[Acetabular metastatic defect reconstruction using the modular revision support cup MRS-C]. / Rekonstruktion von metastasenbedingten Defekten des Azetabulums mittels der MRS-C-Abstützschale.

OBJECTIVE: Stabilization of metastatic acetabular defects with a bone cement-augmented revision support cup for remobilization of oncological patients in advanced cancer stages. INDICATIONS: Metastatic acetabular defects (Metastatic Acetabular Classification, MAC 2-4) in patients with a prognostic medium or long-term survival. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Highly limited survival due to metastatic disease (< 6 weeks). Local bone or soft tissue infection. Primary bone tumor with curative treatment option. Advanced pelvic discontinuity. Recent wound compromising systemic therapy. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Standard hip approach. Curettage of the metastatic defect and careful reaming of the acetabulum before insertion of the cup. Predrilling of the dome und flange screws before application of the bone cement through the center hole of the implant and filling of the acetabular defect. Complete insertion of the screws for compound osteosynthesis. Implant of a modular inlay or dual mobility system. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Full weight bearing or mobilization with two crutches according to the level of pain. Adjuvant local radiation therapy after wound consolidation. Continuation of systemic therapy according to tumor board decision. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2019, we treated 14 patients with metastatic acetabular defects using the modular revision support cup "MRS-TITAN® Comfort", MRS-C, Peter Brehm GmbH, Weisendorf, Germany) at our institution. Mean Harris Hip Score improvement was 23.2 with a mean patient's survival of 9.7 months due to the reduced cancer-related prognosis; 13 of the 14 implants endured the patient's prognosis. One implant had to be removed due soft tissue defect-related periprosthetic joint infection.

Explant analysis and implant registries are both needed to further improve patient safety.

In the early days of total joint replacement, implant fracture, material problems and wear presented major problems for the long-term success of the operation. Today, failures directly related to the implant comprise only 2-3% of the reasons for revision surgeries, which is a result of the material and design improvements in combination with the standardization of pre-clinical testing methods and the post-market surveillance required by the legal regulation. Arthroplasty registers are very effective tools to document the long-term clinical performance of implants and implantation techniques such as fixation methods in combination with patient characteristics. Revisions due to implant failure are initially not reflected by the registries due to their small number. Explant analysis including patient, clinical and imaging documentation is crucial to identify failure mechanisms early enough to prevent massive failures detectable in the registries. In the past, early reaction was not always successful, since explant analysis studies have either been performed late or the results did not trigger preventive measures until clinical failures affected a substantial number of patients. The identification of implant-related problems is only possible if all failures are reported and related to the number of implantations. A system that analyses all explants from revisions attributed to implant failure is mandatory to reduce failures, allowing improvement of risk assessment in the regulatory process.

[Reconstruction of the extensor apparatus with advanced structural defects in knee revision arthroplasty]. / Rekonstruktion des Streckapparates bei fortgeschrittenen Defekten in der Knierevisionsendoprothetik.

OBJECTIVE: Restoration of the extensor apparatus in the case of advanced tendon defects as part of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Reconstruction and augmentation using vascularized gastrocnemius muscle and tendon. INDICATIONS: Advanced degeneration of the extensor apparatus (patella tendon; quadriceps tendon) with or without discontinuity, following revision arthroplasty. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Persistent infection or pending TKA revision. Damaged gastrocnemius or soleus muscle or Achilles tendon. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Extension of the surgical TKA-access medial-distally. Separation of the medial gastrocnemius muscle along the raphe and preparation of the distal tendon from the soleus portion. Transposition into the defect site, augmentation or reconstruction of the defect by double turn of the gastrocnemius tendon. The muscle belly serves to adequately cover the tendon as well as the ventral knee joint. Mesh coverage of the muscle. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Immobilization of the knee and ankle for 10 days until mesh graft healing. Stepwise increasing flection of the knee with 30°/60°/90° every 2 weeks. Total weight bearing with secured full extended knee, no weight bearing with flexed knee for 6 weeks. RESULTS: In 9 patients, 3 with complete rupture of the patellar tendon, 5 with destruction of the extensor apparatus, and 1 patient with rupture of the quadriceps tendon following TKA revision, good functional results were achieved with active extension of the knee joint and standing/gait stability 6 months after surgery.

