[Acetabular metastatic defect reconstruction using the modular revision support cup MRS-C]

OBJECTIVE

Stabilization of metastatic acetabular defects with a bone cement-augmented revision support cup for remobilization of oncological patients in advanced cancer stages.

INDICATIONS

Metastatic acetabular defects (Metastatic Acetabular Classification, MAC 2-4) in patients with a prognostic medium or long-term survival.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Highly limited survival due to metastatic disease (< 6 weeks). Local bone or soft tissue infection. Primary bone tumor with curative treatment option. Advanced pelvic discontinuity. Recent wound compromising systemic therapy.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Standard hip approach. Curettage of the metastatic defect and careful reaming of the acetabulum before insertion of the cup. Predrilling of the dome und flange screws before application of the bone cement through the center hole of the implant and filling of the acetabular defect. Complete insertion of the screws for compound osteosynthesis. Implant of a modular inlay or dual mobility system.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Full weight bearing or mobilization with two crutches according to the level of pain. Adjuvant local radiation therapy after wound consolidation. Continuation of systemic therapy according to tumor board decision.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2019, we treated 14 patients with metastatic acetabular defects using the modular revision support cup "MRS-TITAN® Comfort", MRS-C, Peter Brehm GmbH, Weisendorf, Germany) at our institution. Mean Harris Hip Score improvement was 23.2 with a mean patient's survival of 9.7 months due to the reduced cancer-related prognosis; 13 of the 14 implants endured the patient's prognosis. One implant had to be removed due soft tissue defect-related periprosthetic joint infection.

Litigations in orthopedics and trauma surgery: reasons, dynamics, and profiles

BACKGROUND

In recent literature, the increasing number of medical litigations, both in terms of the number of cases being filed and the substantive costs associated with lawsuits, has been described. This study aims to provide an overview of the profile of litigation for orthopedic and trauma surgery to describe the differences and the development of the number of cases over time.

PATIENTS AND MATERIALS

A retrospective review of all litigations between 2000 and 2017 was conducted using the institutional legal database. The causes of litigation were documented and classified into seven major categories. In addition to plaintiff characteristics, the litigation outcomes and the differences between emergency and elective surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 230 cases were evaluated. The mean age of the plaintiffs was 44.6 ± 20.1 years, and 56.8% were female. The main reasons for litigation were claimed inappropriate management (46.1%), misdiagnosis (22.6), and poor nursing care (8.3%). Significantly more litigations were filed against surgeons of the orthopedic subspecialty compared with trauma surgeons (78%; p ≤ 0.0001). There were significantly fewer litigations per 1000 cases filed overall in 2009-2017 (65% less; p = 0.003) than in 2000-2008.

CONCLUSION

Our results could not confirm the often-stated trend of having more litigations against orthopedic and trauma surgeons. Although the absolute numbers increased, the number of litigations per 1000 patients treated declined. Patients who underwent elective surgery were more likely to file complaints than emergency patients.

[Periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur]

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur is increasing due to the growing numbers of hip replacements in old age. The treatment of these fractures is a challenge for the treating physician and standardized procedures are necessary. The unified classification system (UCS) is a suitable tool to establish treatment strategies: On the basis of the fracture localization and extent, bone quality, stability of the prosthesis and the presence of further implants, the fractures can be classified according to the UCS and a treatment algorithm can be derived. This article gives an overview of the diagnostics, classification and characteristics of the various periprosthetic fracture types as well as the treatment.

Erratum to: Three-dimensional thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction

Erratum to:Oper Orthop Traumatol 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-018-0559-3 The article was wrongly published under the article type "Review". Please note that the article is an "Original Paper".The publisher apologizes to authors and ….

Three-dimensional thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to stabilize the thoracolumbar spine with a thoracoscopically implanted vertebral body replacement (VBR). To improve intraoperative depth perception and orientation, implantation is performed under three-dimensional (3D) thoracoscopic vision.

