No abstract

The use of primary cementless stems in femoral revision has gained popularity, but no clear consensus about the correct indication is still present. The aim of our systematic review is to: (1) summarize the available literature focused on the use of cementless primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); (2) evaluate whether the use of cementless primary stems could represent a feasible option in hip revision; (3) define the proper indication of this surgical approach. A systematic literature review was performed about the use of cementless primary stems in revision THA. The PRISMA 2009 checklist was considered to edit our review. A total of nine articles were included. The current evidence is primarily Level IV. A total of 439 patients (454 hips) underwent THA revision with primary cementless stem. Partial cementless porous coated stems were used in 246 hips (54.2%). The majority of patients were affected by type I or II Paprosky femoral defects. The mean stem-related survival rate is 95.6% ± 3.8 with a mean follow-up of 4.7 years ± 1.3. Poor standardization of methodological analysis was observed. Current literature shows lacking evidence about primary cementless stems in revision THA. Despite these limitations, we can affirm that primary cementless stems in femoral revision surgery represent a viable option in selected patients. The proper indication is a patient with femoral Paprosky defect types I or II, with low number of previous surgeries and a previous cementless stem.

Regenerative medicine, such as the use of mesenchymal stem cells or platelet-rich plasma, in intradiscal disc degeneration has shown preclinical and clinical positive results. Randomized clinical trials studying the potential of MSCs intradiscal injection have not been conducted, and PRP effect has been studied only preliminarily. Additional more powered high-quality studies are needed to really appreciate the long-term safety and efficacy of regenerative medicine approaches in IDD.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to summarize the available evidence about total lumbar disc replacement (TDR), focusing our attention on four main topics: clinical and functional outcomes, comparison with fusion surgery results, rate of complications and influence on sagittal balance.Materials and methodsWe systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Medscape, Google Scholar and Cochrane library databases in order to answer our four main research questions. Effective data were extracted after the assessment of methodological quality of the trials.ResultsFifty-nine pertinent papers were included. Clinical and functional scores show statistically significant improvements, and they last at all time points compared to baseline. The majority of the articles show there is no significant difference between TDR groups and fusion groups. The literature shows similar rates of complications between the two surgical procedures.ConclusionsTDR showed significant safety and efficacy, comparable to lumbar fusion. The major advantages of a lumbar TDR over fusion include maintenance of segmental motion and the restoration of the disc height, allowing patients to find their own spinal balance. Disc arthroplasty could be a reliable option in the treatment of degenerative disc disease in years to come.Level of evidenceII.