RESUMO
AIMS: We aimed to compare the implant survival, complications, readmissions, and mortality of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) treated with internal fixation with that of B1 PFFs treated with internal fixation and B2 fractures treated with revision arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 112 PFFs, of which 47 (42%) B1 and 27 (24%) B2 PFFs were treated with internal fixation, whereas 38 (34%) B2 fractures underwent revision arthroplasty. Decision to perform internal fixation for B2 PFFs was based on specific radiological (polished femoral components, intact bone-cement interface) and clinical criteria (low-demand patient). Median follow-up was 36.4 months (24 to 60). Implant survival and mortality over time were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events (measured with a modified Dindo-Clavien classification) and 90-day readmissions were additionally compared between groups. RESULTS: In all, nine (8.01%) surgical failures were detected. All failures occurred within the first 24 months following surgery. The 24-month implant survival was 95.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89.13 to 100) for B1 fractures treated with internal fixation, 90% (95% CI 76.86 to 100) for B2 PFFs treated with osteosynthesis-only, and 85.8% (95% CI 74.24 to 97.36) for B2 fractures treated with revision THA, without significant differences between groups (p = 0.296). Readmissions and major adverse events including mortality were overall high, but similar between groups (p > 0.05). The two-year patient survival rate was 87.1% (95% CI 77.49 to 95.76), 66.7% (95% CI 48.86 to 84.53), and 84.2% (95% CI 72.63 to 95.76), for the B1 group, B2 osteosynthesis group, and B2 revision group, respectively (p = 0.102). CONCLUSION: Implant survival in Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with internal fixation was similar to that of B1 fractures treated with the same method and to B2 PFFs treated with revision arthroplasty. Low-demand, elderly patients with B2 fractures around well-cemented polished femoral components with an intact bone-cement interface can be safely treated with internal fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1222-1230.
Assuntos
Artroplastia de Quadril/métodos , Fraturas do Fêmur/cirurgia , Fixação Interna de Fraturas/métodos , Prótese de Quadril , Fraturas Periprotéticas/cirurgia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Cimentação , Feminino , Fraturas do Fêmur/classificação , Fraturas do Fêmur/mortalidade , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Readmissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Fraturas Periprotéticas/classificação , Fraturas Periprotéticas/mortalidade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/mortalidade , Desenho de Prótese , Falha de Prótese , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
AIMS: There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the one-stage exchange. Surgeons should be aware of instability and periprosthetic fracture being potential causes of further aseptic revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1247-1253.
Assuntos
Artroplastia de Quadril , Fêmur/patologia , Prótese de Quadril , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/cirurgia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Reabsorção Óssea/patologia , Técnica Delphi , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Incidência , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Osteoporose/patologia , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/epidemiologia , Reoperação , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Compare the clinical and radiological outcome of CFP stem with the MiniHip design in a prospective series, with special interest in intraoperative periprosthetic fracture (IPPF). METHODS: We prospectively followed 101 cases treated with the MiniHip stem (Group 1) and 89 with the CFP stem (Group 2) operated between 2010 and 2014. No significant demographic differences were observed between both groups. Median follow-up was 72 months. Average stem length was 41% shorter in the MiniHip group (p < 0.001). Radiological parameters were measured and a logistcic regression model was created to evaluate factors associated with IPPF. RESULTS: Mean mHHS improved from 54 to 95 in the MiniHip group (p < 0.001) and from 64 to 98 in the CFP group (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in terms of loosening, infection or instability. We observed 7 IPPFs (3.68%), 3 in group 1 and 4 in group 2. After adjusting for confounders, CFP was not associated with a greater risk of IPPF (OR 3.23; 95% CI, 0.250-42.034, p = 0.368), however, a more complex fracture pattern was observed with this stem design. Prior acetabular fractures were associated with IPPF (OR 66.85; 95% CI, 1.142-3911, p = 0.043). Compared to Dorr A femurs, type Dorr B appeared protective against IPPF (OR 0.039; 95% CI, 0.001-1.109, p = 0.058). Valgus alignment tended to increase the risk of IPPF (OR 20.59; 95% CI 0.870-487.221, p = 0.061). CONCLUSIONS: MiniHip showed similar radiological outcomes to CFP at short- to mid-term follow-up without increasing IPPFs with a shorter stem length. Given that CFP produced a more complex IPPF pattern, surgeons should be cautious with alignment of this particular design, especially in Dorr A femur.
