This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA.Aims
Methods
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 primary aim of this paper was to outline the processes involved in building the Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR), established in April 2016 to capture baseline and outcome data for patients undergoing arthroplasty in a regional healthcare system. A secondary aim was to determine the quality of PAR’s data. A tertiary aim was to report preliminary findings from the registry and contributions to quality improvement initiatives and research up to March 2019. Structured Query Language was used to obtain data relating to patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) from the hospital network’s electronic medical record (EMR) system to be included in the PAR. Data were stored in a secure database and visualized in dashboards. Quality assurance of PAR data was performed by review of the medical records. Capture rate was determined by comparing two months of PAR data with operating room schedules. Linear and binary logistic regression models were constructed to determine if length of stay (LOS), discharge to a care home, and readmission rates improved between 2016 and 2019.Aims
Methods
Pelvic discontinuity represents a rare but challenging
problem for orthopaedic surgeons. It is most commonly encountered
during revision total hip replacement, but can also result from
an iatrogentic acetabular fracture during hip replacement. The general
principles in management of pelvic discontinuity include restoration
of the continuity between the ilium and the ischium, typically with
some form of plating. Bone grafting is frequently required to restore
pelvic bone stock. The acetabular component is then impacted, typically
using an uncemented, trabecular metal component. Fixation with multiple
supplemental screws is performed. For larger defects, a so-called
‘cup–cage’ reconstruction, or a custom triflange implant may be
required. Pre-operative CT scanning can greatly assist in planning
and evaluating the remaining bone stock available for bony ingrowth.
Generally, good results have been reported for constructs that restore
stability to the pelvis and allow some form of biologic ingrowth. Cite this article:
We have reviewed the current literature to compare
the results of surgery aimed to repair or debride a damaged acetabular
labrum. We identified 28 studies to be included in the review containing
a total of 1631 hips in 1609 patients. Of these studies 12 reported
a mean rate of good results of 82% (from 67% to 100%) for labral debridement.
Of the 16 studies that reported a combination of debridement and
re-attachment, five reported a comparative outcome for the two methods,
four reported better results with re-attachment and one study did
not find any significant difference in outcomes. Due to the heterogeneity
of the studies it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis or
draw accurate conclusions. Confounding factors in the studies include
selection bias, use of historical controls and high rates of loss
of follow-up. It seems logical to repair an unstable tear in a good quality
labrum with good potential to heal in order potentially to preserve
its physiological function. A degenerative labrum on the other hand
may be the source of discomfort and its preservation may result
in persistent pain and the added risk of failure of re-attachment.
The results of the present study do not support routine refixation
for all labral tears. Cite this article:
