Adequate perpendicular access to the posterolateral talar dome for osteochondral defect repair is difficult to achieve and a number of different surgical approaches have been described. This cadaveric study examined the exposure available from various approaches to help guide pre-operative surgical planning.

Four surgical approaches were performed in a step-wise manner on 9 Thiel-embalmed cadavers; anterolateral approach with arthrotomy, anterolateral approach with anterior talo-fibular ligament (ATFL) release, anterolateral approach with antero-lateral tibial osteotomy, and anterolateral approach with lateral malleolus osteotomy. The furthest distance posteriorly which allowed perpendicular access with a 2mm k-wire to the lateral surface of the talar dome was measured from the anterior aspect of the talar dome.

The mean antero-posterior diameter of the lateral talar domes included in this study was 45.1mm. An anterolateral approach to the ankle with arthrotomy provided a mean exposure of the anterior 1/3rd of the lateral talar dome. ATFL release increased this to 43.2%. A lateral malleolus osteotomy provided superior exposure (81.5% vs 58.8%) compared to an anterolateral tibial osteotomy.

Only the anterior half of the lateral border of the talar dome could be accessed with an anterolateral approach without osteotomy. A fibular osteotomy provided best exposure to the posterolateral aspect of the talar dome and is recommended for lesions affecting the posterior half of the lateral talar dome.

There is debate whether a home run screw (medial cuneiform to 2nd metatarsal base) combined with k-wire fixation of 4th & 5th rays is sufficient to stabilise Lisfrance injuries or if fixation of the 3rd ray is also required. Unlike the 2nd, 4th and 5th TMTJ, stabilisation of the 3rd requires either intra-articular screw or a cross joint plate which both risk causing chondrolysis and/or OA.

Using 8 Theil embalmed specimens, measurements of TMTJ dorsal displacement at each ray (1st to 5th) and 1st – 2nd metatarsal gaping were made during simulated weight bearing with sequential ligamentous injury and stabilisation to determine the contribution of anatomical structures and fixation to stability.

At baseline mean dorsal TMTJ displacement of the intact specimens during simulated weight bearing (mm) was: 1st: 0.14, 2nd: 0.1, 3rd:0, 4th: 0, 5th: 0.14. The 1st-2nd IM Gap was 0mm. After transection of the Lisfranc ligament only, there was 1st-2nd intermetatarsal gaping (mean 4.5mm), but no increased dorsal displacement. After additional transection of all the TMTJ ligaments dorsal displacement increased at all joints (1st: 4.5, 2nd: 5.1, 3rd: 3.6, 4th: 2, 5th: 1.3). Stabilisation with the home run screw and 4th and 5th ray k-wires virtually eliminated all displacement. Further transection of the 3rd/4th inter-metatarsal ligaments increased mean dorsal displacement of the 3rd ray to 2.5mm. K-wire fixation of the 3rd ray completely eliminated dorsal displacement.

The results suggest that stabilising the 2nd and 4/5th TMTJs will stabilise the 3rd if the inter-metatarsal ligaments are intact. Thus 3rd TMTJ stability should be checked after stabilising the 2nd and 4/5th. Provided the intermetatarsal ligaments (3rd-4th) are intact the 3rd ray does not need to be stabilised routinely.

The posterior approach to the hip avoids violating abductors and has presumed functional advantages. The anterolateral approach risks abductor damage, but has reportedly lower dislocation rate.

To determine effects of surgical approach on function and dislocation after primary and revision THR 3274 primary THRs and 66 first time revision THRs were investigated from the arthroplasty database (2000–2008).

2682 (82%) primary THRs were via anterolateral approach, 592 (18%) by posterior. Post primary dislocation rate was 50/2682 (1.9%) for anterolateral and 26/592 (4.4%) for posterior. Posterior approach had significantly better Harris Hip Scores: 91 vs 88 (P = 0.000) and function: 40 vs 37 (P = 0.000). Of the 66 revisions THRs, 30 were anterolateral and 36 posterior. Dislocation rates were 2/30 (6.7%) and 4/36 (11.1%) respectively. There was no significant difference in Harris Hip Score or Harris Hip Function 1 year after revision based on revision surgery approach. However there was a significant difference in Harris Hip Function 1 year after revision based on the approach for primary surgery (Anterolateral 30 vs Posterior 37, P=0.008) and a similar trend in Harris Hip Score (Anterolateral 79 vs Posterior 85, P = 0.198) and patients who had posterior approach for both primary and revision had the best scores overall.

