66 research outputs found
Deep vein thrombosis following hip fracture surgery
No full text Patients undergoing hip fracture surgery are at increased risk of deep vein thrombosis. There are limited studies of good quality assessing thromboprophylactic therapies in this patient population. Mechanical pumping devices may have a role in hip fracture patients, especially around the perioperative period, though compliance with these devices is a significant problem. Fondaparinux is the most effective pharmacological thromboprophylactic therapy following hip fracture surgery and can be used for extended prophylaxis after hospital discharge. A number of the recently published recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence do not take into account the best available evidence specifically in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, with findings from elective arthroplasty patients being extrapolated. Well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the role of combined thromboprophylaxis, graduated compression stockings and newer oral anticoagulants so that appropriate recommendations can be made in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. </jats:p
Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris
No full textBackground and purpose — The initial outcomes following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) were poor. Furthermore, robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision are lacking. This article is the second of 2. The first article considered the various investigative modalities used during MoMHA patient surveillance (Matharu et al. 2018a). The present article aims to provide a clinical update regarding ARMD revision surgery in MoMHA patients (hip resurfacing and large-diameter MoM total hip arthroplasty), with specific focus on the threshold for performing ARMD revision, the surgical strategy, and the outcomes following revision. Results and interpretation — The outcomes following ARMD revision surgery appear to have improved with time for several reasons, among them the introduction of regular patient surveillance and lowering of the threshold for performing revision. Furthermore, registry data suggest that outcomes following ARMD revision are influenced by modifiable factors (type of revision procedure and bearing surface implanted), meaning surgeons could potentially reduce failure rates. However, additional large multi-center studies are needed to develop robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision surgery, which will guide surgeons’ treatment of MoMHA patients. The long-term systemic effects of metal ion exposure in patients with these implants must also be investigated, which will help establish whether there are any systemic reasons to recommend revision of MoMHAs</p
Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients:Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales
No full textFew studies have assessed outcomes following non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision.We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. All non-MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014 were included (185 hips in 185 patients). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using Cox regression.Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n = 11) of the 185 cases. The cumulative four-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9 to 99.5). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n = 25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (0.1 to 3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%; n = 8), dislocation/subluxation (24%; n = 6), and aseptic loosening (24%; n = 6) were the most common re-revision indications. The cumulative four-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI 76.7 to 88.9). Multivariable analysis identified three predictors of re-revision: multiple revision indications (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78; 95% CI 1.03 to 7.49; p = 0.043); selective component revisions (HR = 5.76; 95% CI 1.28 to 25.9; p = 0.022); and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR = 3.08; 95% CI 1.01 to 9.36; p = 0.047).Non-MoMHAs revised for ARMD have a high short-term risk of re-revision, with important predictors of future re-revision including selective component revision, multiple revision indications, and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings. Our findings may help counsel patients about the risks of ARMD revision, and guide reconstructive decisions. Future studies attempting to validate the predictors identified should also assess the effects of implant design (metallurgy and modularity), given that this was an important study limitation potentially influencing the reported prognostic factors.Cite this article: G. S. Matharu, A. Judge, D. W. Murray, H. G. Pandit. Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:405-413. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0017.R2
What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?
