No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Bone cement spacers loaded with antibiotic are the gold standard in septic revision. However, the management of massive bone defects constitutes a surgical challenge, requiring the use of different nails, expensive long stems, or cement-coated tumor prostheses for preparing the spacer. In most cases, the knee joint must be sacrificed. We describe a novel technique for preparing a biarticular total femur spacer with the help of a trochanteric nail coated with antibiotic loaded cement, allowing mobility of the hip and knee joints and assisted partial loading until second step surgery. This technique is helpful to maintain the length of the leg, prevent soft tissue contracture, and help eradicate the infection preserving the patient comfort and autonomy while waiting to receive total femoral replacement.

Background The appropriate degree of constraint in knee prosthetic revision is unknown, necessitating the use of the lowest possible constraint. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical and survival results of revision with rotation hinge knee (RHK) VS constrained condylar constrained knee (CCK) implants. Methods Overall, 117 revision case were prospectively reviewed and dividing into two groups based on the degree of constraint used, using only one prosthetic model in each group (61 CCK vs 56 RHK). All implants were evaluated for a minimum of 10 years. Survival of both implants at the end of follow-up, free from revision for any cause, aseptic loosening, and septic cause was compared. Results Better results were seen with use of the RHK in joint ranges of (p = 0.023), KSCS (p = 0.015), KSFS (p = 0.043), and KOOS (p = 0.031). About 22.2% of the cases required repeat surgery (11.7% RHK vs 29.6% CCK, p = 0.023). Constrained condylar implants had a significantly lower survival rates than rotating hinge implants (p = 0.005), due to a higher aseptic loosening rate (p = 0.031). Conclusion Using a specific RHK design with less rotational constraint has better clinical and survival outcomes than implants with greater rotational constraint, such as one specific CCK.

Introduction: The management of massive femoral bone defects following prosthetic infection remains a surgical challenge, particularly when the entire femur is affected. Methods: We present the first results of a new biarticular cement spacer with antibiotic technique using a cephalomedullary nail for the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty involving complete femoral bone loss. Results: 5 patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. In all cases 2-stage replacement due to hip periprosthetic infection was carried out, with the need for a biarticular complete femoral spacer in view of the magnitude of the bone defect. The infection was resolved in all patients, with no complications (spacer fracture or dislocation) associated to spacer use, and the patients were all able to maintain the sitting position with active knee movements between the 2 surgical stages. Improvement with respect to preoperative functional status was observed in all cases, as evidenced by the Harris Hip Score (HHS) (from 24.2 to 73; p < 0.001) and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) (from 16.8 to 33.2; p = 0.001), with a lessened need for walking aids. Discussion: The described technique offers a possible solution to a number of complications observed with the use of spacers in massive defects, affording greater patient comfort and autonomy while waiting to receive total femoral replacement.

The true value of use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) systems by inexperienced surgeons during their learning curve to improve the clinical and radiographic outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has not been previously studied. Fifty patients with a mean age of 64.3 years undergoing surgery for Oxford UKA were prospectively divided into two groups. Twenty-five patients were operated on by a surgeon with no prior experience in UKA using a PSI system and the other 25 patients by an experienced surgeon using a conventional procedure. Patients were scored using joint range of motion (ROM), the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the 12-item Short-Form (SF-12) before and 3 months and 2 years after surgery. Impact of use of PSI was measured by comparing clinical and radiographic outcome, complications, and implant survival. No evidence of poorer clinical outcome was seen in any subscale of KSS, KOOS, and SF-12 for inexperienced surgeons using PSI ( = 0.45, = 0.32, and = 0.61, respectively). No difference was found between the two procedures in precision of radiographic alignment of components ( = 0.53). No complication occurred in any group. PSI may improve precision of component alignment during the learning curve of surgeons, thus achieving functional results similar to those of more experienced surgeons using a conventional procedure.

No abstract