1
|
Sculco PK, Wright T, Malahias MA, Gu A, Bostrom M, Haddad F, Jerabek S, Bolognesi M, Fehring T, Gonzalez DellaValle A, Jiranek W, Walter W, Paprosky W, Garbuz D, Sculco T, Abdel M, Boettner F, Benazzo F, Buttaro M, Choi D, Engh CA, Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Garcia-Rey E, Gehrke T, Griffin WL, Hansen E, Hozack WJ, Jones S, Lee GC, Lipman J, Manktelow A, McLaren AC, Nelissen R, O’Hara L, Perka C, Sporer S. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium. HSS J 2022; 18:8-41. [PMID: 35082557 PMCID: PMC8753540 DOI: 10.1177/15563316211034850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2021] [Revised: 07/07/2021] [Accepted: 07/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Despite growing evidence supporting the evaluation, classification, and treatment of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement, advancements have not been systematically incorporated into a single document, and therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss is needed. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center at Hospital for Special Surgery held an Acetabular Bone Loss Symposium on June 21, 2019, to answer the following questions: What are the trends, emerging technologies, and areas of future research related to the evaluation and management of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement? What constitutes the optimal workup and management strategies for acetabular bone loss? The 36 international experts convened were divided into groups, each assigned to discuss 1 of 4 topics: (1) preoperative planning and postoperative assessment; (2) implant selection, management of osteolysis, and management of massive bone loss; (3) the treatment challenges of pelvic discontinuity, periprosthetic joint infection, instability, and poor bone biology; and (4) the principles of reconstruction and classification of acetabular bone loss. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review. This document provides an overview of these 4 areas, the consensus each group arrived at, and directions for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter K. Sculco
- Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA,Peter K. Sculco, MD, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E. 70th St., New York, NY 10021, USA.
| | | | | | - Alexander Gu
- George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Fares Haddad
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Sport, Exercise & Health, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - William Walter
- Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia
| | - Wayne Paprosky
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Donald Garbuz
- Department of Orthopaedics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
Ankle fractures remain the third most common musculoskeletal injury in the elderly population. The presence of osteoporosis, significant multiple comorbidities and limited functional independence makes treatment of such injuries challenging. Early studies highlighted high rates of post-operative complications and poor outcomes after surgical intervention. With advances in surgical techniques and a greater understanding of multi-disciplinary team (MDT)-driven peri-operative care and rehabilitation, evidence now appears to suggest improved outcomes for operative management. Approaches must be adapted according to co-morbidities, baseline function and patient wishes. This review article aims to discuss contemporary treatment strategies and the complex challenges associated with the management of the elderly ankle fracture.
Collapse
|
3
|
vanWinterswijk PJTS, Whitehouse SL, Timperley AJ, Hubble MJW, Howell JR, Wilson MJ. The Rim Cutter does not show an advantage over modern cementing techniques: a five-year radiological and clinical follow-up of the Rim Cutter used with flanged acetabular components. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B:1450-1457. [PMID: 29092983 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.99b11.bjj-2017-0138.r1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2017] [Accepted: 06/08/2017] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
AIMS We report the incidence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) using two flanged acetabular components at total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the effect of the Rim Cutter. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a retrospective review of 300 hips in 292 patients who underwent primary cemented THA. A contemporary flanged acetabular component was used with (group 1) and without (group 2) the use of the Rim Cutter and the Rimfit acetabular component was used with the Rim Cutter (group 3). RLLs and clinical outcomes were evaluated immediately post-operatively and at five years post-operatively. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the incidence of RLLs on the immediate post-operative radiographs (p = 0.241) or at five years post-operatively (p = 0.463). RLLs were seen on the immediate post-operative radiograph in 2% of hips in group 1, in 5% in group 2 and in 7% in group 3. Five years post-operatively, there were RLLs in 42% of hips in group 1, 41% in group 2 and in 49% in group 3. In the vast majority of hips, in each group, the RLL was present in DeLee and Charnley zone 1 only (86%, 83%, 67% respectively). Oxford and Harris Hip scores improved significantly in all groups. There was no significant difference in these scores or in the change in scores between the groups, with follow-up. CONCLUSION Despite the Rim Cutter showing promising results in early laboratory and clinical studies, this analysis of the radiological and clinical outcome five years post-operatively does not show any advantage over and above modern cementing techniques in combination with a well performing cemented acetabular component. For this reason, we no longer use the Rim Cutter in routine primary THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1450-7.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - S L Whitehouse
- Queensland University of Technology (QUT) , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - A J Timperley
- Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - M J W Hubble
- Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - J R Howell
- Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - M J Wilson
- Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| |
Collapse
|