A 2-year RSA study of the Vanguard CR total knee system: A randomized controlled trial comparing patient-specific positioning guides with conventional technique

Backgound and purpose - There is some concern regarding the revision rate of the Vanguard CR TKA in 1 registry, and the literature is ambiguous about the effi cacy of patient-specifi c positioning guides (PSPGs). The objective of this study was to investigate the stability of the cemented Vanguard CR Total Knee using 2 different surgical techniques. Our hypothesis was that there is no difference in migration when implanting the Vanguard CR with either PSPGs or conventional technique. We hereby present a randomized controlled trial of 2-year follow-up with radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Patients and methods — 40 TKAs were performed between 2011 and 2013 with either PSPGs or the conventional technique and 22 of these were investigated with RSA. Results — The PSPG (8 knees) and the conventional (14 knees) groups had a mean maximum total point motion (MTPM) (95% CI) of 0.83 (0.48–1.18) vs. 0.70 (0.43–0.97) mm, 1.03 (0.60–1.43) vs. 0.86 (0.53–1.19), and 1.46 (1.07– 1.85) vs. 0.80 (0.52–1.43) at 3, 12, and 24 months respectively (p = 0.1). 5 implants had either an MTPM > 1.6 mm at 12 months and/or a migration of more than 0.2 mm between 1- and 2-year follow-ups. 2 of these also had a peripheral subsidence of more than 0.6 mm at 2 years. Interpretation — 5 implants (3 in the PSPG group) were found to be at risk of later aseptic loosening. The PSPG group continuously migrated between 12 and 24 months. The conventional group had an initial high migration between postoperative and 3 months, but seemed more stable after 1 year. Although the difference was not statistically signifi cant, we think the migration in the PSPG group is of some concernpublishedVersion© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Stable glenoid component of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at 2 years as measured with model-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA)

Background and purpose — Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is used for treating cuff arthropathy, displaced proximal humeral fractures (PHF), and in revision shoulder surgery, despite sparse evidence on long-term results. We assessed stability of the glenoid component in reverse TSA, using model-based RSA. Patients and methods — 20 patients (mean age 76 years, 17 female), operated on with reverse TSA at Oslo University Hospital, in 2015–2017 were included. Indications for surgeries were PHFs, malunion, cuff arthropathy, and chronic shoulder dislocation. RSA markers were placed in the scapular neck, the coracoid, and the acromion. RSA radiographs were conducted postoperatively, at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years. RSA analysis was performed using RSAcore with Reversed Engineering (RE) modality, with clinical precision < 0.25 mm for all translations (x, y, z) and < 0.7° for rotations (x, z). Scapular “notching” was assessed in conventional radiographs. Results — 1 patient was excluded due to revision surgery. More than half of the patients displayed measurable migration at 2 years: 6 patients with linear translations below 1 mm and 8 patients who showed rotational migration. Except for one outlier, the measured rotations were below 2°. The migration pattern suggested implant stability at 2 years. 10 patients showed radiolographic signs of “notching”, and the mean Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at 2 years was 29 points (15–36 points). Interpretation — Stability analysis of the glenoid component of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty using reversed engineering (RE) model-based RSA indicated component stability at 2 years

Higher cartilage wear in unipolar than bipolar hemiarthroplasties of the hip at 2 years: A randomized controlled radiostereometric study in 19 fit elderly patients with femoral neck fractures

Background and purpose: The use of unipolar hemi­arthroplasties for femoral neck fractures is increasing in some countries due to reports of higher reoperation rates in bipolar prostheses. On the other hand, it has been proposed that bipolar hemiarthroplasties have clinical advantages and less cartilage wear than unipolar hemiarthroplasties. We compared cartilage wear between bipolar and unipolar hemiarthroplasties using radiostereometric analyses (RSA), in patients aged 70 years or older. Patients and methods: 28 ambulatory, lucid patients were randomized to treatment with a unipolar or a bipolar hemiarthroplasty for an acute femoral neck fracture. Migration of the prosthetic head into the acetabulum was measured using RSA. Secondary outcomes were Harris Hip Score (HHS), and EQ-5D scores. Patients were assessed at 3, 12. and 24 months. Results: 19 patients were available for follow-up at 2 years: mean proximal penetration was 0.83 mm in the unipolar group and 0.24 mm in the bipolar group (p = 0.01). Mean total point movement was 1.3 mm in the unipolar group and 0.95 mm in the bipolar group (p = 0.3). Median HHS was 78 (62–96) in the unipolar group and 100 (70–100) in the bipolar group (p = 0.004). Median EQ-5D Index Score was 0.73 (0.52–1.00) in the unipolar group and 1.00 (0.74–1.00) in the bipolar group (p = 0.01). Median EQ-5D VAS was 70 (50–90) in the unipolar group and 89 (70–95) in the bipolar group (p = 0.03) Interpretation: Patients with unipolar hemiarthroplasties had higher proximal cartilage wear and lower functional outcomes. Unipolar hemiarthroplasties should be used with caution in ambulatory, lucid patients

Trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of trochanteric fractures: a scoping review