No full textThe unexpected high revision rates of large-diameter (femoral head sizes of 36 mm or greater) metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHAs) have led to worldwide regulatory authorities recommending regular surveillance, even for asymptomatic individuals. However, these recommendations are not evidence-based and are very costly. The rapidly evolving evidence base requires an update regarding the investigation and management of MoMHA patients. This article is the first of 2 (the second article in this series will consider the threshold for performing revision, and the outcomes following ARMD revision surgery: Matharu et al., Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris: A clinical update. Acta Orthop 2018; in press), and considers the various investigative modalities used during surveillance, with specific focus on blood metal ion sampling and cross-sectional imaging. No single investigation can universally be used during MoMHA patient surveillance. Recent studies have now provided important information on interpreting blood metal ions (effective in identifying patients at low risk of problems), clarifying the roles of cross-sectional imaging (reserve combined ultrasound and MARS-MRI for complex cases), and providing parameters to safely exclude many asymptomatic patients from regular surveillance. This information will be useful when designing future surveillance protocols for MoMHA patients
Is the rate of revision of 36 mm metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with Pinnacle acetabular components related to the year of the initial operation? An interrupted time-series analysis using data from the national joint registry for England and Wales
No full textAims The aim of this study was to determine whether the rates of revision for metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with Pinnacle components varied according to the year of the initial operation, and compare these with the rates of revision for other designs of MoM THA. Patients and Methods Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales included 36 mm MoM THAs with Pinnacle acetabular components which were undertaken between 2003 and 2012 with follow-up for at least five years (n = 10 776) and a control group of other MoM THAs (n = 13 817). The effect of the year of the primary operation on all-cause rates of revision was assessed using Cox regression and interrupted time-series analysis. Results For MoM THAs involving Pinnacle components, those undertaken between 2007 and 2012 had higher rates of revision compared with those undertaken between 2004 and 2006 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 2.57; p < 0.001). For THAs undertaken during and after 2007, the number of revisions per 1000 implant-years at risk significantly increased by 5.20 (95% CI 0.52 to 9.89; p = 0.033) compared with those undertaken before this time. In the control group, THAs undertaken between 2007 and 2012 also had higher rates of revision (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.49 to 2.10; p < 0.001), with revisions per 1000 implant-years for those undertaken during and after 2007 significantly increasing by 6.13 (95% CI 1.42 to 10.83; p = 0.016). Conclusion The five-year revision rates were significantly increased for all primary MoM THAs undertaken from 2007 onwards. Contrary to recent reports, this finding was not specific to those involving Pinnacle acetabular components and may be explained by increased surveillance and recent lowering of the threshold for revision.</p
Complications following hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in the absence of routine follow-up
No full text
Poor survivorship and frequent complications at a median of 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision
No full textBackground: High short-term failure rates have been reported for several metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs. Early observations suggested that MoMHRs revised to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for pseudotumor had more major complications and inferior patient-reported outcomes compared with other revision indications. However, little is known about implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes at more than 5 years after MoMHR revision.Questions/purposes: (1) What are the implant survivorship, proportion of complications and abnormal radiological findings, and patient-reported outcomes at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision surgery? (2) Are survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes influenced by revision indication? (3) Do any other factors predict survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes?Methods: Between 1999 and 2008, 53 MoMHR revision procedures in 51 patients (mean age, 55 years; 62% female) were performed at one center and were all included in this retrospective study. Two patients (4%) were lost to followup and two patients (4%) died before a minimum followup of 7 years (median, 10.3 years; range 7–15 years). Revision indications included pseudotumor (n = 16), femoral neck fracture (n = 21), and other causes (n = 16). In most cases (62%, n = 33) both components were revised to a non-MoM bearing THA with the remainder (38%, n = 20: fracture, loosening, or head collapse) undergoing femoral-only revision to a large-diameter MoM THA. Postrevision complications, rerevision, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and UCLA score were determined using both a longitudinally maintained institutional database and postal questionnaire. Implant survivorship was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method (endpoint was rerevision surgery). Radiographs at latest followup were systematically assessed for any signs of failure (loosening, migration, osteolysis) by one observer blinded to all clinical information and not involved in the revision procedures.Results: Overall, 45% (24 of 53) experienced complications and 38% (20 of 53) underwent rerevision. Ten-year survival free from rerevision for revised MoMHRs was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48%–74%). Revision indications were not associated with differences in the frequency of complications or repeat revisions. With the numbers available, 10-year survival free from rerevision for pseudotumor revisions (56%; 95% CI, 30%–76%) was not different from the fracture (68%; 95% CI, 42%–85%; p = 0.359) and other groups (63%; 95% CI, 35%–81%; p = 0.478). Pseudotumor revisions had inferior OHSs (median, 21; range, 2–46; p = 0.007) and UCLA scores (median, 2; range, 2–7; p = 0.0184) compared with fracture and other revisions. Ten-year survival free from rerevision after femoral-only revision using another large-diameter MoM bearing was lower (p = 0.0498) compared with all component revisions using non-MoM bearings. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, sex, and revision indication, we found femoral-only revision as the only factor predicting rerevision (hazard ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.1–29; p = 0.040).Conclusions: Poor implant survivorship and frequent complications were observed at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision. However, patients undergoing femoral-only revisions with large-diameter MoM bearings had the worst survivorship, whereas patients revised for pseudotumor had the most inferior patient-reported outcomes. Our findings suggest these two patient subgroups require regular surveillance after MoMHR revision
- …
