scholarly journals Letter to the Editor on “Gait Analysis of Leg Length Discrepancy-Differentiated Hip Replacement Patients With Developmental Dysplasia: A Midterm Follow-Up”

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 1853-1854
Author(s):  
Bedri Karaismailoglu
Keyword(s):  
Gait Analysis ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Developmental Dysplasia ◽  
Leg Length Discrepancy ◽  
Leg Length ◽  
Length Discrepancy ◽  
Letter To The Editor

Comparison of minimally invasive and non-invasive systems in lengthening total femoral prostheses

2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (12) ◽  
pp. 1640-1646 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. R. Medellin ◽  
T. Fujiwara ◽  
R. Clark ◽  
L. M. Jeys
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Leg Length Discrepancy ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Leg Length ◽  
Range Of Movement ◽  
Musculoskeletal Tumor Society ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Length Discrepancy ◽  
The Mean

AimsThe aim of this study was to describe, analyze, and compare the survival, functional outcome, and complications of minimally invasive (MI) and non-invasive (NI) lengthening total femoral prostheses.Patients and MethodsA total of 24 lengthening total femoral prostheses, 11 MI and 13 NI, were implanted between 1991 and 2016. The characteristics, complications, and functional results were recorded. There were ten female patients and ten male patients. Their mean age at the time of surgery was 11 years (2 to 41). The mean follow-up was 13.2 years (seven months to 29.25 years). A survival analysis was performed, and the failures were classified according to the Modified Henderson System.ResultsThe overall implant survival was 79% at five, ten, and 20 years for MI prostheses, and 84% at five years and 70% at ten years for NI prostheses. At the final follow-up, 13 prostheses did not require further surgery. The overall complication rate was 46%. The mean revision-free implant survival for MI and NI prostheses was 59 months and 49 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall implant survival, revision-free survival, or the distribution of complications between the two types of prosthesis. Infection rates were also comparable in the groups (9% vs 7%; p = 0.902). The rate of leg-length discrepancy was 54% in MI prostheses and 23% in NI prostheses. In those with a MI prosthesis, there was a smaller mean range of movement of the knee (0° to 62° vs 0° to 83°; p = 0.047), the flexion contracture took a longer mean time to resolve after lengthening (3.3 months vs 1.07 months; p < 0.001) and there was a lower mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score (24.7 vs 27; p = 0.295).ConclusionThe survival and complications of MI and NI lengthening total femoral prostheses are comparable. However, patients with NI prosthesis have more accurate correction of leg-length discrepancy, a better range of movement of the knee and an improved overall function.

scholarly journals A comparison of screw versus drill and curettage epiphysiodesis to correct leg-length discrepancy

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Troy ◽  
B. Shore ◽  
P. Miller ◽  
S. Mahan ◽  
D. Hedequist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Operative Time ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Leg Length Discrepancy ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Leg Length ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Length Discrepancy ◽  
Baseline Activity ◽  
Significant Difference

Purpose To compare two common surgical techniques of epiphysiodesis: drill/curettage epiphysiodesis (PDED) versus cross screw epiphysiodesis (PETS). The hypothesis is that the two techniques have similar efficacy but demonstrate differences in length of hospital stay (LOS), time to return to activity and complication rates. Methods A retrospective review of growing children and adolescents less than 18 years old who required an epiphysiodesis with leg-length discrepancy (LLD) of 2 cm to 6 cm with minimum two years of follow-up was conducted. Characteristics including age at surgery, gender, epiphysiodesis location, side, operative time, LOS and hardware removal were compared across treatment groups. LLD, expected growth remaining (EGR) and bone age were determined preoperatively and at most-recent visit. The correction ratio (change in EGR) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess if correction in leg length was achieved. Results A total of 115 patients underwent epiphysiodesis in the femur (53%), tibia (24%) or a combination (24%). The cohort was 47% male, with a mean age of 12.6 years (7.7 to 17.7) at surgery. Median follow-up was 3.7 years (2.0 to 12.7). In all, 23 patients underwent PETS and 92 patients had PDED. Both treatment groups achieved expected LLD correction. There was no significant difference in median operative time, complication rates or LOS. PETS patients returned to activity at a mean 1.4 months (interquartile range (IQR) 0.7 to 2.1) while PDED patients returned at a mean 2.4 months (IQR 1.7 to 3) (p < 0.001). Conclusion Effectiveness in achieving expected correction, LOS and operative time are similar between screw and drill/curettage epiphysiodesis. Patients undergoing PETS demonstrated a faster return to baseline activity than patients with PDED. Level of Evidence: III