The clinical relevance of the modest, but statistically significant difference in Harris hip score after primary THR is unclear. That primary approach has an impact on function after revision suggests the posterior approach should be considered in younger patients likely to require revision in the future.

Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) screening has reduced rates of MRSA infection in primary total hip (THR) and total knee (TKR) replacements. There are reports of increasing methicillin resistance (MR) in Coagulase Negative Staphylococci (CNS) causing arthroplasty infections. We examined microbiological results of all 2-stage THR/TKR revisions in Tayside from 2001–2010.

72 revisions in 67 patients were included; 30 THRs and 42 TKRs. Mean ages at revision were 89 and 72 years respectively. Male: female ratio 1.4:1.2-year survivorship for all endpoints: 96% in THRs and 88% in TKRs. 5-year survival: 83% and 84% respectively.

The most common organisms were SA (30%) and CNS (29%). Antibiotic resistance was more common amongst CNS. 72% of CNS were resistant to Methicillin versus 20% of SA. 80% of CNS were resistant to Gentamicin OR Methicillin versus 20% of SA. 32% (8/72 cases or 11% overall) of CNS were resistant to BOTH Gentamicin AND Methicillin, the primary arthroplasty antibiotic prophylaxis in our region, versus 4% of SA.

Harris Hip Scores and Knee Society Scores were lower post primary, prior to symptoms of infection in patients who had MR organisms cultured compared with those who had methicillin sensitive organisms. One-year post revision both groups recovered to similar scores.

Our data suggest MR-CNS cause significantly more arthroplasty infections than MRSA. Patients developing MR infections tend to have poorer post-primary knee and hip scores before symptoms of infection fully develop. 32% of CNS causing arthroplasty infections in our region are resistant to current routine primary antibiotic prophylaxis.

Background

Metal on metal hip resurfacing has become popular worldwide for younger patients because of perceived advantages in function and ease of revision, due to bone conservation. Joint Registry data have shown increased risk of early failure, particularly in younger females. There have been few studies comparing the outcome of resurfacing to cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Background

BOA Guidelines recommend clinical and radiological follow-up after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) at 1 and 5 years, and every 5 years thereafter to detect asymptomatic failure and allow early intervention. As revision surgery in asymptomatic patients is rare the need for routine follow-up in well-functioning individuals has recently been questioned. To evaluate the role of routine follow-up out-patient appointments (OPA) in identifying failing implants the modes of presentation for patients undergoing revision THA were reviewed.

British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) Guidelines recommend clinical and radiological follow-up after Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) at 1 year, 5 years and every 5 years thereafter to detect asymptomatic failure. To evaluate the importance of routine follow-up appointments (OPAs) in detecting failing implants the presentation of patients undergoing revision THA was reviewed.

176 patients who received 183 first-time revision THAs over a seven-year period (2003-2010) were identified from an arthroplasty database. A preliminary study sampled 46 THAs in 45 patients. Retrospective chart review recorded symptoms and mode of presentation. Follow-up OPA costs were calculated to estimate savings.

All patients had symptoms at the time of revision (pain 96%, decreased mobility 76%, limp 35%, stiffness 26%, night pain 24%). Route of presentation was 80% new referrals (GP 63%, in-patient 9%, A&E 4%, Rheumatology 4%) vs 20% routine orthopaedic follow-up. The minimum cost for a routine follow-up OPA was £35. Assuming discharge after the earliest review when the patient has returned to full normal activities the estimated saving for the 2009 cohort of 377 primary THAs performed in our hospital is £13195 at 1 year and £52780 over the lifespan of the implants (assuming average 15 year survival).

Following uncomplicated primary cemented THA in our hospital asymptomatic implant failure is unlikely. Symptomatic patients tend to present mainly to their GP and other specialities, rather than orthopaedic follow-up OPAs. Early discharge after return to full normal activities would be safe and lead to significant financial savings.