Manipulation under anesthesia following total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive review of literature.

INTRODUCTION: The etiology of the stiff knee after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is largely unknown, although excessive scar tissue due to arthrofibrosis is an important reason for a limited range of motion (ROM) after this procedure. Persistent limited ROM after TKA results in poor patient-reported outcomes and is increasingly becoming a more prominent reason for TKA revision surgery. METHODS: A narrative review of current literature on manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) after TKA analyzing etiology and risk factors for stiffness after TKA, effectiveness of MUA and what is known about rehabilitation after MUA. RESULTS: Literature describes numerous risk factors for insufficient knee ROM after TKA, but a comprehensive valid risk model is lacking. MUA is an effective treatment option with evidence suggesting better outcomes if performed within the first 3 months after TKA. The wide variety in both the indication and timing for MUA, and the lack of scientific evidence on how to rehabilitate patients after MUA, complicates the interpretation of available literature. This is even more so the case on the reporting of one versus two or more MUAs after TKA. CONCLUSION: Future comparative trials, preferably with a randomized study design, should be conducted to elude more clear indications for MUA, to give clinical guidance on correct timing for MUA and on how to rehabilitate patients afterward.

The rate of dislocation is not increased when minimal precautions are used after total hip arthroplasty using the posterolateral approach: a prospective, comparative safety study.

AIMS: In order to prevent dislocation of the hip after total hip arthroplasty (THA), patients have to adhere to precautions in the early post-operative period. The hypothesis of this study was that a protocol with minimal precautions after primary THA using the posterolateral approach would not increase the short-term (less than three months) risk of dislocation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively monitored a group of unselected patients undergoing primary THA managed with standard precautions (n = 109, median age 68.9 years; interquartile range (IQR) 61.2 to 77.3) and a group who were managed with fewer precautions (n = 108, median age 67.2 years; IQR 59.8 to 73.2). There were no significant differences between the groups in relation to predisposing risk factors. The diameter of the femoral head ranged from 28 mm to 36 mm; meticulous soft-tissue repair was undertaken in all patients. The medical records were reviewed and all patients were contacted three months post-operatively to confirm whether they had experienced a dislocation. RESULTS: There were no dislocations in the less restricted group and one in the more restricted group (p = 0.32). CONCLUSION: For experienced surgeons using the posterolateral approach at THA and femoral heads of diameter ≥ 28 mm, it appears safe to manage patients in the immediate post-operative period with minimal precautions to protect against dislocation. Larger studies with adequate statistical power are needed to verify this conclusion. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Experienced orthopaedic surgeons using the posterolateral approach for THA should not fear an increased dislocation rate if they manage their patients with a minimal precautions protocol. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:589-94.

Asymptomatic pseudotumours after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing show little change within one year.

The aim of this study was to establish the natural course of unrevised asymptomatic pseudotumours after metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing during a six- to 12-month follow-up period. We used repeated metal artefact reduction sequence (MARS)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), serum metal ion analysis and clinical examination to study 14 unrevised hips (mean patient age 52.7 years, 46 to 68, 5 female, 7 male) with a pseudotumour and 23 hips (mean patient age 52.8 years, 38 to 69, 7 female, 16 male) without a pseudotumour. The mean post-operative time to the first MARS-MRI scan was 4.3 years (2.2 to 8.3), and mean time between the first and second MARS-MRI scan was eight months (6 to 12). At the second MRI scan, the grade of severity of the pseudotumour had not changed in 35 hips. One new pseudotumour (Anderson C2 score, moderate) was observed, and one pseudotumour was downgraded from C2 (moderate) to C1 (mild). In general, the characteristics of the pseudotumours hardly changed. Repeated MARS-MRI scans within one year in patients with asymptomatic pseudotumours after MoM hip resurfacing showed little or no variation. In 23 patients without pseudotumour, one new asymptomatic pseudotumour was detected. This is the first longitudinal study on the natural history of pseudotumours using MARS-MRI scans in hip resurfacing, and mirrors recent results for 28 mm diameter MoM total hip replacement.

Survival of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature.

We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature to relate the survival of hybrid metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty devices to a National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) benchmark for choosing a primary total hip replacement, which is a survival rate of 90% at a follow-up of ten years. A total of 29 articles (10 621 resurfaced hips) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up ranged from 0.6 to 10.5 years and the survival of the implant ranged from 84% to 100%. Of the 10 621 hips, 370 were revised (3.5%), with aseptic loosening as the most frequent mode of failure. None of the hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants used to date met the full ten-year NICE benchmark of survival. A total of 13 studies showed satisfactory survival compared with the three-year NICE benchmark.