean Oxford Knee Scores for revised knees were 32.8 in the conventional group and 34.64 in the navigated group, compared to 30.02 in the national joint registry. This compares to a mean Oxford score of 37.16 for primary TKRs in the registry. One of the conventional revisions required a further revision of the tibial component for loosening. This equates to a 95% suvivorship at mean 5 year follow up, or 1.10 revisions per 100 component years. Joint registry data had 1.97 revisions per 100 component years for UKR to TKR revisions, and 0.48 for primary TKRs. Our results are significantly improved compared to other published series of UKR revisions to TKRs. Only one other series has reported outcomes of these revisions using navigation. Despite small numbers, our results suggest that navigation makes revisions of UKRs more straightforward with similar surgical times. Fewer revision components were required with navigation and functional scores were marginally improved.
The Fixion expandable nailing system provides an intramedullary fracture fixation solution without the need for locking screws. Proponents of this system have demonstrated shorter surgery times with rapid fracture healing, but several centres have reported suboptimal results with loss of fixation. This is the largest comparative series to be reported to date. We compared outcomes between 50 consecutive diaphyseal tibial fractures treated with a Fixion device at our institution to an age, sex and fracture configuration matched series of 57 fractures at a neighbouring hospital treated with a conventional interlocked intramedullary nail. Minimum follow up time was 2 years. Operating time was significantly reduced in the Fixion group (mean 61 minutes, range 20–99) compared to the interlocked group (88 minutes, 52–93), p< 0.00001. The union rate was no different between the Fixion group (93.9%) and the interlocked group (96.5%), p=0.527. Time to clinical and radiological union was significantly faster in the Fixion group (median 85 days, range 42–243) compared to the interlocked group (119, 70–362), p< 0.0001. The overall reoperation rate was lower in the Fixion series (24.5% vs 38.6%, p=0.121), although the majority of reoperations in the interlocked group were more minor, for screw removal. 3 Fixion nails were revised for fixation failure and 2 manipulations were required for rotational deformities after falls; all of these patients were non-compliant with post-operative instructions. There were no fixation failures in the interlocked group. 3 fractures were noted to propagate during inflation of Fixion nails. The Fixion nail is faster to implant and allows more physiological loading of the fracture, with a faster union time. However, these advantages are offset by a reduction in construct stability. Our results have demonstrated a learning curve with a reduction in complications as our indications were narrowed, avoiding osteoporotic, multifragmentary, unstable fractures and non-compliant patients
