There is a large body of pre clinical evidence that the use of scaffolds combined with mesenchymal stem cells can be a viable option in the regeneration of ligamentous structures with biological and mechanical properties suitable for function. There is, however, limited clinical evidence supporting the use of recently developed scaffolds and historical evidence of synthetic scaffolds failing in the management of anterior cruciate ligament repairs. There appears to be no consensus in the literature as to the nature of the scaffold material that is most suitable for clinical trials. No randomised control trials have yet been conducted.
Background: The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system (Smith and Nephew) was developed as an alternative to conventional total joint replacement for younger, more active patients. Among other complications exists the risk for femoral component failure. The only marketed revision option for such a complication involves exchange of all components for a total replacement arthroplasty. This presents as a considerable and potentially unnecessary operative burden where revision of only the femoral prosthesis would suffice. We have analysed revision options for BHR in the context of periprosthetic femoral fractures with a stable acetabular component. Methods: Technical details of dual mobility hip systems available in Australia were collated and analysed to assess for potential 'off label' use with an existing BHR acetabular component. These data were then compared with the custom-made Smith and Nephew dual mobility implant with respect to clearance and sizing. Results: Two dual mobility articulation modalities from two companies were identified as appropriate for potential usage with four products analysed in detail. These two demonstrated acceptable sizing and clearance measurements. Conclusion: Comparison between readily available dual mobility prostheses with custom-made implants showed off label dual mobility prosthetic use to be a viable alternative for femoral-only revisions with in situ BHR. Single component revision has several advantages which include: a less complex surgical procedure, shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and the expectation of resultant lower morbidity. Furthermore, this less complex revision surgery should give comparable results to that of primary total hip arthroplasty.
Background: To assess the midterm outcome of patients under 65 who underwent anatomic pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty for thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis. Methods: A prospective analysis was performed of a consecutive series of active patients, less than 65 years of age, with symptomatic osteoarthritis who had undergone a CMC hemiarthroplasty using a stemmed metacarpal based, anatomic pyrolytic carbon resurfacing with an additional one third flexor carpi radialis (FCR) tendon transfer to maintain stability. The Wrightington Hand Score, Disability Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, and the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation Score (PRWE) were utilised. Clinical data was obtained for grip strength, pinch strength, and range of motion. Results: The MEAN age was 57.6 years. MEAN follow up was 6.5 years. All patients had improvement in pain, grip strength and function. There was no significant difference in grip and pinch strengths between the individual’s left and right hand. All patients stated that they would undergo the procedure again. There was one revision following a traumatic trapezium fracture. One patient underwent a neurolysis of a superficial radial nerve neuroma associated with an impinging trapezial osteophyte. Conclusions: Active patients, under 65 years of age with Eaton-Littler stage III osteoarthritis of the thumb CMC joint who are treated with anatomic pyrolytic carbon resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and stabilisation may achieve sustained improvement in pain and hand function for up to 6.5 years.
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.