Superior functional outcome with dual mobility THR as compared to conventional THR in fracture neck femur: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Total Hip Replacement (THR) in displaced Fracture Neck of Femur (FNOF) is associated with higher dislocation rates. Conventional THR with a large femoral head and anterior approach has reduced the instability, but it remains higher than THR done for other aetiology. Recent studies have shown reduced dislocation rates with dual mobility THR (DMTHR) for FNOF; however, there is a lack of comparative research to show its superiority over conventional THR. Further, its role in the Asian subcontinent, where the patient requires sitting cross-legged or squatting, has not been studied. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 103 elderly patients with displaced FNOF with a minimum follow-up of 1-year. Fifty-two patients were operated on with DMTHR and fifty-one patients with conventional THR. Both the groups were matched in terms of demographic data, surgical approach, and postoperative protocol. Radiological and functional outcomes in terms of Harris Hip Score (HHS), Range of motion, Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM), and Dislocation rate were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Mean HHS of the DMTHR group was 76.37 at three months and 87.02 at the end of the 1-year postoperatively, which was significantly better than the conventional THR group 65.65 at three months and 72.96 at 1-year. The range of motion was significantly better in the DMTHR group than the conventional THR group. There was no significant difference in radiological outcomes and postoperative dislocation rate between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Dual mobility implants give better results than conventional implants for primary THA in elderly patients of displaced FNOF regarding better function and greater range of motion.

Does a Modified Technique to Achieve Arthrodesis of the Wrist After Resection of the Distal Radius and Translocating the Ipsilateral Ulna as a Vascularized Graft to Reconstruct the Defect Improve Grip Strength and Outcomes Scores?

BACKGROUND: Ten years ago, we reported the results of a procedure in which we translocated the ipsilateral ulna as a vascularized autograft to reconstruct defects of the distal radius after tumor resection, with excellent functional results. At that time, wrist arthrodesis was achieved by aligning the translocated ulna with the scapholunate area of the carpus and usually the third metacarpal. This resulted in wrist narrowing. We then wondered if aligning the translocated ulna with the scaphoid and the second metacarpal would result in ulnar deviation and thereby improve grip strength. We believed lateralization would reduce the wrist narrowing that occurs with fusion to the third metacarpal and would make the cosmesis more acceptable. We also modified the incision to dororadial to make the scar less visible and thus improve the cosmesis. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there an objective improvement in grip strength and functional scores (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society [MSTS] and Mayo wrist) when the translocated ulna is lateralized and the wrist is fused with the translocated ulna and aligned with the second metacarpal versus when the translocated ulna is aligned with the third metacarpal? (2) Did lateralization caused by the wrist fusion aligned with the second metacarpal minimize wrist narrowing as measured by the circumference compared with the fusion aligned with the third metacarpal? METHODS: From 2010 and 2018, we treated 40 patients with distal radius tumors at our institution, 30 of whom had a distal radius enbloc resection. Twenty-eight patients had an ipsilateral ulna translocation and wrist arthrodesis in which the radius and translocated ulna were aligned with either the second (n = 15) or the third (n = 13) metacarpals. Two patients in the second metacarpal group and three patients in the third metacarpal group were lost to follow-up before 24 months after surgery and were excluded. A retrospective analysis of 23 patients (20 with giant cell tumors and three with malignant bone tumors) included a review of radiographs and institutional tumor database for surgical and follow-up records to study oncologic (local disease recurrence), reconstruction (union of osteotomy junctions, implant breakage or graft fracture, and wrist circumference), and functional outcomes (MSTS and Mayo wrist scores and objective grip strength assessment compared with the contralateral side). The results were compared for each study group (second metacarpal versus third metacarpal). There was no difference in the incidence of local recurrence or the time to union between the two groups. There were no implant breakages or graft fractures noted in either group. RESULTS: Patients in the second metacarpal group lost less grip strength compared with the unoperated side in the third metacarpal group (median 12% [range -30% to 35%] versus median 28% [15% to 42%], difference of medians 16%; p = 0.006). There were no between-group differences in terms of MSTS (median 30 [24 to 30] versus median 26.5 [22 to 30], difference of medians 3.5; p = 0.21) or Mayo wrist scores (median 83 [65 to 100] versus median 72 [50 to 90], difference of medians 11; p = 0.10). The second metacarpal group also had less wrist narrowing as seen from the median difference in circumference between the operated and unoperated wrists (median narrowing 10 mm [3 to 35 mm] in the second metacarpal group versus median 30 mm [15 to 35 mm] in the third metacarpal group, difference of medians 20 mm; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Wrist arthrodesis after ulna translocation with alignment of the translocated ulna and the second metacarpal provides a functional position with ulnar deviation that offers some improvement in grip strength but no improvement in the MSTS or Mayo scores. Radialization/lateralization of the translocated ulna achieved from the alignment with the second metacarpal decreases the reduction in the wrist circumference and therefore reduces wrist narrowing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Fighting Megaprosthetic Infections: What are the Chances of Winning?

