Purpose Evaluation of the advantages and limitations of the Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) with regard to the healing index (HI), distraction-consolidation time (DCT), accuracy of correction complications, and cost of the device. Methods Comparison of results with the traditional Ilizarov apparatus and a unilateral Orthofix fixator in a consecutive patient series with 135 bony deformity corrections. Results The HI did not differ significantly between all three fixators and was 57 days/cm for all patients. The DCT was significantly shorter for the TSF (148 days) compared to the Ilizarov fixator (204 days) and the Orthofix device (213 days). The accuracy of deformity correction was higher for the TSF than the other devices. The mean values of the measured angles after correction did not differ, but the variance of the results was the lowest. Also, the total rate of complications was considerably lower for the TSF. The Orthofix device showed a high rate of angular deformity during treatment, whereas both ring fixators had a relatively higher number of pin-related problems. Conclusions The findings in our patient series suggest the use of the Orthofix apparatus for simple lengthening over short to median distances and the Ilizarov device for the correction of simple bony deformities and pure lengthening over long distances. The TSF allows multiplanar corrections and lengthenings without complex modifications of the device. But, due to the remarkably higher costs, it has not yet been established as our routine device. Level of evidence Level IV-case series. Therapeutic Study-Investigating the Results of Treatment.

Purpose The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic results of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed with the Alloclassic Variall system (a modified version of the Alloclassic Zweymüller system) and to compare them with those in the literature for the original system. Methods Between January 2001 and December 2002, 273 consecutive primary THAs were performed in 259 patients at a single centre with the study system, using ceramic-onceramic (81.7 %) or ceramic-on-highly-crosslinkedpolyethylene (18.3 %) articulations. Results At the time of this study, 28 patients (29 hips; 10.6 %) had died and 40 (43 hips; 15.8 %) were lost to follow-up. Seventeen patients (19 hips; 7.0 %) could be reached only by telephone. There were four revisions in four patients (1.5 %), all involving only the femoral component. Ten-year Kaplan-Meier survival with revision of any component for any reason as the endpoint was 98.4 % (95 % confidence interval: 96.9-100 %; 30 hips remained 'at risk'). A total of 170 unrevised patients (178 hips; 65.2 %) were assessed clinically and radiographically at a median follow-up of 9.3 years (interquartile range [IQR] 8.8-9.8 years). The median Harris hip score (HHS) was 99.9 points (IQR 97.7-100). The score did not differ significantly between the two articulations. There was no sign of radiographic loosening. Conclusions The ten-year implant survival and the HHS score outcomes for THAs performed with the novel system were in line with those documented in the literature for its predecessor.

No abstract