INDICATIONS

Vertebral burst fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (A4 AOSpine classification), pseudarthrosis, and posttraumatic instability with increasing kyphosis.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Severe pulmonary dysfunctions, pulmonary or thoracic infections, previous thoracic surgery, and pulmonary adhesions.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The patient is lying in a right lateral decubitus position. Localization of the fractured vertebra. Minimally invasive transthoracic approach. Perform single lung ventilation and insert the 3D thoracoscope two intercostal spaces above the working portal. Utilization of special binocular glasses for 3D vision of the operation field and secure resection of the fractured vertebra. Measurement of the bony defect and insertion of the expandable cage. Control of correct cage position under fluoroscopy. Insertion of a chest tube and inflate the left lung.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Chest × ray Remove chest tube when output is <500 ml/24 h Early mobilization on the ward 6 weeks no weight-bearing >5 kg RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2017, 12 patients received a VBR under 3D thoracoscopic vision. After a mean follow up of 26 months, no cage dislocation was noticed and all patients recovered from the initial back pain. Complications were notable in two cases (17%) with a small pneumothorax after removal of the chest tube and postoperative pneumonia in one patient (8%). All responded to conservative treatment. Revision surgery was not necessary.

Temporary epiphysiodesis using the FlexTack™ implant (tension band) featuring a modified explantation technique

OBJECTIVE

Presenting the implantation of the PediatrOS™ FlexTack™ (Merete, Berlin, Germany) for growth guidance and a modified explantation procedure to facilitate explantation and prevent bone and soft tissue damage.

INDICATIONS

Implantation: Genua vara and valga, coxa vara, varus and valgus deviation of the ankle joint, the elbow joint and the wrist Modified Explantation: Removal of the implant after successful limb correction or dislocation of the implant.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Implantation: Closed growth plates, insufficient remaining growth potential, acute or chronic infection, insufficient osseous structures, severe muscular, nervous or vessel diseases endangering the respective limb Explantation: General inoperability of the patient.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Implantation: Localization of the growth plate. Insertion of K‑wire parallel to joint line on the joint side. Setting of the implant. Insertion of second K‑wire and insertion with the implantation instrument and hammer. Modified Explantation: Cutting of the implant bridging part. Both ends of the bridging part are bent vertically to prevent soft tissue damage. Dissection of both implant arms from the bone with the chisel. Extraction in 360° motion using tooth extraction pliers.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Implantation: Full weight bearing. X‑ray controls every 3 months to control growth correction. Explantation: Full weight bearing.

RESULTS

Complications such as breaking of the k‑wires, breaking of the chisel or extraction of adhering bone tissue occurred in 14 of the 64 (21.9%) explanted FlexTack implants. Complication-free removal using the original instruments provided by the manufacturer was possible for five implants. The modified explantation procedure as described above was applied in 45 explanted implants (70.3%) with complete removal of the implant without further complications within the follow up period.

[Biological downsizing : Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty]

BACKGROUND

Periacetabular bony defects remain a great challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty. After assessment and classification of the defect and selection of a suitable implant the primary stable fixation and sufficient biological reconstitution of a sustainable bone stock are essential for long term success in acetabular revision surgery. Biological defect reconstruction aims for the down-sizing of periacetabular defects for later revision surgeries.

TECHNIQUE

In the field of biological augmentation several methods are currently available. Autologous transplants feature a profound osseointegrative capacity. However, limitations such as volume restrictions and secondary complications at the donor site have to be considered. Structural allografts show little weight bearing potential in the long term and high failure rates. In clinical practice, the usage of spongious chips implanted via impaction bone grafting technique in combination with antiprotrusio cages for the management of contained defects have shown promising long time results. Nevertheless, when dealing with craniolateral acetabular and dorsal column defects, the additional implantation of macroporous metal implants or augments should be considered since biological augmentation has shown little clinical success in these particular cases.

PROSPECT

This article provides an overview of the current clinically available biological augmentation methods of peri-acetabular defects. Due to the limitations of autologous and allogeneic bone transplants in terms of size and availability, the emerging field of innovative implantable tissue engineering constructs gains interest and will also be discussed in this article.

