scholarly journals Surgical Technique of a Cement-On-Cement Removal System for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Revision Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 112-117
Author(s):  
Miguel Tovar-Bazaga ◽  
David Sáez-Martínez ◽  
Álvaro Auñón ◽  
Felipe López-Oliva ◽  
Belén Pardos-Mayo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Cement Removal ◽  
Arthroplasty Revision ◽  
Removal System

Force plates may be used for dynamic analyses of endoprostheses explantation procedures

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-245
Author(s):  
Hendrik Kohlhof ◽  
Sebastian Köhring ◽  
Dieter Christian Wirtz ◽  
Hartmut Witte
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Measurement Methods ◽  
Objective Data ◽  
Technical Base ◽  
Demographic Aging ◽  
Dynamic Analyses ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasties ◽  
Tools And Methods

Abstract The number of hip and knee arthroplasty replacement surgeries is increasing steadily. In combination with demographic aging and the number of periprosthetic complications, this development has lead to the phenomenon where the need for revision surgery is rising. The problem is, that, while implantation procedures of hip arthroplasties are more or less standardized, explantation is a non-standardized task for experienced specialists, due to the unpredictability of the adequate loosening method. The surgeon often only gets to decide on which tools and methods may be applied to detach the prosthesis, only after getting access to the operation site. The time taken to detach the prosthesis is hardly predictable and mainly depends on the surgeons’ skills. To gain objective data on the mechanics of explantation, new measurement methods are required. One technical base for studies on revision procedures are standard force plates, available in biomechanics laboratories.

Twenty Years Experience in Large Joints Arthroplasty at specialized department of CITO named after N.N. Priorov

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-58
Author(s):  
N V Zagorodniy ◽  
V I Nuzhdin ◽  
S V Kagramanov ◽  
Yu G Khoranov ◽  
O A Kudinov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Bone Mass ◽  
Bone Strength ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Specialized Department ◽  
Significant Deficit ◽  
Revision Operations

Experience in hip and knee arthroplasty (primary and revision) accumulated at CITO department for large joints arthroplasty during the period from 1990 to 2010 is presented. Dynamic of the development of that direction in traumatology and orthopaedics, i.e. perfection of implants and surgical technique, is shown. Typical difficulties and complications in primary and revision operations are noted. Elaborated at the department technique for acetabulum reconstruction at revision hip arthroplasty in patients with significant deficit of bone mass and disturbance of mechanical bone strength is described.

Multiple Cultures and Extended Incubation for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Revision: Impact on Clinical Care

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 59-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander DeHaan ◽  
Thomas Huff ◽  
Kathryn Schabel ◽  
Yee-Cheen Doung ◽  
James Hayden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Multiple Cultures ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Arthroplasty Revision

scholarly journals Towards UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): protocol for an evaluation of the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up, and the production of consensus-based recommendations

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e031351
Author(s):  
Carolyn J Czoski Murray ◽  
Sarah R Kingsbury ◽  
Nigel K Arden ◽  
Jenny Hewison ◽  
Andrew Judge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Ageing Population ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Joint Prostheses

IntroductionHip and knee arthroplasties have revolutionised the management of degenerative joint diseases and, due to an ageing population, are becoming increasingly common. Follow-up of joint prostheses is to identify problems in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients due to infection, osteolysis, bone loss or potential periprosthetic fracture, enabling timely intervention to prevent catastrophic failure at a later date. Early revision is usually more straight-forward surgically and less traumatic for the patient. However, routine long-term follow-up is costly and requires considerable clinical time. Therefore, some centres in the UK have curtailed this aspect of primary hip and knee arthroplasty services, doing so without an evidence base that such disinvestment is clinically or cost-effective.MethodsGiven the timeline from joint replacement to revision, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine potential consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up is not feasible. Furthermore, the low revision rates of modern prostheses, less than 10% at 10 years, would necessitate thousands of patients to adequately power such a study. The huge variation in follow-up practice across the UK also limits the generalisability of an RCT. This study will therefore use a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Four interconnected work packages will be completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from five national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document which includes a stratification algorithm to determine appropriate follow-up care for an individual patient.Ethics and DisseminationFavourable ethical opinion has been obtained for WP2a (RO-HES) (220520) and WP2B (220316) from the National Research Ethics Committee. Following advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0122), data controllers for the data sets used in WP2a (RO-HES) – NHS Digital and The Phoenix Partnership – confirmed that Section 251 support was not required as no identifiable data was flowing into or out of these parties. Application for approval of WP2a (RO-HES) from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD) at NHS Digital is in progress (DARS-NIC-147997). Section 251 support (17/CAG/0030) and NHS Digital approval (DARS-NIC-172121-G0Z1H-v0.11) have been obtained for WP2a (NJR-HES-PROMS). ISAC (11_050MnA2R2) approval has been obtained for WP2a (CPRD-HES).

scholarly journals Virtual arthroplasty follow-up: five-year data from a district general hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Fisher ◽  
V Hamilton ◽  
S Reader ◽  
F Khatun ◽  
M Porteous
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Oxford Knee Score ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
X Rays ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty

Introduction Follow-up after hip and knee arthroplasty is advocated to identify asymptomatic loosening and improve patient satisfaction. There are, however, financial and time implications associated with regular clinic appointments. Assessment through virtual means has been suggested as an alternative. Materials and methods At the West Suffolk Hospital, following arthroplasty surgery of the lower limb, patients are followed-up via a questionnaire at one and five years postoperatively, then subsequently at five-yearly intervals. Patients are recalled based on the outcome of these assessments. Using a locally compiled data base we identified all patients reviewed between 2011 and 2015 using this virtual assessment process and examined their outcomes. Results During the five years of follow-up, 5,380 patients were eligible for assessment. Compliance varied from 77% follow up for hips and 83% for knees. Ten patients were recalled following total hip replacement, eight for x-ray changes and one for a poor satisfaction score. Five went on to undergo revision surgery. Some 56 recalls to clinic following knee arthroplasty were seen; 42 due to a poor Oxford Knee Score, 6 with associated x-ray abnormalities and 6 isolated abnormal x-rays. Five subsequently underwent revision surgery; 30 (54%) were discharged after initial review and 18 (32%) were referred to different subspecialties. As a result of the virtual review process, 4,219 clinic appointments were avoided, with no documented admissions as a result of a missed complication from virtual review. Discussion A virtual arthroplasty clinic significantly reduces the number of patients attending regular follow-up clinics, without compromising safe practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document