Our department is responsible specifically for complex cases resulting from trauma. Our experience does not want to add what has been clearly demonstrated by multicenter studies on the efficacy of rivaroxaban but aims to demonstrate how the use of this molecule was effective also in mega-prosthesis and how it has proven to be flexible and safe in dealing with difficulties and surgical complications more common in such difficult cases. From January 2010 to date DVT prophylaxis in THR / TKR and revision was routinely performed with rivaroxaban. To date, in addition to first implant/revision in THR/TKR we treated over 30 cases of large segments replacements (large segments+mega-prosthesis) and we have not highlighted complications attributable to rivaroxaban.Introduction
Materials and Methods
The development of new megaprosthesis for the treatment of large bone defects has offered important opportunities to orthopedic oncologic surgeons for the replacement of skeletal segments such as the long bones of the upper and lower limbs and the relative joints. Our experience, treating non union and severe bone loss, has brought us, sometimes, to be confronted with the reality of some failures after unsuccessful attempts to reconstruct. Faced with certain radiological and / or clinical drastic situations we wanted to apply the principles of Biological Chamber and oncologic surgery with megaprosthetic replacement solutions. We implanted megaprosthesis with either 1 step or 2 steps (previous antibiotated spacer) technique depending on the septic patient conditions. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate both clinical and radiological outcomes in patients underwented to a lower limb megaprosthesis implant and complications were recorded. In total, we treated 58 patients with megaprosthesis mono-and bi-articular subdivided as follows: proximal femur, distal femur, proximal tibia and total femur. The mean follow-up of patients is about 24 months (5 yrs max, min 6 months) with clinical and serial radiographic revaluations with standard methods (X-ray in 45 days, 3–6-12-18-24 months) as well as monitoring of blood parameters of inflammation for at least 2 monthsIntroduction
Materials and Methods
The hip arthroplasty implant is currently growing up both in orthopedic and trauma practice. This increases the frequency of prosthesis revision due to implant loosening often associated with periprosthetic osteolysis that determine the failure and lead to a loss of bone substance. Nowadays there are numerous biotechnologies seeking to join or substitute the autologous or omologous bone use. These biotechnologies (mesenchymal stromal cells, growth factors and bone substitutes) may be used in such situations, however, the literature doesn't offer class 1 clinical evidences in this field of application. We performed a literature review using the universally validated search engines in the biomedical field: PubMed / Medline, Google Scholar, Scopus, EMBASE. The keywords used were: “Growth Factors”, “Platelet Rich Plasma”, “OP-1”, “BMP”, “BMP-2”, “BMP-7”, “Demineralized Bone Matrix”, “Stem Cell”, “Bone Marrow”, “Scaffold”, “Bone Substitutes” were crossed with “hip”, “revision”, “replacement” / “arthroplasty”, “bone loss” / “osteolysis.”INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
