scholarly journals Revision Hip Arthroplasty in the Rheumatoid Patient

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wasim Khan
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Rheumatoid Patient

A comparison of postoperative C-reactive protein changes in primary and revision hip arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heikki M[auml ]enp[auml ][auml ] ◽  
Kari Laiho ◽  
Markku Kauppi ◽  
Kalevi Kaarela ◽  
Hannu Kautiainen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein

scholarly journals Femoral Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Two Stem Designs

2009 ◽  
Vol 468 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey J. Richards ◽  
Clive P. Duncan ◽  
Bassam A. Masri ◽  
Donald S. Garbuz
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Revision

A Distal Fluted, Proximal Modular Femoral Prosthesis in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 932-938 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myung-Sik Park ◽  
Ju-Hong Lee ◽  
Jong-Hyuk Park ◽  
Dong-Hun Ham ◽  
Yang-Keun Rhee
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Prosthesis

scholarly journals Instability Is the Most Common Indication for Revision Hip Arthroplasty in the United States: National Trends From 2012 to 2018

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 88-101
Author(s):  
Alex Upfill-Brown ◽  
Peter P. Hsiue ◽  
Troy Sekimura ◽  
Jay N. Patel ◽  
Micah Adamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Common Indication ◽  
National Trends

Cemented femoral impaction bone grafting for severe osteolysis in revision hip arthroplasty

2000 ◽  
Vol 120 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 386-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. B. Flugsrud ◽  
Stein Øvre ◽  
Bjarne Grøgaard ◽  
Lars Nordsletten
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Impaction Bone Grafting

Head and Neck Replacement Prostheses in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Experience With a Single Modern Design

Orthopedics ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry D Clarke ◽  
Timothy A Damron ◽  
Robert T Trousdale ◽  
Franklin H Sim ◽  
Dirk R Larson
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Modern Design

Unexpected low-grade infections in revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (6) ◽  
pp. 1070-1077
Author(s):  
Christian Hipfl ◽  
Wiebke Mooij ◽  
Carsten Perka ◽  
Sebastian Hardt ◽  
Georgi I. Wassilew
Keyword(s):  
Aseptic Loosening ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus ◽  
Histopathological Analysis ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Single Specimen ◽  
Musculoskeletal Infection

Aims The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade infection using two definition criteria, and to analyze its impact on implant survival after revision. Methods A total of 274 THA revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed. In addition to obtaining intraoperative tissue cultures from all patients, synovial and sonication fluid samples of the removed implant were obtained in 215 cases (79%) and 101 cases (37%), respectively. Histopathological analysis was performed in 250 cases (91%). Patients were classified as having low-grade infections according to institutional criteria and Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2013 criteria. Low-grade infections according to institutional criteria were treated with targeted antibiotics for six weeks postoperatively. Implant failure was defined as the need for re-revision resulting from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic reasons. The mean follow-up was 68 months (26 to 95). Results Unexpected positive intraoperative samples were found in 77 revisions (28%). Low-grade infection was diagnosed in 36 cases (13%) using institutional criteria and in nine cases (3%) using MSIS ICM 2013 criteria. In all, 41 patients (15%) had single specimen growth of a low-virulent pathogen and were deemed contaminated. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and anaerobes were the most commonly isolated bacteria. Implant failure for PJI was higher in revisions with presumed contaminants (5/41, 12%) compared to those with low-grade infections (2/36, 6%) and those with negative samples (5/197, 3%) (p = 0.021). The rate of all-cause re-revision was similar in patients diagnosed with low-grade infections (5/36, 14%) and those with presumed contaminants (6/41, 15%) and negative samples (21/197, 11%) (p = 0.699). Conclusion Our findings suggest that the presumption of culture contamination in aseptic revision hip arthroplasty may increase the detection of PJI. In this cohort, the presence of low-grade infection did not increase the risk of re-revision. Further studies are needed to assess the relevance of single specimen growth and the benefits of specific postoperative antibiotic regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1070–1077.

HEALING OF FEMORAL CORTICAL WINDOWS IN CEMENTED REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY

1990 ◽  
Vol 83 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 2S-47
Author(s):  
Michael A. Feiertag ◽  
Jerry E. Enis
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document