We evaluated all cases involving the combined use of a subtrochanteric derotational femoral shortening osteotomy with a cemented Exeter stem performed at our institution. With severe developmental dysplasia of the hip an osteotomy is often necessary to achieve shortening and derotation of the proximal femur. Reduction can be maintained with a 3.5 mm compression plate while the implant is cemented into place. Such a plate was used to stabilise the osteotomy in all cases. Intramedullary autograft helps to prevent cement interposition at the osteotomy site and promotes healing. There were 15 female patients (18 hips) with a mean age of 51 years (33 to 75) who had a Crowe IV dysplasia of the hip and were followed up for a mean of 114 months (52 to 168). None was lost to follow-up. All clinical scores were collected prospectively. The Charnley modification of the Merle D'Aubigné-Postel scores for pain, function and range of movement showed a statistically significant improvement from a mean of 2.4 (1 to 4), 2.3 (1 to 4), 3.4 (1 to 6) to 5.2 (3 to 6), 4.4 (3 to 6), 5.2 (4 to 6), respectively. Three acetabular revisions were required for aseptic loosening; one required femoral revision for access. One osteotomy failed to unite at 14 months and was revised successfully. No other case required a femoral revision. No postoperative sciatic nerve palsy was observed. Cemented Exeter femoral components perform well in the treatment of Crowe IV dysplasia with this procedure.
The technique of femoral cement-in-cement revision is well established, but there are no previous series reporting its use on the acetabular side at the time of revision total hip replacement. We describe the technique and report the outcome of 60 consecutive acetabular cement-in-cement revisions in 59 patients at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (5 to 12). All had a radiologically and clinically well-fixed acetabular cement mantle at the time of revision. During the follow-up 29 patients died, but no hips were lost to follow-up. The two most common indications for acetabular revision were recurrent dislocation (46, 77%) and to complement femoral revision (12, 20%). Of the 60 hips, there were two cases of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3.3%) requiring re-revision. No other hip was clinically or radiologically loose (96.7%) at the latest follow-up. One hip was re-revised for infection, four for recurrent dislocation and one for disarticulation of a constrained component. At five years the Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 100% for aseptic loosening and 92.2% (95% CI 84.8 to 99.6), with revision for any cause as the endpoint. These results support the use of cement-in-cement revision on the acetabular side in appropriate cases. Theoretical advantages include preservation of bone stock, reduced operating time, reduced risk of complications and durable fixation.
Background: Chest wall resection and reconstruction remains one of the most challenging areas of Thoracic & Plastic Surgery. The purpose of this study is to report our 6-year experience with chest wall resections and reconstructions. Methods: A retrospective review of 36 patients who had chest wall resections from 1998 to 2003 was performed. Result: Patient demographics included tobacco abuse, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, niswar abuse, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and HCV +ve. Surgical indications included chest wall tumors, and lung cancer involving the chest wall. The mean number of ribs resected was 4±2 ribs. Thirty four patients underwent chest wall resections. Two patients underwent right upper lobectomy along with chest wall resections. Immediate closure was performed in all 36 patients. Primary repair without the use of reconstructive techniques was possible in 9 patients. Synthetic chest wall reconstruction was performed using Prolene mesh, Marlex mesh, methyl methacrylate sandwich, and polytetrafluoroethylene. Flaps utilized for soft tissue coverage were pedicled flaps (2 patients). Mean postoperative length of stay was 14±12 days. Mean intensive care unit stay was 5+4 days. In-hospital and 30-day survival was 100%. Conclusions: Chest wall resection with reconstruction can be performed as a safe, effective one-stage surgical procedure for a variety of major chest wall defects.
Aim Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI) are incredibly debilitating injuries associated with significant morbidity and financial burden, with an incidence of 12-16 per million population in the UK. There is currently no cure for SCI, with majority of interventions focusing on primary prevention of SCI or of further damage once SCI is sustained. We present an overview of the role of closed reduction, timing of surgery and role of steroids, and provide an algorithm for management of SCI. Method A search was carried out on PubMed, looking at notable reviews, consensus statements and trends in management of spinal cord injuries. This was cross-referenced with the NICE and BOAST guidelines for SCI. Results The efficacy of closed reduction in cervical fractures and necessity of pre-reduction MRI is still equivocal and remains a source of major debate amongst spinal surgeons. The timing of surgery remains controversial as studies have not consistently shown improved outcomes with early, aggressive surgery but there have been trends noted in the newer studies with some benefit of early surgery. The use of steroids in acute SCI has fallen out of favour with most guidelines not recommending them due to their equivocal benefit and unequivocal side-effect profile. Conclusions Prevention and pre-hospital management are crucial in the management of SCI, along with early spinal alignment restoration, decompression and stabilisation augmented by good long-term rehabilitation measures. There is a need for new randomised controlled trials assessing the role of closed reduction, need for pre-reduction MRI and timing of surgery in SCI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.