Megaprostheses in Nononcologic Hip and Knee Revision Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Melnic ◽  
Harry M. Lightsey ◽  
Santiago A. Lozano Calderón ◽  
Marilyn Heng
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.


Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Zaballa Lasala ◽  
Clare Harris ◽  
Karen Walker-Bone

Abstract Background Lower limb arthroplasty is a highly successful orthopaedic procedure, but the prosthesis may fail over time, necessitating revision surgery. Recognised risk factors for revision include obesity and metal on metal devices, but it is less clear whether heavy physical activity, at work or during leisure time, can impact the survival of the replaced joint. We undertook a systematic review to explore this question. Methods Original studies published 1985-2017 reporting risk factors for hip or knee revision arthroplasty (excluding revision for infection) in people aged over 18 years and with ≥1 year follow-up post-arthroplasty were identified from Medline, Embase, and Scopus. The search yielded 10,361 results, amongst which 12 addressed the research question. Results Out of the 12 studies, 9 were concerned with failure of primary hip arthroplasty and only 3 with failure of primary knee arthroplasty. We found extraordinary variation in the methods used to quantify exposure to both occupational and leisure-time physical activity. As a result, the data were poorly comparable, and some studies reported that post-operative physical exposures were beneficial for joint survival whilst others reported that they were deleterious. Many studies only assessed the relevant exposures before the operation, which may limit the relevance to post-arthroplasty physical activities. Overall, we found some (variable quality) evidence suggesting that agriculture/farming and industry/engineering/construction work and, in women, health services work may increase the risk of revision. Likewise, there was conflicting and moderate quality evidence that exposure to high-intensity leisure-time activities may increase the risk of failure. Conclusion As increasing numbers of arthroplasties are performed at younger ages, and people are encouraged to work to older ages, more evidence is urgently needed about returning to some types of work and any future risk of joint failure. This is particularly important for advising people doing manual and emergency services/military type work. Leisure-time physical activity is good for health and high-quality evidence is needed here to inform if specific types of sport should be avoided, particularly for knee patients. Disclosures E. Zaballa Lasala None. C. Harris None. K. Walker-Bone None.


The Knee ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 1190-1196
Author(s):  
Eugenio Vecchini ◽  
Mattia Berti ◽  
Gian Mario Micheloni ◽  
Tommaso Maluta ◽  
Bruno Magnan ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 136 (8) ◽  
pp. 1077-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arne Streitbuerger ◽  
Jendrik Hardes ◽  
Georg Gosheger ◽  
Ralf Dieckmann ◽  
Steffen Hoell

2006 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 761-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J Deehan ◽  
James D Murray ◽  
Paul D Birdsall ◽  
Ian M Pinder

The Knee ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.E.D Howell ◽  
C.H Rorabeck

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document