Loosening of the tibial component after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common indication for revision. Increasing the strength of the initial tibial implant/cement interface is desirable. There is little information about the surgical techniques that lead to the highest strength. We investigated the effects of eight variables on the strength of the initial tibial baseplate/cement interface. A total of 48 tibial trays were cemented into acrylic holders using cement from two manufacturers, at three different times (early, normal, and late) using two techniques: cementing the tibial plateau or the plateau and the keel; and involving two conditions of contamination with marrow fat (at the metal/cement and cement/cement interfaces). Push-out tests were performed with load continuously recorded.Aims
Materials and Methods
There is evidence that high levels of physical
activity following arthroplasty of the hip or knee can lead to early revision.
However, the term ‘highly active’ is not well defined. A validated ankle accelerometer was used to quantify activity
in 13 patients, who had undergone a total of 20 arthroplasties of
the lower limbs and who had active lifestyles. The assessments were
taken at a mean of 8.7 years post-operatively (1.8 to 15.8). The mean gait cycles per day was 8273 (5964 to 12 557), which
extrapolates to 3.0 million cycles per year (cpy) (2.2 to 4.6).
The mean percentage of time spent in high activity mode was 4.3%,
or about one hour per day. The mean percentage of cycles in high
activity was 40%. Based on these data, we propose the following definitions of
high activity: >
3 million cpy; one hour per day in high activity
mode; 40% of cycles in high activity mode. Extrapolating the sample of activity over the time since operation,
the mean cycles per arthroplasty was 25.2 million, with a maximum
of 44.1 million. No joint has been revised, or shows evidence of
impending failure. Cite this article:
A modular femoral head–neck junction has practical
advantages in total hip replacement. Taper fretting and corrosion
have so far been an infrequent cause of revision. The role of design
and manufacturing variables continues to be debated. Over the past
decade several changes in technology and clinical practice might
result in an increase in clinically significant taper fretting and
corrosion. Those factors include an increased usage of large diameter
(36 mm) heads, reduced femoral neck and taper dimensions, greater
variability in taper assembly with smaller incision surgery, and
higher taper stresses due to increased patient weight and/or physical
activity. Additional studies are needed to determine the role of
taper assembly compared with design, manufacturing and other implant
variables. Cite this article:
Since 1996 more than one million metal-on-metal
articulations have been implanted worldwide. Adverse reactions to
metal debris are escalating. Here we present an algorithmic approach
to patient management. The general approach to all arthroplasty
patients returning for follow-up begins with a detailed history,
querying for pain, discomfort or compromise of function. Symptomatic
patients should be evaluated for intra-articular and extra-articular
causes of pain. In large head MoM arthroplasty, aseptic loosening
may be the source of pain and is frequently difficult to diagnose.
Sepsis should be ruled out as a source of pain. Plain radiographs
are evaluated to rule out loosening and osteolysis, and assess component
position. Laboratory evaluation commences with erythrocyte sedimentation
rate and C-reactive protein, which may be elevated. Serum metal
ions should be assessed by an approved facility. Aspiration, with
manual cell count and culture/sensitivity should be performed, with
cloudy to creamy fluid with predominance of monocytes often indicative
of failure. Imaging should include ultrasound or metal artifact
reduction sequence MRI, specifically evaluating for fluid collections
and/or masses about the hip. If adverse reaction to metal debris
is suspected then revision to metal or ceramic-on-polyethylene is indicated
and can be successful. Delay may be associated with extensive soft-tissue
damage and hence poor clinical outcome.
The differential diagnosis of the painful total
hip arthroplasty (resurfacing or total hip) includes infection,
failure of fixation (loosening), tendinitis, bursitis, synovitis,
adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to cobalt-chromium alloys,
and non-hip issues, such as spinal disorders, hernia, gynecologic,
and other pelvic pain. Assuming that the hip is the source of pain,
the first level question is prosthetic or non-prosthetic pain generator?
The second level prosthetic question is septic or aseptic? The third
level question (aseptic hips) is well-fixed or loose? ALTR is best
diagnosed by cross-sectional imaging. Successful treatment is dependent
on correct identification and elimination of the pain generator.
Treatment recommendations for ALTR and taper corrosion are evolving.