Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose The purpose of this review article was to investigate the incidence and predisposing factors for periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty. Methods We performed a comprehensive search of the medical literature in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to review articles related to PFF, their incidence and risk factors. Results and Conclusions The incidence of PPF after primary THA was, in general, lower than after revision THA both for intra- and postoperative PFF. The rate of intraoperative PFF ranged from 0.1 % to 27.8 % and of postoperative PFF from 0.07 % to 18 %. Predisposing factors for intraoperative PFF are osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, femoral preparation and surgical technique used to insert the rasp or femoral component, the use of press-fit cementless stems, and revision THA. In case of postoperative PFF, the following seem to be significant risk factors: advanced age, female gender, post-traumatic osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis, proximal femoral deformities, previous surgery of the affected hip, implant type (especially cementless stems and press-fit implantation), technical errors such as cortical perforation, cortical stress risers, low-energy trauma, osteolysis, loosening and revision THA.

Closing wedge high tibial osteotomy is a common, effective and well-established procedure to treat unicompartment osteoarthrosis of the knee. It is, however, not without its complications. This article will discuss some of these complications and present an overview of the current literature. It will examine current thoughts on aetiology, techniques to try to avoid, and methods of treatment of these complications.

Background A variety of techniques are available for fixation of femoral shaft fractures following total hip arthroplasty. The optimal surgical repair method still remains a point of controversy in the literature. However, few studies have quantified the performance of such repair constructs. This study biomechanically examined 3 different screw-plate and cable-plate systems for fixation of periprosthetic femoral fractures near the tip of a total hip arthroplasty. Methods Twelve pairs of human cadaveric femurs were utilized. Each left femur was prepared for the cemented insertion of the femoral component of a total hip implant. Femoral fractures were created in the femurs and subsequently repaired with Construct A (Zimmer Cable Ready System), Construct B (AO Cable-Plate System), or Construct C (Dall-Miles Cable Grip System). Right femora served as matched intact controls. Axial, torsional, and four-point bending tests were performed to obtain stiffness values. Results All repair systems showed 3.08 to 5.33 times greater axial stiffness over intact control specimens. Four-point normalized bending (0.69 to 0.85) and normalized torsional (0.55 to 0.69) stiffnesses were lower than intact controls for most comparisons. Screw-plates provided either greater or equal stiffness compared to cable-plates in almost all cases. There were no statistical differences between plating systems A, B, or C when compared to each other (p > 0.05). Conclusions Screw-plate systems provide more optimal mechanical stability than cable-plate systems for periprosthetic femur fractures near the tip of a total hip arthroplasty.

Background Despite modern fracture management techniques allowing for near anatomic reduction of acetabular fractures, there continues to be a risk of posttraumatic arthritis and need for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Few well-controlled studies have compared THA after acetabular fractures with THAs performed for other indications in terms of survivorship or complications, and none, to our knowledge, present 10-year survivorship data in this setting. Questions/purposes (1) How does the 10-year survival of THA compare between those patients who underwent THA after an acetabular fracture and those who underwent THA for primary arthritis or avascular necrosis (AVN)? (2) Is there an increased risk of serious complications like infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening as well as heterotopic ossification associated with a THA performed after a previous acetabular fracture? Methods This retrospective case-control study compared findings of patients who underwent THA after acetabular fracture versus a matched cohort of patients who had received a primary THA for primary osteoarthritis or AVN. Between 1987 and 2011, we performed 95 THAs after acetabular fracture; of those, 74 (78%) met inclusion criteria and had documented followup beyond 2 years in our institutional registry. We selected 74 matched patients based on an algorithm that matched patients based on preoperative diagnosis, date of operation, age, gender, and type of prosthesis. During this time, we performed approximately 8000 THAs that were potentially available for matching based on complete followup beyond 2 years. We compared cases and control subjects using the Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimator as well as a comparison of the proportions in each group that developed major complications (including infection, dislocation, loosening, and heterotopic ossification) based a retrospective chart review. Results The 10-year survivorship after THA was lower in patients with a previous acetabular fracture than in the matched cohort (70%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 64%–78%, versus 90%, 95% CI, 86–95%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the 10-year survival rate for those patients whose acetabular fracture was initially treated conservatively and those treated by open reduction and internal fixation. Patients with previous acetabular fracture had a higher likelihood of developing infection (7% [five of 74] versus 0% [zero of 74]; odds ratio [OR], 11.79; p = 0.028), dislocation (11% [eight of 74] versus 3% [two of 74]; OR, 4.36; p = 0.048), or heterotopic ossification (43% [32 of 74] versus 16% [12 of 74]; OR, 3.93; p < 0.001). Conclusions In this case-control study, patients with a prior acetabular fracture had markedly inferior 10-year survivorship and more frequent serious complications when compared with patients undergoing THA for primary osteoarthritis or AVN. Given these findings, management of these complex cases should be in highly specialized units where the expertise of arthroplasty and trauma reconstruction is available. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Purpose Operative approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has long been a topic of debate with each approach having unique benefits and disadvantages. One purported benefit of an anterior approach to THA is that it allows for intraoperative positioning using fluoroscopy rather than manual positioning. Proper positioning allows for improved outcomes including leg length discrepancy and acetabular component angle. This study aims to examine if operative approach and use of imaging in intraoperative positioning impact LLD and cup angle post-operatively. Methods A total of 300 hips were enrolled in the study with 100 hips per approach (anterior with fluoroscopy, lateral, and posterior). Retrospective chart review was conducted to assess patient demographics and radiographic analysis used to determine LLD and acetabular cup angle. Results Of the three groups, those receiving anterior approach THAs were on average older than those in the posterior group. Analysis comparing the LLD and acetabular angle across the three groups showed no statistically significant difference in LLD ( p =0.091); this was also reflected when comparing hips that received fluoroscopy with those that did not ( p =0.91). For acetabular angle, while no difference existed when comparing hips that received imaging versus those that did not, statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the three intraoperative approaches ( p <0.0001). Conclusions Neither intraoperative approach nor the use of intraoperative imaging in THA has a statistically significant effect on LLD post-operatively. However, approach did impact the acetabular cup angle across all three distinct approaches.

Purpose This study prospectively reports survivorship and radiographic and clinical outcomes following primary elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a novel single hemispherical, porous-coated acetabular cup with five different bearing combinations and a minimum of five year follow-up. Methods Continuing post-market release monitoring of this cup, we prospectively enrolled 108 patients (121 THA) between 2009 and 2015. We followed this cohort by examining survivorship, in addition to clinical and radiological outcomes for metal-on-metal (MoM) compared with non-MoM bearing combinations (ceramic-on-ceramic, oxinium-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-metal, and metal-on-polyethylene). Results All 108 (121 hips) patients were followed up. Average age at time of surgery was 45.1 years (range 19 to 71 years) of which 42.1% were males. A total of seven (5.8%) cups were revised, all of which were MoM. No osteolysis was observed in any of the patients at the latest visit with a mean follow-up of 9.1 ± 1.7 years (range 4.4–10.7 years). With MoM excluded, survivorship of the cup at five  years is 97.8%. Survivorship for MoM implants was 90.0%. Validated hip scores showed significant improvements for all bearing types and no significant difference between groups at latest follow-up ( p  = 0.614). There was no cup migration with any bearing surface. Conclusion This cup showed excellent survivorship at five year follow-up, except for patients receiving a MoM articulation. While there were concerns over the early survivorship of this cup, our cohort and joint registry data confirm excellent outcomes.