Search

Purpose: Total knee replacement (TKR) failure represents a hard challenge for knee surgeons. TKR failure can be managed in revision with different constraint, related with soft and bone knee damages. The choice of the right constraint for every failure cause represents a not summarized entity. The purpose of this study is identifying distribution of different constraints in revision TKR (rTKR) for failure cause and the overall survival., Methods: A registry study based on the Emilia Romagna Register of the Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants (called RIPO) was performed with a selection of 1432 implants, in the period between 2000 and 2019. Selection implants including primary surgery constraint, failure cause and constraint revision for every patient, and divided for constraint degrees used during procedures (Cruciate Retaining-CR, Posterior Stabilized-PS, Condylar Constrained Knee-CCK, Hinged)., Results: The most common cause of primary TKR failure was aseptic loosening (51,45%), followed by septic loosening (29,12%). Each type of failure was managed with different constraint, the most used was CCK in the most of failure causes, such as to manage aseptic and septic loosening in CR and PS failure. Overall survival of TKA revisions has been calculated at 5 and 10 years for each constraint, with a range of 75.1-90.0% at 5 years and 75.1-87.5% at 10 years., Conclusion: Constraint degree in rTKR is typically higher than primary, CCK is the most used constraint in revision surgery with an overall survival of 87.5% at 10 years., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Reconstructions in case of acetabular bone loss in hip revision arthroplasty are challenging. A few techniques have been proposed, with inconstant outcomes. Biological reconstructions using bone allografts may address the acetabular bone loss and restore the hip anatomy. Aim of this work was the description of the surgical technique and the evaluation of the outcomes using a regional arthroplasty register., Materials and Methods: Minor or massive bone allografting was performed in hip revision arthroplasties in a tertiary center. Bulk allografts were used in severe acetabular bone losses. Fresh-frozen femoral heads were impacted in the bone cavity and porous cups were implanted; multihole sockets were used when necessary. In DeLee A zone, no grafts were used in order to reduce overstress graft resorption. The results were evaluated using a regional arthroplasty register, and a comparison with revisions without bone grafts was performed investigating re-revision rates and reasons for further revisions., Results: At 10 years, acetabular revisions with bone allografts achieved a similar survival rate than revisions without bone grafts. The re-revisions occurred more frequently in revisions without bone allografts (10.8 vs. 9.7%). In the allograft cohort, septic loosening was lower (0.3 vs. 2.6%), whereas a higher rate of aseptic cup loosening was experienced (2.7 vs. 1.4%)., Conclusions: Bone allografts may provide a good restoration of the acetabular bone stock and the hip biomechanics. Septic loosening does not seems a major concern, whereas a higher rate of aseptic cup loosening should be expected when bone grafts are used.

Background: Implant registries have proved valuable in assessing the outcomes of arthroplasty procedures. Moreover, by identifying lesser quality implants they have indirectly improved the quality of care. The registry of prosthetic shoulder implants was established in 2008., Methods: It records information on all types of primary and revision arthroplasty procedures involving the glenohumeral joint, including reverse and total arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, resurfacing, removal, and any other surgical procedures that are required to manage these patients. The collected data include patient demographics, weight, height, operated side, cuff status, and diagnosis/reason for revision surgery, information on previous surgical procedures involving either shoulder, comorbidities, antibiotic and thromboembolic prophylaxis, blood transfusions, surgical approach, cuff repair procedures performed during arthroplasty, bone grafts, drains, and perioperative complications, and data about the prosthetic components implanted, including the fixation method., Results: Procedures were performed on 3754 shoulders. They included 2226 RSA, 320 TSA, 730 HA, 233 resurfacing procedures, 245 revisions, and 77 "other" procedures. The survival curves of the implants are greater than 90%, and no differences were found among prosthesis from different manufacturers. The diagnosis that prompted to arthroplasty was: osteoarthritis in 60.9% of cases and fractures, bone necrosis, sequelae of fracture and rotator cuff tear arthropathy for the rest of implants., Discussion and Conclusion: This study describes the epidemiological data and mid-term implant outcomes of the shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed in our region, from 2008 to 2014, and compares them with published data from national registries of similar size., Level of Evidence: III.

"My Hip Resurfacing (HR) has been recalled. What will happen to me?" This is the question of every patient who underwent an implant recall, a highly stressful event for both patients and physicians. Triggered by a 11.64% failure rate at 7 years, a recall process started for Adept HR with head diameter less than 48 mm. We report our experience in the recall process of 40 patients with the above-mentioned components. One patient underwent revision surgery due to an adverse reaction to metal debris at 5-year follow-up. None of the patients were scheduled for revision, with an estimated survival rate of 97.6% at 7 years. Implants were well positioned with an average acetabular inclination angle of 37°. Cobalt and chromium blood levels were below the safety threshold of clinical relevance. Functional scores were excellent. In the case of a well-positioned device with normal ion levels, a good performance of the implant is generally observed. Even if we experienced a very low revision rate, this may certainly get worse over time since not all possible failures are predictable, thus requiring a careful periodic follow-up.