Background and purpose — The trochanteric stabilizing plate (TSP) may be used as an adjunct to a sliding hip screw (SHS) in the treatment of trochanteric fractures to increase construct stability. We performed a scoping review of the literature to clarify when and how the TSP may be useful. Methods — A systematic search was performed in 5 databases and followed by a backwards-and-forwards citation search of the identified papers. 24 studies were included. Results — 6 biomechanical studies and 18 clinical studies were included in the review. The studies presented mainly low-level evidence. All studies were on unstable trochanteric fractures or fracture models. Due to the heterogeneity of methods and reporting, we were not able to perform a meta-analysis. In the biomechanical trials, the TSP appeared to increase stability compared with SHS alone, up to a level comparable with intramedullary nails (IMNs). We identified 1,091 clinical cases in the literature where a TSP had been used. There were 82 (8%) reoperations. The rate of complications and reoperations for SHS plus TSP was similar to previous reports on SHS alone and IMN. It was not possible to conclude whether the TSP gave better clinical results, when compared with either SHS alone or with IMN. Interpretation — The heterogeneity of methods and reporting precluded any clear recommendations on when to use the TSP, or if it should be used at all

Trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of trochanteric fractures: a scoping review

Background and purpose — The trochanteric stabilizing plate (TSP) may be used as an adjunct to a sliding hip screw (SHS) in the treatment of trochanteric fractures to increase construct stability. We performed a scoping review of the literature to clarify when and how the TSP may be useful. Methods — A systematic search was performed in 5 databases and followed by a backwards-and-forwards citation search of the identified papers. 24 studies were included. Results — 6 biomechanical studies and 18 clinical studies were included in the review. The studies presented mainly low-level evidence. All studies were on unstable trochanteric fractures or fracture models. Due to the heterogeneity of methods and reporting, we were not able to perform a meta-analysis. In the biomechanical trials, the TSP appeared to increase stability compared with SHS alone, up to a level comparable with intramedullary nails (IMNs). We identified 1,091 clinical cases in the literature where a TSP had been used. There were 82 (8%) reoperations. The rate of complications and reoperations for SHS plus TSP was similar to previous reports on SHS alone and IMN. It was not possible to conclude whether the TSP gave better clinical results, when compared with either SHS alone or with IMN. Interpretation — The heterogeneity of methods and reporting precluded any clear recommendations on when to use the TSP, or if it should be used at all

Better survival of hybrid total knee arthroplasty compared to cemented arthroplasty.

Background and purpose — There have been few comparative studies on total knee replacement (TKR) with cemented tibia and uncemented femur (hybrid TKR). Previous studies have not shown any difference in revision rate between cemented and hybrid fixation, but these studies had few hybrid prostheses. We have evaluated the outcome of hybrid TKR based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Patients and methods — We compared 4,585 hybrid TKRs to 20,095 cemented TKRs with risk of revision for any cause as the primary endpoint. We included primary TKRs without patella resurfacing that were reported to the NAR during the years 1999–2012. To minimize the possible confounding effect of prosthesis brands, only brands that were used both as hybrids and cemented in more than 200 cases were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were done with adjustment for age, sex, and preoperative diagnosis. To include death as a competing risk, cumulative incidence function estimates were calculated. Results — Estimated survival at 11 years was 94.3% (95% CI: 93.9–94.7) in the cemented TKR group and 96.3% (CI: 95.3–97.3) in the hybrid TKR group. The adjusted Cox regression analysis showed a lower risk of revision in the hybrid group (relative risk = 0.58, CI: 0.48–0.72, p < 0.001). The hybrid group included 3 brands of prostheses: LCS classic, LCS complete, and Profix. Profix hybrid TKR had lower risk of revision than cemented TKR, but the LCS classic and LCS complete did not. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 11 years was 96.8% (CI: 95.6–98.0) in the hybrid Profix group and 95.2% (CI: 94.6–95.8) in the cemented Profix group. Mean operating time was 17 min longer in the cemented group. Interpretation — Survivorship of the hybrid TKR at 11 years was better than that for cemented TKR, or the same, depending on the brand of prosthesis. Hybrid fixation appears to be a safe and time-efficient alternative to cemented fixation in total knee replacement surgery

Hoftelidelser hos barn og unge- utredning og behandling av senfølger.

