Objectives. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty. Non-contact induction heating of metal implants is a new and emerging treatment for PJI. However, there may be concerns for potential tissue necrosis. It is thought that segmental induction heating can be used to control the thermal dose and to limit collateral
Electromagnetic induction heating has demonstrated in vitro antibacterial efficacy over biofilms on metallic biomaterials, although no in vivo studies have been published. Assessment of side effects, including thermal necrosis of adjacent tissue, would determine transferability into clinical practice. Our goal was to assess bone necrosis and antibacterial efficacy of induction heating on biofilm-infected implants in an in vivo setting. Titanium-aluminium-vanadium (Ti6Al4V) screws were implanted in medial condyle of New Zealand giant rabbit knee. Study intervention consisted of induction heating of the screw head up to 70°C for 3.5 minutes after implantation using a portable device. Both knees were implanted, and induction heating was applied unilaterally keeping contralateral knee as paired control. Sterile screws were implanted in six rabbits, while the other six received screws coated with Aims
Methods
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MOMHR) is available as an alternative
option for younger, more active patients. There are failure modes
that are unique to MOMHR, which include loosening of the femoral
head and fractures of the femoral neck. Previous studies have speculated
that changes in the vascularity of the femoral head may contribute
to these failure modes. This study compares the survivorship between
the standard posterior approach (SPA) and modified posterior approach
(MPA) in MOMHR. A retrospective clinical outcomes study was performed examining
351 hips (279 male, 72 female) replaced with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing
(BHR, Smith and Nephew, Memphis, Tennessee) in 313 patients with
a pre-operative diagnosis of osteoarthritis. The mean follow-up
period for the SPA group was 2.8 years (0.1 to 6.1) and for the
MPA, 2.2 years (0.03 to 5.2); this difference in follow-up period
was statistically significant (p <
0.01). Survival analysis was
completed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Objectives
Methods