Is There a Difference between Cemented and Uncemented Femoral Stem Extensions in Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

A stem is usually recommended for the femoral component in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for reasons of alignment, fixation, and bone loss. However, the optimal method of fixation for the femoral component stem remains controversial. We queried the prospective revision TKA database of one surgeon and performed a clinical and radiographic evaluation of 84 knee revisions in which a femoral component stem extension was implanted. There was no established protocol for fixation of the femoral stem during this time. There were 34 knees with cemented (C) fixation and 50 with uncemented (UC) fixation. There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), or Anderson's Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) defect between the two groups. Patients were evaluated using the classic Knee Society clinical and radiographic scores and followed for a mean of 6 years (range: 2–17 years). There was no statistically significant difference in prevalence of reoperation for loosening between cemented and uncemented stems (cemented 3.3% vs. uncemented 10%; p = 0.4). Post hoc power analysis showed that 203 knees in each group would be needed for statistical significance. With the numbers available, there was no difference in aseptic component loosening and radiographic loosening combined (one revision and two radiographic loosening, 9%, in the C group vs. five revisions and three radiographic loosening, 16%, in the UC group; p = 0.51). There was no difference between the groups in the overall rate of any reoperation. There were no differences in postoperative Knee Society pain score, change in pain score, Knee Society function score, or change in function score. Due to the numbers required, a large multicenter study will be needed to determine the optimal method of fixation of the femoral stem in revision TKA.

Hemiarthroplasty for Trapeziometacarpal Arthritis – A Useful Alternative?

We performed hemiarthroplasty using the Swanson titanium implant for treatment of isolated and advanced trapeziometacarpal joint osteoarthritis Nineteen implants were placed in 18 patients (mean age: 57 years) between 1995 and 1999. One joint required revision and conversion to trapeziectomy. Eighteen joints in 17 patients were evaluated with a mean follow-up period of 34 (range, 14–60) months. Good pain relief was noted in 13 hands. All patients had good hand function as scored using validated questionnaires. Radiographic loosening occurred with five implants and trapezial wear in ten joints. Though radiographic loosening or trapezial wear did not correlate with less satisfactory clinical results, failure of the implant is a concern in the long term. Preliminary results indicate that hemiarthroplasty can be a useful treatment alternative in selected, relatively young patients with isolated trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis and good bone stock. Good motion and stability can be preserved Failures can be effectively salvaged by trapeziectomy.