No abstract

To evaluate the clinical outcome after arthroscopic matrix-associated injectable autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) in patients with large full-thickness acetabular cartilage defects. ACI was performed in young patients with full-thickness acetabular cartilage defects ≥2 cm2 in a two-step arthroscopic procedure. The patients were followed closely with clinical examinations and pre- and postoperative scores. The modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), iHOT33 questionnaire (iHOT33) and the Subjective Hip Value (SHV) were surveyed. Demographic patient data was evaluated for influencing factors for the pre- and postoperative results. Thirty-two consecutive cases (4 female, 28 male, mean age 33 years) were included. The average defect size was 4.9 (range: 2–6) cm2. They were followed at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months postoperatively. Patients had improved significantly from 64 to 91 points (P < 0.001) in the mHHS, from 44% to 86% (P < 0.001) in the iHOT33 and from 54% to 87% (P < 0.001) in the SHV. No surgery related complications were noted. Cell cultivation failed in two cases (7%) and the patients decided for a repeated harvesting of cartilage cylinders followed by a successful ACI. Patients age and size of the cartilage defect showed no significant correlation with the pre- or postoperative results. Injectable ACI is a reliable procedure treating full-thickness acetabular cartilage defects leading to promising results 3 years postoperatively with a significant increase in all scores despite large acetabular cartilage defects in the weight-bearing zone.

Arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization is associated with a lower subjective outcome compared with initial arthroscopic stabilization. The objective results found in this study may overestimate the clinical outcome in this patient population.

The injectable matrix associated ACT is a reliable procedure, yielding promising early results with a significant increase of all scores evaluated in patients with full thickness acetabular cartilage defects.

Aims We evaluated a large database with mechanical failure of a single uncemented modular femoral component, used in revision hip arthroplasty, as the end point and compared them to a control group treated with the same implant. Patient- and implant-specific risk factors for implant failure were analyzed. Methods All cases of a fractured uncemented modular revision femoral component from one manufacturer until April 2017 were identified and the total number of implants sold until April 2017 was used to calculate the fracture rate. The manufacturer provided data on patient demographics, time to failure, and implant details for all notified fractured devices. Patient- and implant-specific risk factors were evaluated using a logistic regression model with multiple imputations and compared to data from a previously published reference group, where no fractures had been observed. The results of a retrieval analysis of the fractured implants, performed by the manufacturer, were available for evaluation. Results There were 113 recorded cases with fracture at the modular junction, resulting in a calculated fracture rate of 0.30% (113/37,600). The fracture rate of the implant without signs of improper use was 0.11% (41/37,600). In 79% (89/113) of cases with a failed implant, either a lateralized (high offset) neck segment, an extralong head, or the combination of both were used. Logistic regression analysis revealed male sex, high body mass index (BMI), straight component design, and small neck segments were significant risk factors for failure. Investigation of the implants (76/113) showed at least one sign of improper use in 72 cases. Conclusion Implant failure at the modular junction is associated with patient- and implant-specific risk factors as well as technical errors during implantation. Whenever possible, the use of short and lateralized neck segments should be avoided with this revision system. Implantation instructions and contraindications need to be adhered to and respected. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):573–579.