ABSTRACT
AIMS: The aims were to compare the survival of the cemented standard (150 mm) with the short (DDH [35.5 mm offset or less], number 1 short stem [125 mm options of 37.5 mm, 44 mm, 50 mm offset] and revision [44/00/125]) Exeter® V40 femoral stems when used for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Patients were retrospectively identified from an arthroplasty database. A total of 664 short stem Exeter® variants were identified, of which 229 were DDH stems, 208 number 1 stems and 227 revision stems were implanted between 2011 and 2020. A control group of 698 standard Exeter® stems used for THA was set up, and were followed up for a minimum of 10 years follow-up (implanted 2011). All-cause survival was assessed for THA and for the stem only. Adjusted analysis was undertaken for age, sex and ASA grade. RESULTS: The median survival time for the short stems varied according to design: DDH had a survival time of 6.7 years, number 1 stems 4.1 years, and revision stems 7.2 years. Subjects in the short stem group (n = 664) were significantly younger (mean difference 5.1, P < 0.001) and were more likely to be female (odds ratio 1.89, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.39, P < 0.001), compared to the standard group. There were no differences in THA (P = 0.26) or stem (P = 0.35) survival at 5 years (adjusted THA: 98.3% vs. 97.2%; stem 98.7% vs. 97.8%) or 10 years (adjusted THA 97.0% vs. 96.0 %; stem 96.7% vs. 96.2%) between standard and short stem groups, respectively. At 5 years no differences were found in THA (DDH: 96.7%, number 1 97.5%, revision 97.3%, standard 98.6%) or stem (DDH: 97.6%, number 1 99.0%, revision 97.3%, standard 98.2%) survival between/among the different short stems or when compared to the standard group. CONCLUSION: The Exeter® short stems offer equivocal survival when compared to the standard stem at 5- to 10-year follow-up, which does not seem to be influenced by the short stem design.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The natural history of traumatic glenohumeral dislocation is well-established in young adults, but it is less clear in pediatric patients. We aimed to determine the rate of recurrent instability and medium-term functional outcome following shoulder dislocation in patients aged 14 years or younger. METHODS: All patients aged 14 years or younger who sustained a glenohumeral dislocation from 2008 to 2019 presenting to our regional health-board were identified. Patients who had subluxations associated with generalized laxity were excluded. Data was collected regarding further dislocations, stabilization surgery, sporting activity and patient-reported outcomes using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) Index and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. RESULTS: Forty-one patients with a radiologically confirmed traumatic glenohumeral dislocation were suitable for study inclusion [mean age at injury 12.3 y (range: 7.2 to 14.0 y), male sex 29 (70.7%), median 7.9 y follow-up]. The incidence rate of pediatric glenohumeral dislocation was 2.5 cases per 100,000 population (aged 0 to 14 y) per year. Recurrent dislocation occurred in 43.9% (n=18/41) at a median time of 14.7 months postinjury (range: 1 to 54 mo). Skeletal maturity was associated with significantly higher proportion of recurrent instability (immature 6/24 vs. mature 12/17, P=0.01). One in 5 patients required surgical intervention for recurrent instability [mean 8 (range: 1 to 14) dislocations before surgery]. Twenty-eight patients had completed outcome questionnaires. The median modified WOSI score was 87.1% [270 (interquartile range: 65 to 795)] and the median Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 3.4 (interquartile range: 0 to 9.7). Recurrent shoulder instability was significantly associated with poorer WOSI score (unstable 71.4% vs. stable 94.3%, 95% confidence interval of the difference 6.2-36.9, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic glenohumeral dislocation in patients aged 14 years or younger occurs rarely but is not a benign event. One in 2 patients experienced recurrent dislocation and 1 in 5 ultimately underwent surgical stabilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: This study aimed to assess patient risk recall and find risk thresholds for patients undergoing elective forefoot procedures. METHODS: Patients were interviewed in the pre-assessment clinic (PAC) or on day of surgery (DOS); some in both settings. A standardised questionnaire was used for all interviews, regardless of setting. Patients were tested on which risks they recalled from their consent process, asked for thresholds for five pre-chosen risks and asked about a sham risk. RESULTS: Across all interviews, risk recall on DOS (2.34 risks/patient interview) was significantly lower (p=.05) than in PAC (2.95 risks/patient interview) - this was repeated when comparing results from patients interviewed in both settings only with PAC mean recall of 2.93 risks/patient interview and DOS mean recall of 2.57 risks/patient interview. The mean reported risk thresholds greatly exceeded NHS Lothian's observed complication rates for forefoot procedures. The five risks tested for thresholds produced the same order in each interview setting, suggesting a patient-perceived severity ranking. Patients answering the sham risk question incorrectly tended to recall fewer risks across all interviews. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patient risk recall is poor, as previous literature outlines, reinforcing that consent process improvements could be made. It also illustrates the value of PAC visits in patient education, as shown by higher levels of recall when compared to DOS.
