No Difference in Revision Rates or Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Between Surgical Approaches for Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed for Femoral Neck Fracture: An Analysis of 5,025 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties From the New Zealand Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF) can be performed through different surgical approaches. This study compared the revision rates and patient-reported outcome measures by surgical approach. METHODS: Data from the New Zealand Joint Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for FNF from January 2000 to December 2021. A total of 5,025 THAs were performed for FNF; the lateral approach was used in 2,499 (49.7%), the posterior in 2,255 (44.9%), and the anterior in 271 (4.3%). The primary outcome measure was the all-cause revision rate. Secondary outcome measures included revision rates for: dislocation, aseptic femoral component loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were also collected. Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, femoral head size, dual mobility use, femoral fixation, and surgeon experience were assessed as potential confounding variables. RESULTS: There was no difference in the revision rates between lateral and posterior (P = .156), lateral and anterior (P = .680), or posterior and anterior (P = .714) approaches. There was no difference in the reasons for revision between the lateral and posterior approaches or 6-month OHS (P = .712). There was insufficient data to compare the anterior approach. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in the overall revision rates, reasons for revision, or OHS between the lateral and posterior surgical approaches for THA performed for FNF. Insufficient data on the anterior approach is available for an accurate comparison. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Alignment and Fixation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With Press-Fit, Offset, Diaphyseal-Engaging Stem Extensions, and Eccentric Reaming Technique.

BACKGROUND: A revision total knee arthroplasty must control limb alignment, often to address the cause of failure. Press-fit stems that engage the diaphysis with cement restricted to the metaphysis constitute one fixation technique. These long stems restrict coronal alignment of the prosthesis and as a result reduce the likelihood of extreme malposition. For the same reasons, long stems can make it difficult to manipulate alignment and achieve a specific coronal alignment angle. Nevertheless, femoral stems with a tight diaphyseal fit may still occupy a small range of varus-valgus positions due to the conical distal femoral metaphysis. Pulling the reamer toward the lateral endosteum increases femoral component coronal alignment toward a valgus direction and pushing the reamer medially increases alignment in a more varus direction. A straight stem, in combination with a medially directed reaming, would result in a femoral component that overhangs medially, but an offset stem can recenter the femoral component and maintain the desired alignment. We hypothesized that diaphyseal fit plus this reaming technique can control limb coronal alignment and provide fixation. METHODS: This was a retrospective clinical and long-leg radiographic study of consecutive revision total knee arthroplasties with minimum 2-year follow-up. Outcomes were correlated with New Zealand Joint Registry data to identify rerevisions of 111 consecutive revision knee arthroplasties, 92 after exclusions, at a minimum 2-year (range, 2 to 10) follow-up. RESULTS: Mean femoral and tibial canal fill exceeded 91% on antero-posterior and lateral radiographs. The mean hip-knee-ankle angle was 179.6o (174.9-184.0) with 80% within ± 3o of neutral. The hip-ankle axis crossed the central Kennedy zone in 76.5% of cases and the other 24.6% crossed the inner medial and inner lateral zones. Tibial components: 99.0% ± 3o. Femoral components: 89.5% within ± 3o. There were 5 knees that failed due to infection, 3 from femoral loosening, and 1 due to recurvatum instability from polio. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a surgical plan and technique for achieving target coronal alignment with press-fit diaphyseal fixation. It is the only series of revision knee arthroplasties with diaphyseal press-fit stems to report canal fill in 2 planes and coronal alignment on full-length radiographs.

The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems.

BACKGROUND: The cementless Corail is one of the most commonly used stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a difference in revision rate for smaller stems. METHODS: All primary THA procedures recorded by the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2017 performed for osteoarthritis using the Corail stem, a cementless acetabular cup, modern bearing surfaces (ceramic/ceramic, ceramic/cross-linked polyethylene, and metal/cross-linked polyethylene), and 28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm head sizes were included. The primary outcome measure was femoral component revision. Data were analyzed and adjusted for age, gender, and head size. Further analysis investigated the effects of surgical approach. RESULTS: There was 41,265 primary THAs recorded. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) at 13 years was 7.7% (5.5, 10.7) for stem sizes 8 and 9 and 3.0% (2.4, 3.8) for sizes 10-20 (P < .001). When adjusted for age and gender, the sizes 8 and 9 collared (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.22 [3.84-10.06], P < .001) and collarless (HR: 3.28 [2.41-4.45], P < .001) had a higher CPR than the collared and collarless size 10-20. The size 8 and 9 stems performed with an anterior approach had the highest CPR (HR: 14.44 [6.21-33.56], P < .001). The main reason for revision of size 8 and 9 femoral stems was loosening (65.2%, compared to 31.5% for 10-20 femoral stems). CONCLUSIONS: Smaller Corail stems have 4 times the rate of revision compared with the larger femoral sizes with loosening being the most common diagnosis. This is most evident when using an anterior approach.

Successful management of hamstring injuries in Australian Rules footballers: two case reports.

Hamstring injuries are the most prevalent injury in Australian Rules football. There is a lack of evidence based literature on the treatment, prevention and management of hamstring injuries, although it is agreed that the etiology is complicated and multi-factorial. We present two cases of hamstring injury that had full resolution after spinal manipulation and correction of lumbar-pelvic biomechanics. There was no recurrence through preventative treatment over a twelve and sixteen week period. The use of spinal manipulation for treatment or prevention of hamstring injury has not been documented in sports medicine literature and should be further investigated in prospective randomized controlled trials.

INJURIES IN AUSTRALIAN RULES FOOTBALL: A Review of the Literature.

Background: Australian Rules Football is one of the most popular sports in Australia. Successful injury prevention relies on injury surveillance to establish the extent of injuries, to monitor injury patterns and to evaluate prevention strategies. Despite the popularity of participation at the community level, few injury surveillance studies have been published, so a detailed review of the literature is vital. There is limited information available outside of the elite level. Injury statistics for any professional sport may not necessarily be translatable to community sport level.Objective: To document the most prevalent injuries at the elite, junior elite, amateur and junior level and determine if incidences differ across levels of play. Aetiology and significant risk factors for injuries are emphasized and prevention and treatment discussed.Discussion: Injuries on average are more common at the elite level compared with other levels of participation. The type of injury varies slightly, with non contact injuries, particularly muscle strains, being the most common. Of these, the hamstring strain is the most common. Aetiology and risk factors vary between levels of play due to a time basis, physical development, speed of play and skill level. Recurrence rates are a concern for clubs and players, although rates are decreasing at the elite level, indicating better treatment and conservative management of injured players.