Følgene av hoftesykdom og hofteskader hos barn og unge kan kreve kirurgisk intervensjon. Leddbevarende inngrep utført i 12–21-årsalderen gir ofte gode langtidsresultater og kan utsette behovet for proteseinngrep. Hos pasienter under 21 år er mer enn 90 % av de moderne hofteprotesene som er satt inn de siste to tiårene, intakte etter ti år. Alvorlige hoftesymptomer og røntgenologiske forandringer i eller rundt hofteleddet hos barn og unge representerer en ortopedisk utfordring. Det kan være pasienter med følgetilstander etter hoftedysplasi, Calvé-Legg-Perthes’ sykdom (CLP), idiopatisk avaskulær nekrose av caput femoris (AVN), glidning av caput femoris i fysen (SCFE), femoroacetabulær inneklemming (femoroacetabular impingement, FAI), lårhals- eller bekkenbrudd eller pyogene artritter. Noen av tilstandene kan i løpet av få år medføre store patologiske forandringer i caput femoris, i en del tilfeller også i acetabulum (hofteleddskålen), slik at pasientene får betydelige smerter og stor funksjonsnedsettelse. Å fjerne de patologiske forandringene og implantere hofteprotese er mindre aktuelt hos de svært unge pasientene, siden de risikerer flere revisjonsinngrep i løpet av livet. Formålet med artikkelen er å gi en oversikt over utredning og behandling av senfølgene av disse hoftelidelsene hos pasienter i aldersgruppen 12–21 år, og å redegjøre for langtidsresultatene etter leddbevarende kirurgi og etter proteseinnsetting. Kunnskapsgrunnlaget baserer seg på forfatternes kliniske erfaringer og vitenskapelige studier som omhandler resultatene av konservativ behandling og hofteleddmodifiserende kirurgi med minst ti års oppfølging

Decreased survival of medial pivot designs compared with cruciate-retaining designs in TKA without patellar resurfacing.

Background The medial pivot TKA design was introduced in the 1990s. These are fixed-bearing, medial-conforming implants with virtually no translation in the medial part of the knee, in contrast to the flat lateral part of the insert allowing for translation similar to the native knee during flexion and extension. Most primary TKAs performed in Norway and Australia are cruciate-retaining. All of the medial pivot implants in our study are cruciate-sacrificing but without a post-cam mechanism. The medial pivot implant design was developed to more closely mimic native knee motion, in the hope of improving function, and not primarily as a more constrained knee for difficult cases. In the past 10 to 12 years, a second-generation medial-pivot design has emerged, but there are no larger registry studies on the survival of these implants. Both cruciate-retaining and medial pivot designs are reported in the Australian and Norwegian registries, allowing for large-scale, comparative survivorship studies. Questions/purposes (1) Is there any difference in survival between the medial pivot design and the three most commonly used cruciate-retaining TKA designs? (2) Is there any difference in survival among the different medial pivot implant designs? (3) What are the main indications for revision of medial pivot TKAs? Methods Registry data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 2005 until the end of 2017 were used to compare the five different brands of medial pivot TKA designs (total primary TKAs assessed: 6310). In Australia, the study group of medial pivot implants represented 9% (6012 of 72,477) of the total number of cemented/hybrid TKAs without patellar resurfacing; 345 had cementless femoral components. In Norway, the study group represented 1% (298 of 47,820) of the total number of TKAs with cemented tibias without patellar resurfacing; all had cemented femoral components. The control group consisted of the three most commonly used cruciate-retaining TKA designs (n = 70,870; Australia n = 54,554; Norway n = 16,316). All TKAs used a fixed-bearing, cemented tibial component and did not involve patella resurfacing. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was assessed to estimate survivorship. We compared the groups by calculating the hazard ratios (HR) using Cox regression adjusted for age, gender and preoperative diagnosis with 95% CI. To answer our third question, we calculated the percentage of each revision indication from the total number of revisions in each group, and used a Cox regression analysis to compare revision causes and HRs. Analyses were performed separately by each registry. Accounting for competing risks (Fine and Gray) did not alter our findings [12]. Results After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, age and preoperative diagnosis, we found an increased revision risk for the medial pivot compared with cruciate-retaining TKA designs in Australia (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.7]; p < 0.001), but not in Norway (HR 1.5 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.4]; p = 0.1). Two brands of the medial pivot design reported to the AOANJRR showed an increased risk of revision compared with cruciate-retaining designs: the Advance® II MP (HR 1.7 [95% CI 1.2 to 2.6]; p = 0.004) and the GMK® Sphere (HR 2.0 [95% CI 1.5 to 2.6]; p < 0.001), whereas the MRK™ (HR 0.7 [95% CI 0.4 to 1.5]; p = 0.4), the Evolution® MP (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.9]; p = 0.06) and the SAIPH® (HR 0.9 [95% CI 0.5 to 1.5]; p = 0.7) showed no difference. The most common reasons for revision of medial pivot implants in Australia were infection (27%), pain alone (19%), patellar erosion (13%), loosening/lysis (12%); in Norway the primary indications were loosening/lysis (28%), instability (28%), malalignment (11%) and pain alone (11%). Conclusions The medial pivot TKA design as a group had a higher revision rate than cruciate-retaining fixed-bearing controls in TKA performed without patellar component resurfacing. By brand, the Advance II MP and the GMK Sphere had inferior survivorship, whereas the MRK, the SAIPH and the Evolution MP had no differences in survivorship compared with cruciate-retaining controls. In Australia, TKAs with the medial pivot design without patella resurfacing had a higher rate of revisions for instability, malalignment, and patella erosion. In Norway, there was an increased risk of revision for lysis and loosening compared with the cruciate-retaining design. Several of these implants had short follow-up in this study. Further registry studies with longer follow up are therefore necessary. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study