Assuntos
Artroplastia de Quadril , Prótese de Quadril , Artroplastia de Quadril/efeitos adversos , Fêmur/diagnóstico por imagem , Fêmur/cirurgia , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Desenho de Prótese , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
AIMS: We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 96 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for PJI. The mean follow-up was 90 months (SD 32). Septic failure was assessed using a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any further surgery undertaken for aseptic mechanical causes was considered as aseptic failure. The cumulative incidence with competing risk analysis was used to predict the risk of septic failure. A regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic failure. The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was also analyzed. RESULTS: There were 23 septic failures at final follow-up, with a cumulative incidence of 14% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8% to 22%) at one year, 18% (95% CI 11% to 27%) at two years, 22% (95% CI 14% to 31%) at five years, and 23% (95% CI 15% to 33%) at ten years. Having at least one positive culture (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38 (interquartile range (IQR) 1.19 to 4.74); p = 0.013), or a positive intraoperative frozen section (HR 2.55 (IQR 1.06 to 6.15); p = 0.037) was significantly associated with septic failure after reimplantation. With dislocation being the most common cause of aseptic revision (5.2%), the cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 1% (95% CI 0% to 5%) at one year, 6% (95% CI 1% to 8%) at five years, and 8% (95%CI 3% to 17%) at ten years. CONCLUSION: If there is no recurrent infection in the five years following reimplantation, the chances of further infection thereafter are remote. While the results of a frozen section may be a reliable guide to the timing of reimplantation, intraoperative culture has, currently, only prognostic value. Surgeons should be aware that instability remains a potential indication for further revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):79-86.
Assuntos
Artroplastia de Quadril/métodos , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/classificação , Reoperação/métodos , Idoso , Biomarcadores/análise , Técnica Delphi , Feminino , Prótese de Quadril , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Falha de Prótese , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
Acute peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a potentially devastating and undesired complication, with a prevalence of 0.3% to 2.9%. Its suspicion begins with a meticulous physical examination and anamnesis. Diagnosis should be made on the basis of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. Serum and synovial biomarkers are very useful tools when major criteria are absent.Although sometimes not possible due to medical conditions, surgery is usually the first line of treatment. Although its outcome is highly correlated with the isolated microorganism, irrigation and debridement with implant retention (DAIR) is the gold standard for treatment. Ideally, the prior approach should be proximally and distally extended to augment the field of view and remove all of the prosthetic modular components, that is, femoral head and acetabular insert.Given DAIR's unclear control of infection, with successful outcomes in the range of 30% to 95%, one- or two-stage revision protocols may play a role in certain cases of acute infections; nonetheless, further prospective, randomized studies are necessary to compare long-term outcomes between DAIR and revision surgeries.Following surgical treatment, length of antibiotherapy is in the range of six weeks to six months, without any difference in outcomes between short and long protocols. Treatment should be adjusted to the isolated bacteria and controlled further with post-operative serum biomarker levels. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:434-441. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170032.
RESUMO
Objetivo: Analizar los resultados funcionales y las complicaciones a corto plazo de la prótesis invertida de hombro según diferentes patologías. Materiales y Métodos: Entre 2009 y 2013, se colocaron 85 prótesis invertidas de hombro. Las indicaciones fueron: artropatía por ruptura del manguito rotador, artrosis glenohumeral, fracturas de húmero proximal y artroplastias de revisión. Se evaluó a los pacientes clínica y radiológicamente, y fueron analizados según los diferentes grupos. Resultados: El seguimiento promedio fue de 42 meses (rango 26-60) y la media de la edad, de 74.5 años (rango 56-90). El puntaje de Constant mejoró de 16,7 a 62,1 en promedio (p <0,001) y el de ASES, de 12,7 a 68,8 en promedio (p <0,001). La elevación aumentó de 80,5° a 111,5° (p <0,001). No hubo mejoría significativa en las rotaciones interna ni externa. Sesenta pacientes (78,9%) refirieron estar muy satisfechos/satisfechos. En 22 pacientes (27,8%), se hallaron muescas en el borde inferior de la glena. La tasa de complicaciones fue del 20%, y estas fueron más frecuentes en el grupo de fracturas y artroplastias de revisión. Conclusiones: La prótesis invertida de hombro mejora significativamente los puntajes funcionales, la flexión anterior y la abducción, independientemente de la indicación quirúrgica. Presenta limitaciones con respecto a las rotaciones externa e interna en el posoperatorio. Es una alternativa válida en múltiples patologías de hombro; sin embargo, la tasa de complicaciones es elevada, por lo que su indicación debe ser precisa, especialmente en pacientes tratados por fracturas o en cirugías de revisión. Nivel de Evidencia: IV
Objective: The purpose of this study is to analyze the short-term functional results and complications of the reverse shoulder prosthesis according to different etiologies. Methods: Between 2009 and 2013, 85 reverse shoulder arthroplasties were performed. Surgical indications included: rotator cuff tear artropathy, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, proximal humeral fractures and revision arthroplasty. Patients were clinically and radiologically evaluated and analyzed in different groups. Results: The mean follow-up was 42 months (range 26-60) and the mean age was 74.5 years (range 56-90). Constant score improved from 16.7 to 62.1 on average (p<.001) while ASES score improved from 12.7 to 68.8 on average (p<.001). Elevation increased from 80.5° to 111.5° (p<.001). There was no significant improvement in internal and external rotation. Sixty patients (78.9%) were very satisfied/satisfied. A total of 22 patients (27.8%) had notches in the inferior rim of the glenoid. Complication rate was 20%, being more frequent in the group of fractures and revision arthroplasties. Conclusions: The reverse shoulder arthroplasty significantly improved functional scores, anterior flexion and abduction, regardless of surgical indication. It has limitations with respect to the external and internal rotation postoperatively. It is a valid alternative in multiple shoulder conditions; however, complication rate is high, so the indication should be accurate, especially in patients treated for fractures or in revision surgeries. Level of Evidence: IV