Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 10_Supple_A | Pages 16 - 19
1 Oct 2015
Oussedik S Abdel MP Cross MB Haddad FS

Many aspects of total knee arthroplasty have changed since its inception. Modern prosthetic design, better fixation techniques, improved polyethylene wear characteristics and rehabilitation, have all contributed to a large change in revision rates. Arthroplasty patients now expect longevity of their prostheses and demand functional improvement to match. This has led to a re-examination of the long-held belief that mechanical alignment is instrumental to a successful outcome and a focus on restoring healthy joint kinematics. A combination of kinematic restoration and uncemented, adaptable fixation may hold the key to future advances.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):16–19.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 93-B, Issue 3 | Pages 293 - 297
1 Mar 2011
Labek G Thaler M Janda W Agreiter M Stöckl B

In a systematic review, reports from national registers and clinical studies were identified and analysed with respect to revision rates after joint replacement, which were calculated as revisions per 100 observed component years.

After primary hip replacement, a mean of 1.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The results after primary total knee replacement are 1.26 revisions per 100 observed component years, and 1.53 after medial unicompartmental replacement. After total ankle replacement a mean of 3.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen.

The outcomes of total hip and knee replacement are almost identical. Revision rates of about 6% after five years and 12% after ten years are to be expected.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 90-B, Issue 7 | Pages 833 - 838
1 Jul 2008
Uçkay I Pittet D Bernard L Lew D Perrier A Peter R

More than a million hip replacements are carried out each year worldwide, and the number of other artificial joints inserted is also rising, so that infections associated with arthroplasties have become more common. However, there is a paucity of literature on infections due to haematogenous seeding following dental procedures. We reviewed the published literature to establish the current knowledge on this problem and to determine the evidence for routine antibiotic prophylaxis prior to a dental procedure.

We found that antimicrobial prophylaxis before dental interventions in patients with artificial joints lacks evidence-based information and thus cannot be universally recommended.