A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic
surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular
and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing
with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based
substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these
options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date
there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using
bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of
revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating
the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs
appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies
have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing
a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account
the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material. Cite this article:
We report the use of porous metal acetabular
revision shells in the treatment of contained bone loss. The outcomes of
53 patients with
Use of the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased in recent years due to proposed benefits, including a lower risk of dislocation and improved early functional recovery. This study investigates the dislocation rate in a non-selective, consecutive cohort undergoing THA via the DAA without any exclusion or bias in patient selection based on habitus, deformity, age, sex, or fixation method. We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing THA via the DAA between 2011 and 2017 at our institution. Primary outcome was dislocation at minimum two-year follow-up. Patients were stratified by demographic details and risk factors for dislocation, and an in-depth analysis of dislocations was performed.Aims
Methods
The removal of all prosthetic material and a
two-stage revision procedure is the established standard management of
an infected total hip replacement (THR). However, the removal of
well-fixed femoral cement is time-consuming and can result in significant
loss of bone stock and femoral shaft perforation or fracture. We
report our results of two-stage revision THR for treating infection,
with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle
in 15 patients, who were treated between 1989 and 2002. Following
partial excision arthroplasty, patients received local and systemic
antibiotics and underwent reconstruction and re-implantation at
a second-stage procedure, when the infection had resolved. The mean follow-up of these 15 patients was 82 months (60 to
192). Two patients had positive microbiology at the second stage
and were treated with six weeks of appropriate antibiotics; one
of these developed recurrent infection requiring further revision.
Successful eradication of infection was achieved in the remaining
14 patients. We conclude that when two-stage revision is used for the treatment
of peri-prosthetic infection involving a THR, a well-fixed femoral
cement mantle can be safely left