Intraoperative Fractures of the Tibia and Femur in Knee Revision Surgery

Author(s):  
Michael Müller ◽  
Uwe Kahl ◽  
Philipp von Roth ◽  
Robert Hube

AbstractIntra-operative fractures in knee revision surgery are relatively rare and have not been well studied. They may occur during joint exposition, removal of the prosthesis or cement, or implantation of trial or original components. The fractures affect both the metaphyseal area and diaphysis of the tibia and femur. Tibial fractures are slightly more common than femur fractures. On the femur, the medial condyle is most frequently affected, followed by the femur diaphysis. The use of non-cemented stems is associated with a greater risk of intra-operative diaphyseal fractures than that of cemented stems. Overall, women and patients with an osteopenic bone structure have a higher risk of fractures. It is common that fractures are diagnosed post-operatively. In these cases, conservative therapy may be successful, depending on the stability of the prosthesis and bones. The most common surgical fixation options are cerclages and screws, followed by stem extensions for bridging the fracture. Plate fixation or use of strut grafts are also sensible therapy options. Overall, intraoperative fractures have a high healing potential with stable and good joint function. The revision rate is still 15%, which is most often caused by peri-prosthetic infection.

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 266-271
Author(s):  
Georgina Kakra Wartemberg ◽  
Thomas Goff ◽  
Simon Jones ◽  
James Newman

Aims: To create a more effective system to identify patients in need of revision surgery. Background: There are over 160,000 total hip and knee replacements performed per year in England and Wales. Currently, most trusts review patients for up to 10 years or more. When we consider the cost of prolonged reviews, we cannot justify the expenditure within a limited budget. Study Design & Methods: We reviewed all patients' notes that underwent primary hip and knee revision surgery at our institution, noting age, gender, symptoms at presentation, referral source, details of the surgery, reason for revision and follow up history from primary surgery. Results: There were 145 revision arthroplasties (60 THR and 85 TKR) that met our inclusion criteria. Within the hip arthroplasty group, indications for revision included aseptic loosening (37), dislocation (10), and infection (3), periprosthetic fracture, acetabular liner wear and implant failure. All thirty-seven patients with aseptic loosening presented with pain. Twenty-five were referred from general practice with new symptoms. The remaining were clinic follow-ups. The most common reason for knee revision was aseptic loosening (37), followed by infection (21) and then progressive osteoarthritis (8). Most were referred from GP as a new referral or were clinic follow-ups. All patients were symptomatic. Conclusion: All the patients that underwent revision arthroplasty were symptomatic. Rather than yearly follow up, we recommend a cost-effective system. We are implementing a 'non face-to-face' system. Patients would be directly sent a questionnaire and x-ray form. The radiographs and forms will be reviewed by an experienced arthroplasty surgeon. The concerning cases will be seen urgently in a face-to-face clinic.


2000 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gösta Ullmark ◽  
Lennart Hovelius ◽  
Lars Strindberg ◽  
Anders Wallner

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 419-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Panegrossi ◽  
Marco Ceretti ◽  
Matteo Papalia ◽  
Filippo Casella ◽  
Fabio Favetti ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Florian Amerstorfer ◽  
Martina Schober ◽  
Thomas Valentin ◽  
Sebastian Klim ◽  
Andreas Leithner ◽  
...  

Spine ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilona M. Punt ◽  
Shennah Austen ◽  
Jack P. M. Cleutjens ◽  
Steven M. Kurtz ◽  
René H. M. ten Broeke ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Christian Klemt ◽  
Anand Padmanabha ◽  
John G. Esposito ◽  
Samuel Laurencin ◽  
Evan J. Smith ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Although two-stage revision surgery is considered as the most effective treatment for managing chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), there is no current consensus on the predictors of optimal timing to second-stage reimplantation. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between patients with elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) prior to second-stage reimplantation and those with normalized ESR and CRP prior to second-stage reimplantation. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 198 patients treated with two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty for chronic PJI. Cohorts included patients with: (1) normal level of serum ESR and CRP (n = 96) and (2) elevated level of serum ESR and CRP prior to second-stage reimplantation (n = 102). Outcomes including reinfection rates and readmission rates were compared between both cohorts. Result At a mean follow-up of 4.4 years (2.8–6.5 years), the elevated ESR and CRP cohort demonstrated significantly higher reinfection rates compared with patients with normalized ESR and CRP prior to second-stage reimplantation (33.3% vs. 14.5%, p < 0.01). Patients with both elevated ESR and CRP demonstrated significantly higher reinfection rates, when compared with patients with elevated ESR and normalized CRP (33.3% vs. 27.6%, p = 0.02) as well as normalized ESR and elevated CRP (33.3% vs. 26.3%, p < 0.01). Conclusion This study demonstrates that elevated serum ESR and/or CRP levels prior to reimplantation in two-stage knee revision surgery for chronic PJI are associated with increased reinfection rate after surgery. Elevation of both ESR and CRP were associated with a higher risk of reinfection compared with elevation of either ESR or CRP, suggesting the potential benefits of normalizing ESR and CRP prior to reimplantation in treatment of chronic PJI.


2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Francés Borrego ◽  
Fernando Marco Martínez ◽  
Juan Luis Cebrian Parra ◽  
David Serfaty Grañeda ◽  
Rodrigo García Crespo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document