Litigations in orthopedics and trauma surgery: reasons, dynamics, and profiles.

BACKGROUND: In recent literature, the increasing number of medical litigations, both in terms of the number of cases being filed and the substantive costs associated with lawsuits, has been described. This study aims to provide an overview of the profile of litigation for orthopedic and trauma surgery to describe the differences and the development of the number of cases over time. PATIENTS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of all litigations between 2000 and 2017 was conducted using the institutional legal database. The causes of litigation were documented and classified into seven major categories. In addition to plaintiff characteristics, the litigation outcomes and the differences between emergency and elective surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 230 cases were evaluated. The mean age of the plaintiffs was 44.6 ± 20.1 years, and 56.8% were female. The main reasons for litigation were claimed inappropriate management (46.1%), misdiagnosis (22.6), and poor nursing care (8.3%). Significantly more litigations were filed against surgeons of the orthopedic subspecialty compared with trauma surgeons (78%; p ≤ 0.0001). There were significantly fewer litigations per 1000 cases filed overall in 2009-2017 (65% less; p = 0.003) than in 2000-2008. CONCLUSION: Our results could not confirm the often-stated trend of having more litigations against orthopedic and trauma surgeons. Although the absolute numbers increased, the number of litigations per 1000 patients treated declined. Patients who underwent elective surgery were more likely to file complaints than emergency patients.

Use of Pre- and Intensified Postprocedural Physiotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Study (the 4P-TAVR Study).

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy prior to open-heart surgery lowers the rate of pneumonia and length of the hospital stay. Pneumonia is a major contributor to short-term mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Hence, we hypothesized that pre- and intensified postprocedural physiotherapy in patients undergoing TAVR might impact the net functional and clinical outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: The 4P-TAVR study was a prospective, monocentric, randomized trial. The study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of intensified periprocedural physiotherapy including inspiratory muscle training versus standard postprocedural physiotherapy. Patients were randomized in a 1 : 1 fashion. 108 patients were included and followed up for 90 days after TAVR. While patients in group A (control group: 50 patients, age: 81.7 ± 5.0 years, 52% male) did not receive physiotherapy prior to TAVR, group B (intervention group: 58 patients, age: 82.2 ± 5.82 years, 47% male) participated in intensive physiotherapy. Compared to the control group, patients in the interventional group showed a lower incidence of postinterventional pneumonia (10 [20.0%] vs. 3 [5.1%], p=0.016) and had a 3-day shorter mean hospital stay (13.5 ± 6.1 days vs. 10.1 ± 4.7 days, p=0.02). The primary composite endpoint of mortality and rehospitalization was not different between the groups. CONCLUSION: Intensified physiotherapy is safe and has positive effects on clinical outcomes up to 90 days after TAVR but has no impact on the primary combined endpoint of mortality and rehospitalization. Longer follow-up, a multicenter design, and a higher number of subjects are needed to confirm these preliminary results. This trial is registered with DRKS00017239.

A survey on surgeon practice shows lack of consensus on the management of primary shoulder stiffness.

Shoulder stiffness is a condition of painful restriction in active and passive glenohumeral range of motion, which can arise spontaneously or as consequence of a known cause. Numerous therapeutic approaches are available; however, no consensus has been reached on the best algorithm for successful treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate local practice patterns regarding management of primary shoulder stiffness. Randomized controlled trials reporting results of shoulder stiffness treatment were collected and analyzed prior to study begin. Controversial elements in the treatment of primary shoulder stiffness were identified and a survey was created and administrated to clinicians participating at an annual national congress dedicated to shoulder pathologies and their treatment. 55 completed questionnaires were collected. Physical therapy was recommended by 98% of the interviewed. The use of oral corticosteroids was considered by 58% and injections of corticosteroids by 60%. Injective therapy with local anaesthetics was considered by 56% of the clinicians and acupuncture by 36%. 38% of the interviewed did never treat shoulder stiffness surgically. Various strategies to manage shoulder stiffness have been proposed and high-level evidence has been published. Numerous controversial points and a substantial lack of consensus emerged both from literature reviews and from this survey. The treatment of shoulder stiffness should be tailored to the patient's clinical situation and the stage of its pathology, aiming primarily at identifying risk factors for recurrence, reducing pain, restoring range of motion and function and shortening the duration of symptoms.

