PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Aseptic Tibial Debonding as a Cause of Early Failure in a Modern Total Knee Arthroplasty Design 
Background
We observed isolated tibial component debonding from the cement in one modern primary TKA design (NexGen LPS 3° tibial tray; Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA). This failure mechanism is sparsely reported in the literature.
Questions/Purposes
We (1) assessed survivorship of this tibial tray with special emphasis on debonding; (2) described clinical and radiographic features associated with tibial failure; and (3) compared patient and radiographic features of the failures with a matched cohort.
Methods
A total of 1337 primary TKAs were performed with a cemented NexGen LPS 3° tibial tray over an 11-year period. Twenty-five knees (1.9%) were revised for tibial debonding. BMI and radiographic alignment in the tibial debonding group were compared with a matched control group. Implant survivorship was assessed using tibial debonding as the end point.
Results
Survival free of revision from tibial debonding was 100% at 1 year and 97.8% at 5 years. The tibial failures shared a typical radiographic pattern with debonding at the cement-implant interface and subsidence into varus and flexion. We found no link between limb alignment or individual component alignment and failure because 22 of the 25 failures occurred in well-aligned knees.
Conclusions
Our standardized followup of patients undergoing TKA at routine intervals allowed us to discover a higher rate of revision resulting from tibial debonding. We have discontinued the use of this particular tibial tray for primary TKA and surveillance for patients undergoing TKA continues to be warranted.
Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2467-4
PMCID: PMC3528903  PMID: 22790529
2.  Reinfection after two-stage revision for periprosthetic infection of total knee arthroplasty 
International Orthopaedics  2011;36(1):65-71.
Purpose
Limited data exist regarding the long-term results or risk factors for failure after two-stage reimplantation for periprosthetic knee infection. The purpose of this retrospective review was to investigate infection-free implant survival and identify variables associated with reinfection after this procedure. Furthermore, a staging system was evaluated as a possible prognostic tool for patients undergoing two-stage reimplantation of infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Methods
In this level II, retrospective prognostic study, 368 patients with infected TKA treated with a two-stage revision protocol at our institution between 1998 and 2006 were reviewed. Patients who developed recurrent infection and an equal number of patients randomly selected for the control group were analysed for risk factors associated with treatment failure.
Results
At the most recent follow-up, 58 (15.8%) patients had developed reinfection after the two-stage reimplantation. The median time to reinfection was 1,303 days (3.6 years), with follow-up time ranging from six to 2,853 days (7.8 years). The strongest positive predictors of treatment failure included chronic lymphoedema [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16–4.48; p = 0.02),and revision between resection and definitive reimplantation (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.20–3.79; p = 0.01, whereas patients treated with intravenously administered Cefazolin had a significant reduction in recurrent infection rate (HR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.25–0.90; p = 0.02).
Conclusions
Our findings should be of help in counselling patients regarding their prognosis when faced with two-stage exchange for infected TKA and provide a basis for future comparisons.
doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1267-x
PMCID: PMC3251662  PMID: 21553042
3.  Failed Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties: A Spectrum of Clinical Presentations and Operative Findings 
Background
A number of recent reports have described novel failure mechanisms of metal-on-metal bearings in total and resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Hip arthroplasties with metal-on-metal articulations are also subject to the traditional methods of failure seen with different bearing couples. There is currently little information in the literature to help guide timely clinical evaluation and management of these patients.
Questions/purposes
We therefore describe the (1) clinical presentations; (2) reasons for failure; (3) operative findings; and (4) histologic findings in patients with failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties.
Methods
We retrospectively identified all 37 patients (37 hips) with metal on metal total hip or resurfacing arthroplasties who underwent revision over the past 3 years at our institution. Relevant clinical, radiographic, laboratory, intraoperative, and histopathologic findings were analyzed for all patients.
Results
Of the 37 patients, 10 were revised for presumed hypersensitivity specific to the metal-on-metal articulation. This group included eight patients with tissue histology confirming chronic inflammation with lymphocytic infiltration, eight with aseptic loosening of a monoblock screwless uncemented acetabular component, two with iliopsoas impingement associated with a large-diameter femoral head, and three with femoral neck fracture after resurfacing arthroplasty; the remainder of the patients were revised for infection, instability, component malposition, and periprosthetic fracture.