scholarly journals Two-stage total hip arthroplasty for primary advanced septic arthritis of the hip in adults: comparison of debridement versus femoral head resection with spacer implantation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenzhong Li ◽  
Congcong Wei ◽  
Xiangke Li ◽  
Mengxuan Yao ◽  
Huijie Li
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Septic Arthritis ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Leg Length Discrepancy ◽  
Leg Length ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Length Discrepancy ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of debridement and antibiotic-loaded spacer implantation in primary advanced septic arthritis (SA) of the hip in adults treated with two-stage total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods In the first stage, 9 patients were treated with debridement and 11 patients were treated with antibiotic-loaded spacer implantation. Then, THA was conducted in all patients in the second stage. Patients were evaluated based on the recurrence of infection, Harris hip score, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score and leg-length discrepancy. Results No cases of infection, deep vein thrombosis, death, and loosening of hip prosthesis were observed during follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 29.09 ± 10.80 months in the debridement with THA group, and 28.22 ± 14.80 months in the spacer implantation with THA group. Before the THA surgery, the mean leg-length discrepancy was 2.80 ± 2.03 cm in the debridement with THA group, and 0.50 ± 0.23 cm in the spacer implantation with THA group (P < 0.05). In the latest follow-up, The Harris hip scores of patients was 90.33 ± 4.85 in the debridement with THA group and 94.36 ± 2.34 in the spacer implantation with THA group (P < 0.05), respectively. There was no statistical significant difference in VAS pain score of the hip between the two groups (P > 0.05).Conclusions Two-stage THA using antibiotic-loaded spacer implantation is an effective method for the treatment of advanced SA of the hip in adults due to it can control infection and significantly improve functional hip.

The use of a non-invasive extendable prosthesis at the time of revision arthroplasty

2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (3) ◽  
pp. 370-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Gilg ◽  
C. L. Gaston ◽  
L. Jeys ◽  
A. Abudu ◽  
R. M. Tillman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Leg Length Discrepancy ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Leg Length ◽  
Revision Procedure ◽  
Length Discrepancy ◽  
Prosthesis Revision ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Primary Bone Tumours

Aims The use of a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis in the management of primary bone tumours in children is well established. However, the efficacy of such a prosthesis in those requiring a revision procedure has yet to be established. The aim of this series was to present our results using extendable prostheses for the revision of previous endoprostheses. Patients and Methods All patients who had a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis inserted at the time of a revision procedure were identified from our database. A total of 21 patients (seven female patients, 14 male) with a mean age of 20.4 years (10 to 41) at the time of revision were included. The indications for revision were mechanical failure, trauma or infection with a residual leg-length discrepancy. The mean follow-up was 70 months (17 to 128). The mean shortening prior to revision was 44 mm (10 to 100). Lengthening was performed in all but one patient with a mean lengthening of 51 mm (5 to 140). Results The mean residual leg length discrepancy at final follow-up of 15 mm (1 to 35). Two patients developed a deep periprosthetic infection, of whom one required amputation to eradicate the infection; the other required two-stage revision. Implant survival according to Henderson criteria was 86% at two years and 72% at five years. When considering revision for any cause (including revision of the growing prosthesis to a non-growing prosthesis), revision-free implant survival was 75% at two years, but reduced to 55% at five years. Conclusion Our experience indicates that revision surgery using a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis is a successful option for improving leg length discrepancy and should be considered in patients with significant leg-length discrepancy requiring a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:370–7.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document