[Reconstruction of tibial metaphyseal defects with artificial components in revision arthroplasty (GenuX MK System)]. / Rekonstruktion tibialer metaphysärer Defekte im Revisionsfall mit metallischen Metaphysenkomponenten (GenuX MK-System).

OBJECTIVE: Restoration of knee function by using tibial metaphyseal components in advanced metaphyseal bone defects after multiple bone-damaging revision surgery on the knee joint. INDICATIONS: Advanced tibial metaphyseal bone defects (Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute [AORI] IIb and III defects) in revision arthroplasty of the knee joint. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Persistent or current joint infection, general infection (e.g., pneumonia), nonreconstructable insufficient extensor apparatus. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Standard access including existing skin scars, arthrotomy, removal of cement spacer if necessary and removal of multiple tissue samples; preparation of femur first, followed by preparation of the tibia. Referencing the tibial rotation and joint line height. Tibial osteotomy referenced intramedullarily. Determination of the metaphyseal defect size and choice of component size. Positioning of the rasp guide for the preparation of the metaphyseal component (sleeve); gradual preparation of the bed for the metaphyseal component. Afterwards the prepared component at the desired depth (when using augments +5 or +10 mm accordingly 5 or 10 mm above the tibial plateau) is left and the tibial plateau is fixed on the embedded sleeve. Test coupling, control of the implant position and the height of the joint line radiologically. If satisfactory the definitive implants accordingly to the components of used implants before can be implanted. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Full weight bearing. Regular wound control; limitation of the degree of flexion only with weakened or reconstructed extensor apparatus. RESULTS: Between May 2018 and August 2019, 14 metaphyseal tibial components were implanted in 14 patients. The mean follow-up was 10.4 months. The follow-up included clinical examination, KSS (Knee Society Score) and an X­ray and failure analysis. A significant improvement in range of movement from 75 ± 16° to 100 ± 14° (p < 0.01) was achieved. The KSS improved significantly from 78 ± 12 points preoperatively to 137 ± 23 points postoperatively. Two patients complained of persistent pain after exercise (walking distance >200 m) after 6 months; tibial shaft pain was negated by all patients. The group examined afterwards showed an implant survival rate of 100% in the observation interval.

[Periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur]. / Periprothetische Frakturen des proximalen Femurs.

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur is increasing due to the growing numbers of hip replacements in old age. The treatment of these fractures is a challenge for the treating physician and standardized procedures are necessary. The unified classification system (UCS) is a suitable tool to establish treatment strategies: On the basis of the fracture localization and extent, bone quality, stability of the prosthesis and the presence of further implants, the fractures can be classified according to the UCS and a treatment algorithm can be derived. This article gives an overview of the diagnostics, classification and characteristics of the various periprosthetic fracture types as well as the treatment.

