Material and Methods: Four FNEs were retrieved from revision surgeries of four patients with prior intramedullary nail fixation of their pertrochanteric hip fractures complicated by femoral head perforation. The FNEs were divided into two groups based on whether or not there was radiographic evidence of medial migration prior to the revisions. Wear patterns on the FNEs were then assessed using both scanning electron microscopy and light microscopy.
Results: Repetitive, linearly-arranged, regularly-spaced, unique transverse scratch marks were found only in the group with medial migration, corresponding to the specific segment of the FNE that passed through the intramedullary component of the PFNA during medial migration. These scratch marks were absent in the group without medial migration.
Conclusion: Our findings are in support of a ratcheting mechanism behind the medial migration phenomenon with repetitive toggling at the intramedullary nail-FNE interface and progressive propagation of the FNE against gravity.
METHODS: The medical records of 24 patients who underwent repeat MUS surgery at a single tertiary center from January 2004 to February 2014 were reviewed. The types of MUS used for the repeat surgey were transobturator, retropubic and single incision slings. Objective cure was defined as no demonstrable involuntary leakage of urine during increased abdominal pressure in the absence of a detrusor contraction observed during filling cystometry, and subjective cure was defined as a negative response to Urogenital Distress Inventory six (UDI-6) question 3 during follow-up between 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The change in the inclination angle between the urethra and pubic axis was measured with introital ultrasonography and the cotton swab test performed.
RESULTS: The objective and subjective cure rates were 79.2 % and 75 %, respectively. There were no differences in demographics between the patients with failure of surgery and those with successful surgery. Significant independent risk factors for failure of repeat MUS surgery were a change in cotton swab angle at rest and straining of <30° (OR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.5 - 7.9°), a change in inclination angle of <30° (OR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.5 - 7.9°), intrinsic sphincter deficiency (OR 3.4, 95 % CI 1.8 - 6.1) and a mean urethral closure pressure of <60 cm H2O (OR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.5 - 4.5). In one patient the bladder was perforated.
CONCLUSIONS: Repeat MUS surgery is safe and has a good short-term success rate, both objectively and subjectively, with independent risk factors for failure related to bladder neck hypomobility and poor urethral function.
METHODS: Between 2006 and 2012, 22 patients underwent revision surgery using MoM bearing (28 mm femoral head in 18 hips and 32 mm in 4 hips) for ceramic bearing fracture and followed average 52.1 months. We assessed radiological parameter and functional outcome using Harris hip score (HHS) and WOMAC score. Also, serum cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) blood tests were performed and compared with the result obtained from age, sex- and follow-up duration-matched patients with MoM revision THA for failed polyethylene bearing.
RESULTS: The mean HHS improved from 60.6 preoperatively to 90.3 at final follow-up. There were no changes in cup position, progression of osteolytic lesions, and measurable wear of MoM bearing articulation at final follow-up radiographs. There was one case of recurrent dislocation after surgery, which was treated with greater trochanter distal advancement and one case of deep infection, which underwent two-stage revision. Mean serum Co level (1.7 vs. 1.4 μg/dl; p = 0.211) and Cr level (0.70 vs. 1.01 μg/dl; p = 0.327) showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: MoM articulation with liner cementation into the acetabular cup along with total synovectomy can be chosen in revision surgery for ceramic fracture with good midterm follow-up. However, the use of MoM bearing is indicated when the stem and metal shell can be retained and ceramic on ceramic or ceramic on polyethylene bearing cannot be selected. Also long-term outcome needs to be further evaluated.
METHODS: Retrospective review of 48 patients (48 hips) with follow-up duration of average 11.4 years (range, 6.1-21.4 years) was conducted. At each follow-up, Harris hip score was used to assess functional outcome, and radiographic acetabular component osteolysis was measured by DeLee and Charnley classification. Bone defects were assessed preoperatively and intraoperatively using American academy of orthopedic surgeons and Paprosky classification. The common modes of ARRH failures were evaluated. Bone consolidation, presence of heterotopic ossification, and complications such as infection and dislocation were recorded.
RESULTS: The bone defects were varied and included cavitary, segmental, and combined defects without any pelvic discontinuity. Mean Harris hip score improved from 52.6 points preoperatively to 82.0 points postoperatively. Nine acetabular revisions and 3 stem revisions (2 concurrent with acetabular revisions and 1 isolated stem revision) were performed. There were 5 infected cases and 1 patient with recurrent dislocation. The 11.4-year survival of revision THA with ARRH was 71% as the end point for acetabular revision surgery for any reason. The expected 15-year survival of revision THA with ARRH was 60%. The most common failure mode of ARRH was superomedial migration followed by lateral migration.
CONCLUSION: ARRH combined with bone grafting produces relatively good average long-term clinical results.
Materials and Methods: We reviewed prospectively collected data in our tertiary hospital arthroplasty registry and identified patients who underwent revision THA between 2001 and 2014, with a minimum of two years follow-up. The study group (two-stage revision THA for PJI) consists of 23 patients and the control group (one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons) consists of 231 patients. Patient demographics, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores and patient reported satisfaction were evaluated. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables between the two groups. Statistical significance was defined as p <0.05.
Results: The pre-operative demographics and clinical scores were relatively similar between the two groups of patients. At two years, patients who underwent revision THA for PJI reported a better WOMAC Pain Score and OHS as compared to aseptic revision THA. A similar proportion of patients were satisfied with their results of surgery in both groups (p=0.093).
Conclusions: Although patients who underwent revision THA for PJI had poorer pre-operative functional scores (WOMAC function and SF-36 PF), at two years follow-up, these two groups of patients have comparable post-operative outcomes. Interestingly, patients who had revision THA for PJI reported a better clinical outcome in terms of OHS and WOMAC Pain score as compared to the aseptic group. We conclude that the revision THA for PJI is not inferior to aseptic revision THA in terms of patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.