Outcomes of Cement in Cement revision, in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: The cement-in-cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique, when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with conventional way of removing well-fixed cement. AIM: To analyze the effectiveness of cement in cement revision of the femoral stem while performing a revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: We analyzed a consecutive series of 79 patients who underwent a cement in cement revision THA between June-2015 to June-2018. All the patients were retrospectively analysed for operative time, complications, clinical and radiological outcomes. RESULTS: Average age was 76 years (49-86). The mean follow-up was 16.2 months (12-45). The average operative time was 184.6 (90-290) minutes. Most common indication was cup loosening in 28 patients (42.4%), dislocation in 14 patients (21.2%) and stem loosening in 12 patients (18.2%) Nine patients (11%) had one or more complications. Pre-operatively, 10 patients (13%) had lucency at the cement bone interface. Recent review has shown that 8 of these patients’ radiographs have remained unchanged, and in 2 of them there is a slight progression of lucency. Common post op clinical complaintswere persistent pain and abductor weakness. Five (6.3%) patients required a re-revision. Most of the patients had a good or satisfactory outcome.No stems showed radiological loosening. CONCLUSION: The cement-in-cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results and had the advantages of speed, less blood or bone stock loss, less risk of femoral perforation or fracture, decreased financial costs and reduced post op morbidity

ANALISIS KESULITAN SISWA DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA PADA MATERI ARITMATIKA SOSIAL DI KELAS VII SMP NEGERI 2 BANDA ACEH TAHUN AJARAN 2013/2014

Banda Ace

Assessing the non-inferiority of prosthesis constructs used in total and unicondylar knee replacements using data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man:A benchmarking study

News from Lane\u27s End Homestead

Revision rates after primary hip and knee replacement in England between 2003 and 2006

<b>Background</b>: Hip and knee replacement are some of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the world. Resurfacing of the hip and unicondylar knee replacement are increasingly being used. There is relatively little evidence on their performance. To study performance of joint replacement in England, we investigated revision rates in the first 3 y after hip or knee replacement according to prosthesis type. <b>Methods and Findings</b>: We linked records of the National Joint Registry for England and Wales and the Hospital Episode Statistics for patients with a primary hip or knee replacement in the National Health Service in England between April 2003 and September 2006. Hospital Episode Statistics records of succeeding admissions were used to identify revisions for any reason. 76,576 patients with a primary hip replacement and 80,697 with a primary knee replacement were included (51% of all primary hip and knee replacements done in the English National Health Service). In hip patients, 3-y revision rates were 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8%–1.1%) with cemented, 2.0% (1.7%–2.3%) with cementless, 1.5% (1.1%–2.0% CI) with “hybrid” prostheses, and 2.6% (2.1%–3.1%) with hip resurfacing (p < 0.0001). Revision rates after hip resurfacing were increased especially in women. In knee patients, 3-y revision rates were 1.4% (1.2%–1.5% CI) with cemented, 1.5% (1.1%–2.1% CI) with cementless, and 2.8% (1.8%–4.5% CI) with unicondylar prostheses (p < 0.0001). Revision rates after knee replacement strongly decreased with age. <b>Interpretation</b>: Overall, about one in 75 patients needed a revision of their prosthesis within 3 y. On the basis of our data, consideration should be given to using hip resurfacing only in male patients and unicondylar knee replacement only in elderly patients

The risk of developing cancer following metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with non metal-on-metal hip bearings:Findings from a prospective national registry “The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man”

Background and purpose Over 1 million metal-on-metal hip replacements were implanted. Even well-functioning implants produce wear debris that can cause tissue damage, disseminate and cause DNA damage. We aimed to establish if there was an association between metal-on-metal hip replacement and the risk of subsequently developing cancer compared with alternative hip replacements. Methods We performed a population based prospective longitudinal cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (n = 403,881 patients). We examined the incidence of a new diagnosis of cancer in patients who received a metal-onmetal bearing in comparison with those who received a non metal-on-metal bearing. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first cancer diagnosis were used with Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess the effect on the time to cancer diagnosis for all cancer types, haematological, malignant melanoma, urinary tract cancers or prostate cancer in men. Results The maximum follow up available was 11.8 years with 25% of patients followed up for more than 6.8 years (mean follow up 4.6 years; median 4.3; IQR 2.1–6.8; range 0.01–11.8). Analyses by gender that adjusted for age at primary and presence or absence of linked Welsh (PEDW) records showed no increase in the risk of developing cancer according to the bearing surface implanted for all cancers, haematological cancers, malignant melanoma, urinary tract cancers or prostate cancer in men. For patients receiving a second hip replacement, there was also no difference. Conclusion We have demonstrated that there is currently no evidence of an increase in the risk of cancer following primary hip replacement according to the type of bearing material used. Although the risk of revision in metal-on-metal bearing hip replacements is higher, it is reassuring that the risk of a new diagnosis of cancer is not currently increased. Despite the long term follow up available in this study, the latency period for some cancers is very long and therefore continued monitoring is required to ensure no new patterns emerge that may indicate need for universal screening.</p