[The Role of a Modular Universal Tumour and Revision System (MUTARS®) in Lower Limb Endoprosthetic Revision Surgery - Outcome Analysis of 25 Patients]

Introduction/Background: With extended life expectancy, the number of primary joint arthroplasties has also increased. Revision surgery is also more often necessary, due to aseptic or septic loosening of the prosthesis or periprosthetic fracture. Large bone defects often occur in these patients and several non-modular, conventional implants are available to handle this difficult situation. Custom made implants offer an individually designed and defect-adapted shape with perfect covering of the lesion, but may delay the operation. The Modular Universal Tumor And Revision System (MUTARS®) offers the possibility to vary the length and angle of the femoral neck and the antetorsion angle. Thus, it permits intraoperative adaption to the individual patient's defect. The aim of our study is to present clinical, functional results and the rate of complications in a cohort of patients undergoing revision surgery for failed endoprosthetic replacement or failed trauma surgery, using the Modular Universal Tumor And Revision System with short-to midterm follow-up. Patients and Methods: Between August 2005 and September 2014, 25 patients (17 female, 8 male) with an average age of 72 years (min. 56, max. 92 years) were included in a retrospective study using the MUTARS® system. The patients underwent surgical revision of osseous defects that were not susceptible to conventional care. The mean follow-up was 16 months (min. 12, max. 72 months). The indications which led to revision surgery were as follows: loosened metal-on-metal prosthesis with an acetabular defect caused by a metal-induced granuloma (n = 1), pseudoarthrosis after implantation of femur nail (n = 2), cut-out of a femur nail (n = 1), aseptic loosening of an implanted endoprosthesis (n = 4), septic loosening of an implanted endoprosthesis (n = 1), periprosthetic fracture (n = 6) and periprosthetic infection after two stage revision surgery (infection consolidated Girdlestone situation) (n = 10). All patients were followed up at regular intervals, both clinically and radiologically. Apart from comorbidities, clinical and functional parameters were measured, including the Harris Hip Score. An outcome analysis was also performed with respect to peri- and postoperative complications. Serial plain X-rays were followed-up. Results: In all patients, stable reconstruction without the use of an allograft was possible. In total, 23 patients underwent surgery by using a proximal femur prosthesis; three patients also received a custom made acetabular component. One patient was treated by using a distal femur and one patient was treated by implantation of a total femur prosthesis. The average length of hospital stay was 25 days (min.11, max. 47 days). The Harris Hip Score improved from 28 points preoperatively to 81 points after surgery.In total we recorded 24 % of complications after surgery. Two patients suffered recurrent periprosthetic infection and the prosthesis had to be revised in a further two stage exchange; one patient had a tractus gap and was revised by surgery. Two patients suffered periprosthetic fracture due to trauma and the patient with the total femur prosthesis suffered recurrent periprosthetic infection of the silver - coated mega-prosthesis and committed suicide triggered by an episode of major depression. Conclusion: Because of its modular nature, the Modular Tumor And Revision System (MUTARS®) can be used for highly variable intraoperative defect adaption. Good clinical and functional results were achieved in patients with excessive bone defects. However, the high rate of infection, even with silver coated mega-implants, is still a problem and should be studied further.

[Thromboembolic complications 6 months after plate osteosynthesis of a mid-clavicular fracture]

A 32-year-old patient suffered from progredient intermittent claudication of the left arm 6 months after plate fixation of a midshaft clavicular fracture (OTA classification type A). The radiological analysis revealed a subacute stenosis of the left subclavian artery, caused by a granuloma at the tip of a protruding screw, which triggered recurrent emboli and symptoms. Reperfusion was achieved by catheter embolectomy and complete removal of the plate. The case shows that, when performing plate osteosynthesis of clavicular fractures, special consideration has to be given to the length and protrusion of the applied screws. Due to the anatomic proximity not only acute, but also subsequent irritation of the subclavian vessels is possible.