[Challenges of discharge management in geriatric traumatology : Example of an integrated orthogeriatric service]. / Herausforderungen des Entlassmanagements in der Alterstraumatologie : Beispiel einer integrierten traumatologisch-geriatrischen Komplexbehandlung.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric patients are currently responsible for almost one third of all emergency hospital admissions. An increase of 50% is expected in the next decade. This age redistribution poses new challenges for inpatient care and discharge management. The requirements of an orthopedic trauma surgery clinic in the care of this patient group can be clarified with the help of this first collaboratively created geriatric orthopedic trauma surgery complex treatment unit of a university hospital. OBJECTIVE: What influence do age and delirium have on discharge management, length of inpatient stay and discharge destination in a geriatric cohort? MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who received inpatient treatment as part of the orthopedic trauma surgery geriatric complex treatment (GKB) between May 2017 and December 2019 were evaluated. An analysis of the demographics, length of inpatient stay, discharge destinations and evaluation of the Barthel index collected on admission and discharge, the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and the geriatric depression scale (GDS) were carried out. RESULTS: Out of 312 patients, 110 men and 193 women with a median age of 81 years, 77 patients (24.6%) showed delirium when enrolled in the GKB and 39 (12.5%) dementia. Older patients presented more often with delirium than younger people (p = 0.013), especially those aged 70-79 years (p = 0.037). Dementia patients suffered more frequently from postoperative delirium (p < 0.01). The mean hospital stay was 17.79 days (±4.6 days). The GKB was regularly completed in 60.7% of all cases and 39.3% patients dropped out early. Patients with delirium were discharged significantly less often into their own home but into short-term care or nursing homes (p = 0.038). A general correlation between delirium development and the discharge destination was noticeable (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Patients with dementia are more likely to develop delirium postoperatively, which leads to an increase in the length of inpatient stay, an increase in treatment costs and more work for the discharge management team. In addition, the discharge to the patients' home is impaired by delirium, which means that the growing need for places in short-term care and nursing homes also creates socioeconomic burdens.

[Acetabular revision arthroplasty with a novel cementless augment-and-modular-cage system (MRS-C) : Surgical technique and preliminary clinical results]. / Hüftpfannenwechsel mit einem neuartigen zementfreien "Augment-and-modular-cage"-Revisionssystem (MRS-C) : Chirurgische Technik und erste klinische Ergebnisse.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal reconstruction of acetabular anatomy and primarily stable bridging even of large bone defects in hip revision surgery by intraoperative cementless application of highly modular components of the MRS-TITAN Comfort (MRS-C) system according to the augment-and-modular-cage principle. INDICATIONS: Acetabular defect situations in hip revision surgery, hereditary/acquired acetabular deformities, severe secondary hip osteoarthritis. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Extended periacetabular defects of the dorsal pillar, pelvic discontinuities, persisting posttraumatic or periprosthetic infections, lack of intraoperative bony anchorage options. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Conventional positioning. Flexible selection of approach (posterolateral, anterolateral or transgluteal) to the hip joint, if possible using a previous approach. Implant removal, preparation and intraoperative acetabular defect evaluation. Optional impaction bone grafting for biological downsizing. Selection of modular components and augments depending on the defect. Preparation of the obturator foramen for anchorage of the caudal flange. Optional preparation of the os ilium for additional fixation of the cage with flanges. Fixation with polyaxial screws and selection of version/inclination of the cup component. Selection of the inlay (polyethylene/ceramic). POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Partial weight-bearing with 20 kg body-weight for 6 weeks with crutches. Prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis and heterotopic ossification. Additional adapted antibiotic therapy in cases of infection. RESULTS: A minimum 1­year follow-up of 42 patients showed significant improvements of Harris Hip Scores (p < 0.0001), adequate reconstruction of the physiologic center of rotation (x-ray controlled in the vertical plane, referenced to the contralateral side), and a clear reduction of preoperative leg length discrepancies. No significant changes in range of motion. No implant-associated complications noted. Based on the short follow-up results, the implant proves as suitable for reconstruction of even large acetabular bone defects.

[Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus in revision shoulder arthroplasty]. / Der proximale Humerusersatz in der Revisionssituation.