BACKGROUND: Megaprosthetic infections continue to be a leading mode of failure after limb salvage surgery. Though challenging, amputations can be avoided with proper management in majority of the cases. This study aims to describe the spectrum of mega-endoprosthetic infections at our institute and assess the treatment efficacy in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients treated for endoprosthetic infection at our institute between 2010 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed for overall survival of reconstruction method, site and type of megaprosthesis, adjuvant therapy, microbial isolates, surgical and medical management and outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (22 males: 13 females) were analyzed following treatment for endoprosthetic infection. Majority were around the knee joint [most commonly with proximal tibia (n = 14) followed by distal femur (n = 12) megaprosthesis]. Ten patients had undergone primary surgical procedure at our institute, while 25 patients presented with infection after megaprosthesis implantation. In the 28 culture-positive infections, the most common micro-organism was Staphylococcus spp. (18 patients: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus = 9, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus = 5, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus = 1, Staphylococcus epidermidis = 3) and poly-microbial infection was present in three patients. Nine patients underwent successful debridement and wound wash with insertion of antibiotic impregnated cement beads in 5/9 cases. Twenty-one patients required a two-stage revision. Of these 30 patients, all but one has completely resolved infections. One patient with resurfaced late infection after re-implantation is on chronic suppressive antimicrobial therapy and close follow-up. Amputation because of uncontrolled infection was performed in three patients (one death post-operatively due to systemic complications of septicemia), while two patients opted for amputation as opposed to stage revisions. Median antimicrobial therapy duration was 6 weeks (1-12 weeks). Reconstructive surgery for soft tissue cover was required in seven patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early or acute presentation without frank granulation or pus around the implant, debridement and insertion of antibiotic cement beads was adequate. Two-stage revisions with complete removal of the megaprosthesis showed best results in infections that could be controlled with antimicrobial therapy. More than one exchange of cement spacer was required for uncontrolled infections. Multidisciplinary approach in consultation with the infectious disease team is essential to determine choice of antibiotic cement for beads/spacer as well as appropriate adjuvant antimicrobial therapy to solve the challenging problem of endoprosthetic infections following bone tumor surgery. Adequate and healthy soft tissue cover of the implant should be achieved wherever indicated.

Bizarre Parosteal Osteochondromatous Proliferation- A Case Series of Typical and Atypical Presentations.

INTRODUCTION: Bizarre parosteal osteochondromatous proliferationis a distinct entity which requires proper radiological and pathological distinction for correct surgical management. CASE REPORT: We present a series of four cases which were misdiagnosed by the treating surgeons, reporting radiologists and pathologists due to clinical and investigatory consistencies with other benign or malignant orthopedic tumors. Due to common diagnostic errors of these uncommon tumors, the patients had recurrence and required multiple invasive procedures which could have been avoided with high index of suspicion. CONCLUSION: Dueto high local recurrence rates and a lack of adjuvant therapy options, this lesion will continue to pose a challenge for orthopedic surgeons and more awareness ofthis lesion will help identify and understand that a wide excision, with no compromise related to the margins, is required for this benign-appearing lesion.