Earlier studies dealing with trends in the management of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) identified an increasing rate of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and a decreasing rate of joint-preserving procedures between 1992 and 2008. In an effort to assess new trends in the management of this condition, this study evaluated the annual trends of joint-preserving versus arthroplasties for patients aged < or > 50 years old, and the incidence of specific operative management techniques. A total of 219,371 patients with ONFH were identified from a nationwide database between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. The mean age was 54 years (18 to 90) and 105,298 (48%) were female. The diagnosis was made using International Classification of Disease, Ninth revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) procedure codes. The percentage of patients managed using each procedure during each year was calculated and compared between years. The trends in the use of the types of procedure were also evaluated.Aims
Methods
Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head
is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which
is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical
and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse
its progression, as it usually affects young patients. However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is
available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation
in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes
in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used
effectively. The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date,
evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative,
of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Cite this article:
The pathogenesis of aseptic loosening of total joint prostheses is not clearly understood. Two features are associated with loosened prostheses, namely, particulate debris and movement of the implant. While numerous studies have evaluated the cellular response to particulate biomaterials, few have investigated the influence of movement of the implant on the biological response to particles. Our aim was therefore to test the hypothesis that excessive mechanical stimulation of the periprosthetic tissues induces an inflammatory response and that the addition of particulate biomaterials intensifies this. We allocated 66 adult Beagle dogs to four groups as follows: stable implants with (I) and without (II) particulate polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and moving implants with (III) and without (IV) particulate PMMA. They were then evaluated at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 weeks. The stable implants were well tolerated and a thin, fibrous membrane of connective tissue was observed. There was evidence of positive staining in some cells for interleukin-6 (IL-6). Addition of particulate PMMA around the stable implants resulted in an increase in the fibroblastic response and positive staining for IL-6 and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). By contrast, movement of the implant resulted in an immediate inflammatory response characterised by large numbers of histiocytes and cytokine staining for IL-1ß, TNF-α and IL-6. Introduction of particulate PMMA aggravated this response. Animals with particulate PMMA and movement of the implant have an intense inflammatory response associated with accelerated bone loss. Our results indicate that the initiation of the inflammatory response to biomaterial particles was much slower than that to gross mechanical instability. Furthermore, when there was both particulate debris and movement, there was an amplification of the adverse tissue response as evidenced by the presence of osteolysis and increases in the presence of inflammatory cells and their associated cytokines.
