Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 3 | Pages 381 - 386
1 Mar 2016
Prasad N Ali A Stanley D

Aims

We review our experience of Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) for fractures of the distal humerus in non-rheumatoid patients with a minimum of ten years follow-up.

Patients and Methods

TEA through a triceps splitting approach was peformed in 37 non-rheumatoid patients for a fracture of the distal humerus between 1996 and 2004. One patient could not be traced and 17 had died before the tenth anniversary of their surgery. This left 19 patients with a minimum follow-up of ten years to form the study group. Of these, 13 patients were alive at the time of final review. The other six had died, but after the tenth anniversary of their elbow arthroplasty. Their clinical and radiological data were included in the study.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 3 | Pages 367 - 370
1 Mar 2013
Bini SA Chen Y Khatod M Paxton EW

We evaluated the impact of pre-coating the tibial component with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) on implant survival in a cohort of 16 548 primary NexGen total knee replacements (TKRs) in 14 113 patients. In 13 835 TKRs a pre-coated tray was used while in 2713 TKRs the non-pre-coated version of the same tray was used. All the TKRs were performed between 2001 and 2009 and were cemented. TKRs implanted with a pre-coated tibial component had a lower cumulative survival than those with a non-pre-coated tibial component (p = 0.01). After adjusting for diagnosis, age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, femoral coupling design, surgeon volume and hospital volume, pre-coating was an independent risk factor for all-cause aseptic revision (hazard ratio 2.75, p = 0.006). Revision for aseptic loosening was uncommon for both pre-coated and non-pre-coated trays (rates of 0.12% and 0%, respectively). Pre-coating with PMMA does not appear to be protective of revision for this tibial tray design at short-term follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:367–70.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 11_Supple_A | Pages 11 - 13
1 Nov 2012
Cuckler JM

Hip implant retrieval analysis is the most important source of insight into the performance of new materials and designs of hip arthroplasties. Even the most rigorous in vitro testing will not accurately simulate the behavior of implant materials and new designs of prosthetic arthroplasties. Retrieval analysis has revealed such factors as the effects of gamma-in-air sterilisation of polyethylene, fatigue failure mechanisms of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement, fretting corrosion of Morse taper junctions, third body wear effects of both hard-on-hard and hard-on-soft bearing couples, and the effects of impingement of components on the full spectrum of bearing surfaces, none of which was predicted by pre-implantation in vitro testing of these materials and combinations. The temporal sequence of the retrieval process is approximately six years from first implantation through retrieval analysis, laboratory investigation, and publication of results, and thus, in addition to rigorous clinical evaluation, represents the true development and insight cycle for new designs and materials.