Conclusions
Increased awareness of the modes of failure will bring to light the potential complications particular to metal-on-metal articulations while placing these complications into the context of failures associated with all hip arthroplasties. This novel clinical information should be valuable for the practicing surgeon faced with this patient population.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1419-0
PMCID: PMC2919884  PMID: 20559767
4.  Limitations of Structural Allograft in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty 
Management of large bone defects in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) usually has involved modular prostheses with metal augments, structural allografts, and megaprostheses. We retrospectively reviewed the outcome of treatment of major bone defects for 74 patients (79 knees) who had revision TKAs with structural allografts; nine patients were lost to followup before 5 years, leaving 65 patients (70 knees, or 88%) followed for a minimum of 5 years or until revision or death. Medical records, radiographs, patient surveys, and correspondence were used for all data. Sixteen patients (22.8%) had failed reconstructions and underwent additional revision surgery; eight of the 16 were secondary to allograft failure, three were secondary to failure of a component not supported by allograft, and five were secondary to infection. In patients not requiring revision surgery, the Knee Society score improved from 49 preoperatively to 87 postoperatively. We observed revision-free survival of 80.7% (95% confidence interval, 71.7–90.8) at 5 years and 75.9% (95% confidence interval, 65.6–87.8) at 10 years. Our data support the selective use of structural allograft for large cavitary defects encountered during TKA. However, the rates of complications and reoperations suggest efforts to improve results or develop more durable alternative methods are warranted for these challenging reconstructions.
Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0679-4
PMCID: PMC2635432  PMID: 19130161
5.  C-Reactive Protein, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and Orthopedic Implant Infection 
PLoS ONE  2010;5(2):e9358.
Background
C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) have been shown to be useful for diagnosis of prosthetic hip and knee infection. Little information is available on CRP and ESR in patients undergoing revision or resection of shoulder arthroplasties or spine implants.
Methods/Results
We analyzed preoperative CRP and ESR in 636 subjects who underwent knee (n = 297), hip (n = 221) or shoulder (n = 64) arthroplasty, or spine implant (n = 54) removal. A standardized definition of orthopedic implant-associated infection was applied. Receiver operating curve analysis was used to determine ideal cutoff values for differentiating infected from non-infected cases. ESR was significantly different in subjects with aseptic failure infection of knee (median 11 and 53.5 mm/h, respectively, p = <0.0001) and hip (median 11 and 30 mm/h, respectively, p = <0.0001) arthroplasties and spine implants (median 10 and 48.5 mm/h, respectively, p = 0.0033), but not shoulder arthroplasties (median 10 and 9 mm/h, respectively, p = 0.9883). Optimized ESR cutoffs for knee, hip and shoulder arthroplasties and spine implants were 19, 13, 26, and 45 mm/h, respectively. Using these cutoffs, sensitivity and specificity to detect infection were 89 and 74% for knee, 82 and 60% for hip, and 32 and 93% for shoulder arthroplasties, and 57 and 90% for spine implants. CRP was significantly different in subjects with aseptic failure and infection of knee (median 4 and 51 mg/l, respectively, p<0.0001), hip (median 3 and 18 mg/l, respectively, p<0.0001), and shoulder (median 3 and 10 mg/l, respectively, p = 0.01) arthroplasties, and spine implants (median 3 and 20 mg/l, respectively, p = 0.0011). Optimized CRP cutoffs for knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties, and spine implants were 14.5, 10.3, 7, and 4.6 mg/l, respectively. Using these cutoffs, sensitivity and specificity to detect infection were 79 and 88% for knee, 74 and 79% for hip, and 63 and 73% for shoulder arthroplasties, and 79 and 68% for spine implants.
Conclusion
CRP and ESR have poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of shoulder implant infection. A CRP of 4.6 mg/l had a sensitivity of 79 and a specificity of 68% to detect infection of spine implants.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009358
PMCID: PMC2825262  PMID: 20179760

Results 1-5 (5)