A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions.

INTRODUCTION: In last three decades, total hip replacement in young patients became an habitual procedure. Principles of bone preservation are pushing many surgeons to implant conservative femoral components in patient younger than 65 years. Despite an overall good survivorship and clinical outcomes of conservative implants, failed cases are reported and the need to revise a conservative femoral component became an occasional procedure (with high prevalence of failed resurfacing implants). METHODS: During conservative femoral component revisions, we analyzed proximal bone stock preservation, considering the type of original component removed, aetiology of failure, timing of revision, and femoral explantation technique. RESULTS: We identified four patterns of proximal femoral changes (types I-IV). We suggest, for each of them, a revision strategy directed toward a "conservative revision procedure" using conservative or primary component. Out of our 21 cases, none underwent further revision due to mechanical failure (follow-up ranging from 6 to 152 months, mean 54 months). We had two cases of re-operation: one for early septic loosening and one for prosthetic modular neck fracture. CONCLUSIONS: If literature offers well-established guidelines to femoral revision of conventional stems, there is, on the other hand, a lack of data about revision strategies in presence of failed conservative implants. Although the mean follow-up of our procedures is still too short (4.5 years) to give final conclusions, we would leave a message: a conservative hip arthroplasty is not a "one time" opportunity for young and active people. A "conservative revision" is a valid option for at least a part of them, when an early failure of primary procedure occurred.

A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions.

INTRODUCTION: In the last three decades, total hip replacement in young patient became a habitual procedure. Principles of bone preservation are pushing many surgeons to implant conservative femoral components in patient younger than 65 years. Despite an overall good survivorship and clinical outcomes of conservative implants, failed cases are reported and the need to revise a conservative femoral component became an occasional procedure (with high prevalence of failed resurfacing implants). METHODS: During conservative femoral component revisions, we analyzed proximal bone stock preservation, considering the type of original component removed, etiology of failure, timing of revision, and femoral explantation technique. RESULTS: We identified four patterns of proximal femoral changes (types I-IV). We suggest, for each of them, a revision strategy directed toward a "conservative revision procedure" using conservative or primary component. Out of our 21 cases, none underwent further revision due to mechanical failure (follow-up ranging from 6 to 152 months, mean 54 months). We had two case of re-operation: one for early septic loosening and one for prosthetic modular neck fracture. CONCLUSIONS: If literature offers well-established guidelines to femoral revision of conventional stems, there is, on the other hand, a lack of data about revision strategies in presence of failed conservative implants. Although the mean follow-up of our procedures is still too short (4.5 years) to give final conclusions, we would leave a message: a conservative hip arthroplasty is not a "one-time" opportunity for young and active people. A "conservative revision" is a valid option for at least a part of them, when an early failure of primary procedure occurred.

Management of post-traumatic elbow instability after failed radial head excision: A case report.

Radial head excision has always been a safe commonly used surgical procedure with a satisfactory clinical outcome for isolated comminuted radial head fractures. However, diagnosis of elbow instability is still very challenging and often underestimated in routine orthopaedic evaluation. We present the case of a 21-years old female treated with excision after radial head fracture, resulting in elbow instability. The patient underwent revision surgery after four weeks. We believe that ligament reconstruction without radial head substitution is a safe alternative choice for Mason III radial head fractures accompanied by complex ligament lesions.

Total hip arthroplasty instability in Italy.

Hip dislocation is a major and common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA), which appears with an incidence between 0.3% and 10% in primary total hip arthroplasties and up to 28% in revision THA. The hip dislocations can be classified into three groups: early, intermediate and late. Approximately two-thirds of cases can be treated successfully with a non-operative approach. The rest require further surgical intervention. The prerequisite to developing an appropriate treatment strategy is a thorough evaluation to identify the causes of the dislocation. In addition, many factors that contribute to THA dislocation are related to the surgical technique, mainly including component orientation, femoral head diameter, restoration of femoral offset and leg length, cam impingement and condition of the soft tissues. The diagnosis of a dislocated hip is relatively easy because the clinical situation is very typical. Having identified a dislocated hip, the first step is to perform a closed reduction of the implant. After reduction you must perform a computed tomography scan to evaluate the surgical options for treatment of recurrent dislocation that include: revision arthroplasty, modular components exchange, dual-mobility cups, large femoral heads, constrained cups, elimination of impingement and soft tissue procedures. The objective is to avoid further dislocation, a devastating event which is increasing the number of operations on the hip. To obtain this goal is useful to follow an algorithm of treatment, but the best treatment remains prevention.

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in proximal humeral fractures: one-year results of a prospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this multicentric study was to evaluate results of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) for proximal humeral fractures in terms of postoperative shoulder function, radiological outcome and number of complications. METHODS: A consecutive series of 76 patients with proximal humeral fractures were treated with locking plate using a minimally invasive antero-lateral approach in two orthopaedic departments. Functional results with Constant score and radiographic evaluation were available for 74 patients at one-year follow up. RESULTS: The patients achieved a mean Constant score of 71 (range 28-100). Each functional result was evaluated also for both centres without significant differences. Significant statistical differences were only found for younger patients with better results (p < 0.05). Twenty patients (27%) developed complications. Subacromial impingement occurred in 16.2% of cases for varus malreduction (6.7%) and for too proximal plate positioning (9.5%). Primary screws perforation (2.7%), secondary perforation due to cut-out (1.4%), avascular necrosis (AVN) of humeral head (1.4%), partial resorption of greater tuberosity (2.7%), secondary dislocation of the greater tuberosity (2.7%) and stiffness (2.7%) were the other complications observed. CONCLUSIONS: The MIPO technique for proximal humeral fractures was safe and reproducible for most common patterns of fracture. Major complication rate was apparently low due to a soft tissue sparing, deltoid muscle and circumflex vessels, with easy access of the bar area to correct positioning of the plate.

Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery.

PURPOSE: Bone stock reconstruction in TKR surgery is one of the biggest challenges for the surgeon. According to some, authors causes of bone stock loosening are multiple, including stress shielding, osteolysis from wear, septic or aseptic loosening, and bone loss caused by a poorly balanced implant. Moreover, bone loss may be iatrogenic at the time of implant removal, indicating that bone preservation during implant removal is critical. METHODS: Defect localization and extension affect the surgeon's decisions about the choice of the surgical technique and the type of plant to be taken. Today there are several options available for bone deficiency treatment. The treatment choice is undoubtedly linked to the cause of revision, experience and personal philosophy, but it is necessary to consider also the patient's age, expectations of life, functional requirements and bone quality. Many authors prefer bone stock reconstruction techniques in patients with high bone quality and a better quality of life with more prospects. In patients with lower lease on life and lower bone quality the best bone replacement techniques are of modular systems, wedges, and augments. In cases with septic bone loss, more or less extended, different authors recommend reducing bone grafts in favor of modular prostheses to reduce the risk of graft contamination. RESULTS: All of these techniques have been shown to be durable in midterm outcomes, but concerns exist for a number of reasons, including disease transmission, resorption, fracture, immune reaction to allograft, the cost of custom prostheses, the inability to modify the construct intraoperatively and the overall technical challenge of applying these techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The choice between different surgical options depends on bone defect dimension and characteristics but are also patient-related. Reestablishment of well-aligned and stable implants is necessary for successful reconstruction, but this can't be accomplished without a sufficient restoration of an eventual bone loss.

Blood loss reduction in cementless total hip replacement with fibrin spray or bipolar sealer: a randomised controlled trial on ninety five patients.

PURPOSE: Several studies have investigated effectiveness of fibrin spray or bipolar sealer to control peri-operative bleeding and reduce the need for blood transfusion, but a direct comparison between the two methods has not been previously performed. We conducted a prospective randomised trial, with standard electrocautery as a control group. METHODS: In our investigation, 95 patients were randomised to one of three parallel groups receiving (1) 10 mL of topical fibrin spray before closure, (2) haemostasis with radiofrequency energy using a bipolar sealer, and (3) standard electrocautery. All patients and staff apart from the surgeons were blinded until data analysis was complete. Peri-operative blood loss has been calculated using a formula described by Ward and Gross (considering estimated patient blood volume, pre- and post-operative haemoglobin and haematocrit levels), with mention of eventual blood re-infusion or transfusion, at given intervals from surgery (6, 24, 48, 72 hours). RESULTS: Mean blood loss was lower for both methods investigated, compared to the control group at every time interval considered, although differences were stronger for fibrin spray [Quixil]. Mean blood saving at the given intervals from surgery (6-24-48-72 hours) was respectively 96 ml, 129 ml, 296 ml, and 121 ml for bipolar sealer [Aquamantys] and 235 ml, 368 ml, 642 ml, and 490 ml for fibrin spray. These results are statistically significant (p = 0.05) for fibrin spray at every interval compared to control values, while a significance is detectable for bipolar sealer only at 48 hours after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The fibrin spray group had the best performance in terms of blood loss, significantly reduced in comparison with the control group and bipolar sealer group. Blood loss reduction for the bipolar sealer was remarkable only at 48 hours, compared with the control group. Blood loss reduction for fibrin spray was significant at every time interval considered. Differences between the two treatments investigated and the control group narrowed slightly at 72 hours, as an expression of spontaneous homeostasis. Notable is the fact that blood volume saved with fibrin spray at 24 and 48 hours is comparable to the volume of at least one blood unit. A cost-effectiveness analysis should be considered in term of expense, biological risks (related to blood transfusion or human-derived products use) and bleeding-related complications.

Results of hip resurfacing.

BACKGROUND: The renewed popularity of resurfacing hip arthroplasty in the last 10 years has generated a remarkable quantity of scientific contributions based on mid- and short-term follow-up. More than one paper has reported a consistent early revision rate as a consequence of biological or biomechanical failure. Two major complications are commonly described with resurfacing implants: avascular necrosis and femoral-neck fracture. A close relationship between these two events has been suggested, but not firmly demonstrated, whereas cementing technique seems to be better understood as potential cause of failure. METHODS: We performed an in vitro study in which four different resurfacing implants were evaluated with a simulated femoral head, two types of cement, (low and high viscosity) and two cementing techniques: direct (cement apposition directly on the femoral head) and indirect (cement poured into the femoral component). RESULTS: High-viscosity cement showed homogeneous distribution over the entire femoral head. Low-viscosity cement showed a massive polar concentration with insufficient, if not absent, distribution in the equatorial zone. CONCLUSION: Polar cement concentration could be a risk factor for early implant failure due to two effects on the femoral head: biological (excessive local exothermic reaction could cause osteocyte necrosis) and biomechanical (which could lead to uneven load distribution on the femoral head).

Patterns of cement distribution in total hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

In this in vitro study, 4 different resurfacing implants have been evaluated with a simulated femoral head: 2 types of cement have been used (low and high viscosity) and 2 different cementing techniques have been performed: direct (cement apposition directly on the femoral head) and indirect (cement poured into the femoral component). High-viscosity cement shows a homogeneous distribution all over the femoral head. Low-viscosity cement shows a massive polar concentration with insufficient if not absent distribution in the equatorial zone. Polar cement concentration could be held as a risk factor for early implant failure. It could have 2 effects on femoral head: biologic (excessive local exothermic reaction could cause necrosis of the osteocytes) and biomechanical (it could lead to uneven load distribution on the femoral head).