OBJECTIVE: Reconstruction of proximal humeral bone defects in the setting of shoulder revision arthroplasty by implantation of a modular humeral component. INDICATIONS: Severe segmental humeral bone defects in revision total shoulder arthroplasty, after tumor resection, trauma, pathological fractures, post-infectious or after failed osteosynthesis. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Acute or chronic local infections, large diaphyseal bone defects preventing adequate anchorage of the prosthesis, very short life expectancy (<3 months). SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Removal of the implant using an extended deltopectoral approach. Periarticular arthrolysis with preservation of neurovascular structures. Resection of the meta-diaphyseal bone and reconstruction of the humeral length with the help of different extension sleeves and a modular humeral component. Soft tissue management is crucial, especially with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Three weeks postoperatively immobilization in a shoulder sling, active assisted movement therapy by gradual pain-adapted increase of movement, muscle coordination, and strength. RESULTS: The results of 11 consecutive patients treated with a modular humeral component due to a failed shoulder arthroplasty between 2008 and 2016 were evaluated retrospectively. Mean length of reconstruction was 100 mm. Due to recurrent dislocations one patient required revision and conversion to a reverse component. No cases of aseptic loosening or periprosthetic infection were observed.

Erratum to: Three-dimensional thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction.

Erratum to:Oper Orthop Traumatol 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-018-0559-3 The article was wrongly published under the article type "Review". Please note that the article is an "Original Paper".The publisher apologizes to authors and ….

Three-dimensional thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction.

OBJECTIVE: The aim is to stabilize the thoracolumbar spine with a thoracoscopically implanted vertebral body replacement (VBR). To improve intraoperative depth perception and orientation, implantation is performed under three-dimensional (3D) thoracoscopic vision. INDICATIONS: Vertebral burst fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (A4 AOSpine classification), pseudarthrosis, and posttraumatic instability with increasing kyphosis. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Severe pulmonary dysfunctions, pulmonary or thoracic infections, previous thoracic surgery, and pulmonary adhesions. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: The patient is lying in a right lateral decubitus position. Localization of the fractured vertebra. Minimally invasive transthoracic approach. Perform single lung ventilation and insert the 3D thoracoscope two intercostal spaces above the working portal. Utilization of special binocular glasses for 3D vision of the operation field and secure resection of the fractured vertebra. Measurement of the bony defect and insertion of the expandable cage. Control of correct cage position under fluoroscopy. Insertion of a chest tube and inflate the left lung. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Chestâ€¯× ray Remove chest tube when output is <500 ml/24 h Early mobilization on the ward 6 weeks no weight-bearing >5 kg RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2017, 12 patients received a VBR under 3D thoracoscopic vision. After a mean follow up of 26 months, no cage dislocation was noticed and all patients recovered from the initial back pain. Complications were notable in two cases (17%) with a small pneumothorax after removal of the chest tube and postoperative pneumonia in one patient (8%). All responded to conservative treatment. Revision surgery was not necessary.

[Aseptic loosening of total ankle replacement and conversion to ankle arthrodesis]. / Aseptische Lockerung einer OSG­Endoprothese und Konversion zur OSG­Arthrodese.

OBJECTIVE: To remove loosened prosthesis components, to perform augmentation, to address osseous defects, to perform neutrally aligned ankle arthrodesis, and to achieve postoperative pain relief. INDICATIONS: Symptomatic, aseptic loosening of total ankle replacement (TAR) with/without substantial bone defect of the tibial and/or talar bone stock. CONTRAINDICATIONS: General surgical or anesthesiological risks, periprosthetic infection, local or systemic infection, nonmanageable soft tissue problems. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Removal of both prosthesis components using the previous incision (mostly using anterior ankle approach). Careful debridement of bone stock at the tibial and talar side. Osseous augmentation of defects using autologous or homologous cancellous bone, if needed, using structural allografts. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: A soft wound dressing is used. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended. Patient mobilization starts on postoperative day 1 with 15 kg partial weight bearing using a stabilizing walking boot or cast for 6-8 weeks. Following clinical and radiographic follow-up at 6 weeks, full weight bearing is initiated gradually after progressive osseous healing has been confirmed. RESULTS: Between January 2007 and December 2012, ankle arthrodesis was performed in 9 patients with failed TAR (6 men and 3 women, mean age 56.4 ± 7.0 years, range 47.8-66.0 years). The mean time between the initial TAR and revision surgery was 4.5 ± 2.4 years (range 1.2-7.9 years). In one patient irrigation and debridement was performed due to superficial wound infection. Another patient had a delayed osseous healing 11 months after the revision surgery.