Long-term follow-up of the anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term clinical results and the effectiveness of the anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2005, 60 ALIFs were performed in 59 patients. Mean age was 41.1 years. Clinically, patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 9.5 years using the Visual Analogue Scale grading scale, the Oswestry Disability score and the SF-36 questionnaire. RESULTS: Preoperative and postoperative clinical evaluation scores of 38 patients were available. Nineteen patients were lost to follow-up, and 2 patients died during the follow-up. The fusion rate was 84%. Mean preoperative VAS-score for back pain was 6.69 (±2.15) ; in the long term, the mean VAS-score was 4.95 (±2.95), which was a significant improvement. (p<0.01). The postoperative ODI-score was 36.11 (±22.32), while the preoperative ODI-score was 59.31 (±17.16), which demonstrates a significant improvement. According to the SF-36, mild to good results were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The ALIF procedure can offer significant pain relief and improved function if a strict indication policy is followed.

Outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty, determinants for success.

The primary aim of this study is to document whether patellofemoral arthroplasty is a good treatment option for patellofemoral osteoarthritis and to identify prognostic outcome factors. Secondary aim is to investigate the influence of preoperative tibiofemoral osteoarthritis on the clinical outcome. From 2004 to 2010, 37 Avon patellofemoral prostheses were implanted in 32 patients. Clinical outcome was evaluated with five questionnaires: KOOS, Kujala, VAS, OKS and Satisfaction Score. Radiographs were analyzed using the IWANO and Kellgren-Lawrence classification. To identify determinants of outcome, subgroups were examined according to sex, age, diagnosis, BMI and prior surgery. Patellofemoral arthroplasty is a valuable treatment for patellofemoral osteoarthritis. After prosthesis placement, KOOS, Kujala, VAS and OKS improved significantly (all p < 0.001). Patients with prior patellofemoral surgery were clinically worse (p < 0.05). Patients with preoperative Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 tibiofemoral osteoarthritis had a significantly worse outcome compared to grade 1 (p < 0.05). Further research is necessary to determine whether patellofemoral arthroplasty is indicated in these patients.

Revision of meniscal transplants: long-term clinical follow-up.

PURPOSE: The primary aim is to document objective and subjective clinical outcome after knee arthroplasty for failed meniscal allograft transplantation; secondly, to investigate the influence of previous meniscal allograft surgery on the clinical outcome after a knee arthroplasty procedure; thirdly, to identify possible prognostic factors for the failure of meniscal allograft, such as potential number of concomitant procedures or pre-transplantation HSS-scores. The study population was compared to a control group of primary total knee arthroplasties. METHODS: The pre-operative phase, prior to meniscal allograft transplantation, was evaluated by the HSS questionnaire. At final follow-up, the clinical outcome was evaluated by the HSS, KOOS and SF-36 questionnaires. The mean follow-up was 16 years and 2 months. The control group, matched for age and sex, comprised patients with primary total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed that for the HSS-scores, there was no significant difference between the study population and the control group. KOOS data showed that the control group scored better overall. There was no significant difference between the HSS-scores after the transplantation and after the knee prosthesis. However, both showed a significant improvement regarding the clinical condition before meniscal transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical results after revised meniscal transplantation by means of knee prosthesis are highly variable with a tendency to have a lower score than patients with a primary knee prosthesis. Patients who underwent a revision of their meniscal allograft transplantation by means of a knee arthroplasty still had a significant better clinical outcome than prior to the meniscal allograft transplantation. There were no prognostic factors found by which one can determine whether a meniscal allograft will have a good survival or not.