Periprosthetic occult acetabular fracture: an unknown side effect of press-fit techniques in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of periprosthetic occult acetabular fracture occurring during cementless acetabular cup insertion in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to assess the clinical consequences of these fractures. METHODS: A total of 232 hips (n = 205 patients) were included in this study. A periprosthetic occult acetabular fracture was defined as that which was unrecognised intraoperatively and was undetectable on post-operative radiographs yet was successfully diagnosed on post-operative computed tomography (CT) images. Clinical (age, sex, body mass index, and preoperative diagnosis) and surgical (additional screw fixation, cup rim size, and cup type) variables were analysed to identify risk factors for periprosthetic occult acetabular fracture. RESULTS: Sixteen (6.9%) periprosthetic occult intraoperative acetabular fractures were identified. In addition, one (0.4%) periprosthetic acetabular fracture was found during operation. The superolateral wall (9/16 hips; 56.3%) was the most frequent location. In addition, one (0.4%) periprosthetic acetabular fracture was found during operation. Male sex was the only factor associated with an increased risk for periprosthetic occult intraoperative acetabular fracture (odds ratio for male versus female sex: 4.28; p = 0.04). There was no significant association between cup type and the occurrence of periprosthetic occult acetabular fracture. All 16 hips with periprosthetic occult intraoperative acetabular fracture were healed at the final follow-up visit without the requirement for any additional surgical interventions. CONCLUSION: The results of the current study suggest that periprosthetic occult acetabular fractures are common during press-fit acetabular cup insertion in primary THA. Surgeons should have a high index of suspicion and early CT imaging referral in male patients who present with unexplained early post-operative groin pain in primary THA using cementless acetabular cups.

Survival of medial versus lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.

Many studies have found associations between unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and implant survival, but controversy still exists regarding the relative survival of medial versus lateral UKA over mid-to long-term follow-up. The purpose of this study was to compare survival and clinical outcomes of medial and lateral UKAs. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that assessed implant survival in patients who underwent medial or lateral UKA with short- to mid-term (<10years) or long-term (>10years) follow-up, and that used assessments, such as pain and function scores, to compare postoperative scores on knee outcome scales. A total of eight studies (33,999 knees with medial UKA and 2,853 with lateral UKA) met the inclusion criteria and was analyzed in detail. There were no significant differences between medial and lateral UKA in pain score (95% CI: -0.37 to 0.88; P = 0.42), function score (95% CI: -0.19 to 0.60; P = 0.31), short- to mid-term survival (medial, 32,083/33,483; lateral, 2,636/2,726; OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.48;P = 0.91), or long-term survival (medial, 479/516; lateral, 110/127; OR 2.51, 95% CI:0.67 to 9.43; P = 0.17). In addition, both groups had substantial proportions of knees with short- to mid-term survival (95.6% by medial UKA and 94.6% by lateral UKA) and long-term survival (92.8% by medial UKA and 86.6% by lateral UKA). This meta-analysis found no significant differences in short- to mid-term and long-term survival of medial and lateral UKAs. Similarly, patients treated with medial UKA showed no difference in pain relief or functional improvement compared to patients treated with lateral UKA. These results suggest that both UKA techniques are viable treatment options for patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis over long-term follow-up, although further high-quality studies are needed to address some remaining uncertainties regarding the clinical benefits of these procedures.

Total Hip Arthroplasty: Past, Present, and Future. What Has Been Achieved?

In the 1960s, Sir John Charnley introduced to clinical practice his concept of low-friction total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although early designs were plagued by poor performance and even failure, there have been steady advances in implant designs, biomaterials, surgical techniques and an understanding of the biomechanical restoration of the hip; these advances have contributed to improvements in implant survival and clinical outcomes of THA in the past three decades. With improved wear resistance and mechanical reliability, a potential to last for at least 25 to 30 years are now available for THA. In this review, we focus on the evolution of THA and review current controversies and future directions of this procedure based on a single surgeon's 29-year of experience at a single institution.

Correction: Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214279.].

Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.

There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5-10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24-1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5-10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56-1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5-10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship.