scholarly journals Cementless Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Replacement in Children and Adolescents

Children ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 858
Author(s):  
Giovanni Trisolino ◽  
Stefano Stallone ◽  
Francesco Castagnini ◽  
Barbara Bordini ◽  
Monica Cosentino ◽  
...  

Background: total hip replacement (THR) is a rare surgical option in children and adolescents with disabling hip diseases. The aim of this study is to report results from a retrospective cohort of patients aged 18 years or less who underwent cementless Ceramic-on-Ceramic (CoC) THR at a single institution, investigating clinical and radiographic outcomes, survival rates, and reasons for revision of the implants. Materials and methods: we queried the Registry of Prosthetic Orthopedic Implants (RIPO) to identify all children and adolescents undergoing THR between 2000 and 2019 at a single Institution. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing cementless CoC THR, aged less than 18 years at surgery, followed for at least 2 years. Sixty-eight patients (74 hips) matched all the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. We assessed the clinical and radiographic outcomes, the rate of complications, the survival rate, and reasons for revision of the implants. Results: The mean follow-up was 6.6 ± 4.4 years (range 2–20). The most frequent reason for THR was post-traumatic or chemotherapy-induced avascular necrosis (38%). The overall survival rate of the cohort was 97.6% (95% CI: 84.9–99.7%) at 5 years of follow-up, 94.4% (95% CI: 79.8–98.6%) at 10 years and 15 years of follow-up. Two THR in two patients (2.7%) required revision. With the numbers available, Cox regression analysis could not detect any significant interaction between preoperative or intraoperative variables and implant survivorship (p-value 0.242 to 0.989).” The average HOOS was 85 ± 14.3 (range 30.6–100). Overall, 23 patients (48%) reported excellent HOOS scores (>90 points), 21 patients (44%) reported acceptable HOOS scores (60–90 points) while 4 patients (8%) reported poor outcomes (<60 points). Twenty-one patients (43%) were regularly involved into moderate- to high-intensity sport activities (UCLA ≥ 6). Conclusions: Cementless CoC THR is a successful procedure in children and teenagers, having demonstrated high implant survivorship and low rates of complications and failure. A meticulous preoperative planning and implant selection is mandatory, to avoid implant malposition, which is the main reason of failure and revision in these cases. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of the THR on the psychosocial wellbeing of teenagers, as well as risks and benefits and cost-effectiveness in comparison to the hip preserving surgical procedures.

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19508-19508
Author(s):  
S. A. Saravanan ◽  
V. Sokolovski ◽  
V. Voloshin ◽  
M. Aliev ◽  
V. Zybikov ◽  
...  

19508 Background: To analyse the five-year survival rate in patients with proximal femoral tumours after total hip replacement. Methods: Between the period of 1994–2003, 50 patients were operated (Total Hip Replacement) for proximal femoral tumours at the Department of General Oncology (Bone & Soft tissue tuomurs), N. N. Blokhin Cancer Research Institute & Moscow Regional Clinical Research Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation. The histological diagnoses included 14 - metastases, 10 - osteosarcoma, 8 - chondrosarcoma, 4 - Ewing’s sarcoma, 4 - Giant cell tumor, 3 - malignant fibrous histiocytoma, 2 paraosteal and 2 periosteal osteosarcoma, and 1 each from primary neuroectodermal tumor, myeloid disease, and aneurysmal bone cyst. The follow-up ranged from 1–9 years (mean follow-up 5 years). 21 patients (45.7%) had pathological fracture. The cause of the pathological fracture was metastasis in 12 patients (26%). 28 patients (60.8%), had soft tissue invasion. All the survival analyses were done using Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis method. Functional outcome was estimated using Enneking’s evaluation criteria. Results: The overall survival rate of patients was 66.7% at 5 years. 2 patients had local recurrence.12 patients had metastases after surgery. In that 11 patients were died. There was no evidence of disease in 32 patients. In 3 patients, we performed disarticulation of the hip joint because of the local recurrence. The overall survival rate of limb was 92.7% at 5 years. The overall survival rate of prostheses was 84.2% at 5 years. At the latest follow up, functional outcome was excellent in 15 (30%) patients, good in 27 (54%) patients, fair in 5 (10%) patients, poor in 3 (6%) patients. Conclusions: Though the extent of the muscle and bone resection is large, there is no doubt that endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur provides a good functional and oncological outcome when compared with the various other reconstructive surgeries. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 030006052110122
Author(s):  
Wenlu Liu ◽  
Huanyi Lin ◽  
Xianshang Zeng ◽  
Meiji Chen ◽  
Weiwei Tang ◽  
...  

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of primary metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-TR) converted to uncemented total hip replacement (UTR) or cemented total hip replacement (CTR) in patients with femoral neck fractures (AO/OTA: 31B/C). Methods Patient data of 234 UTR or CTR revisions after primary MoM-TR failure from March 2007 to January 2018 were retrospectively identified. Clinical outcomes, including the Harris hip score (HHS) and key orthopaedic complications, were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months following conversion and every 12 months thereafter. Results The mean follow-up was 84.12 (67–100) months for UTR and 84.23 (66–101) months for CTR. At the last follow-up, the HHS was better in the CTR- than UTR-treated patients. Noteworthy dissimilarities were correspondingly detected in the key orthopaedic complication rates (16.1% for CTR vs. 47.4% for UTR). Statistically significant differences in specific orthopaedic complications were also detected in the re-revision rate (10.3% for UTR vs. 2.5% for CTR), prosthesis loosening rate (16.3% for UTR vs. 5.9% for CTR), and periprosthetic fracture rate (12.0% for UTR vs. 4.2% for CTR). Conclusion In the setting of revision of failed primary MoM-TR, CTR may demonstrate advantages over UTR in improving functional outcomes and reducing key orthopaedic complications.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Buda ◽  
Riccardo D’Ambrosi ◽  
Enrico Bellato ◽  
Davide Blonna ◽  
Alessandro Cappellari ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Revision surgery after the Latarjet procedure is a rare and challenging surgical problem, and various bony or capsular procedures have been proposed. This systematic review examines clinical and radiographic outcomes of different procedures for treating persistent pain or recurrent instability after a Latarjet procedure. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Ovid databases with the combined keywords “failed”, “failure”, “revision”, “Latarjet”, “shoulder stabilization” and “shoulder instability” to identify articles published in English that deal with failed Latarjet procedures. Results A total of 11 studies (five retrospective and six case series investigations), all published between 2008 and 2020, fulfilled our inclusion criteria. For the study, 253 patients (254 shoulders, 79.8% male) with a mean age of 29.6 years (range: 16–54 years) were reviewed at an average follow-up of 51.5 months (range: 24–208 months). Conclusions Eden–Hybinette and arthroscopic capsuloplasty are the most popular and safe procedures to treat recurrent instability after a failed Latarjet procedure, and yield reasonable clinical outcomes. A bone graft procedure and capsuloplasty were proposed but there was no clear consensus on their efficacy and indication. Level of evidence Level IV Trial registration PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020185090—www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/


1989 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-506
Author(s):  
Kenichi Aramaki ◽  
Mitsuru Takeshita ◽  
Kohji Kuroda ◽  
Akio Nakamura ◽  
Yuji Fukahori ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 536-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margareta Bachrach-Lindström ◽  
Susanne Karlsson ◽  
Lars-Göran Pettersson ◽  
Torsten Johansson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document