Midterm results of stemless impaction shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective, multicenter study.

Background: Stemless shoulder arthroplasty using 4 open-fin press-fit anchors has been showing promising short-term clinical and radiographic results for patients' primary osteoarthritis. This prospective, multicenter study presents 5-year postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of a stemless shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Methods: Between November 2012 and December 2015, 100 patients were treated for primary osteoarthritis with the Sidus stem-free shoulder system at 7 European centers. Clinical assessment included the Constant-Murley Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score, Subjective Shoulder Value, and range of motion. True anteroposterior, axial and lateral radiographs were reviewed for osteolysis, glenoid and humerus loosening, heterotopic ossification, radiolucent lines, component migration and humeral bone resorption. In addition to a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, a comparative analysis between total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty was performed. Results: Seventy-one patients (36 females) with a mean age of 63.8 years (range: 47-79 years) were available for the 5-year clinical and radiographic follow-up (range: 52-79 months). There was a significant increase (P < .0001) in all outcome scores compared to baseline values. Patients with total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 48) achieved significantly better functional outcome than patients with shoulder hemiarthroplasty (n = 23) with regard to the absolute and relative Constant-Murley Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score, and Subjective Shoulder Value as well as greater abduction strength and range of motion in forward elevation and external rotation (P ≤ .004). There were no cases of osteolysis or humeral loosening. There were some cases of heterotopic ossification (1.4%), radiolucency around the humerus (1.4%) or glenoid (25%), glenoid migration (2.1%), inferior osteophytes (1.4%) or humerus bone resorption (9.9%). The 5-year survival was 94%. Conclusion: Patients treated with the Sidus stem-free shoulder system for primary osteoarthritis continue to achieve good clinical and radiographic results without any signs of aseptic humeral implant loosening at 5 years postsurgery.

Resorbable screw and sheath versus resorbable interference screw and staples for ACL reconstruction: a comparison of two tibial fixation methods.

PURPOSE: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most performed and successful orthopaedic procedures. The results are considered independent by the choice of the graft and the fixation devices. A growing interest on resorbable non-metallic fixation devices versus standard metallic fixation devices has been noted over recent years with few clinical experiences reported in the literature. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendons with tibial fixation by a centrally placed resorbable screw and sheath to a combination of an eccentrically placed resorbable interference screw and supplementary staple fixation. METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing an isolated, single-bundle, primary ACL reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendons, using the same femoral fixation, were randomized to a tibial fixation with a centrally placed resorbable screw and sheath, BioIntrafix (group A), or an eccentrically placed resorbable interference screw, BioRCI, and two non-resorbable staples (group B). The latter has represented for many years our standard fixation method. Clinical evaluations (KOOS, IKDC, KT-2000™ side-to-side difference) and radiological analyses were conducted in both groups with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: We assisted in a satisfactory pain relief and functional improvements, without significant clinical and radiological differences in both groups. No further surgery was needed in patients with the screw/sheath tibial fixation. Seven patients with the screw/staples tibial fixation needed the surgical removal of the fixation devices due to pes anserinus irritation or local infection years after the index operation. Other parameters such as the tunnel enlargement were not statistically different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Good clinical and radiological outcomes of ACL reconstruction by a screw/sheath tibial fixation have been reported showing comparable results with respect to screw/staples fixation. There were no failures associated with loss of fixation with either of tibial fixation methods. A fewer number of surgical removals of tibial devices were also recorded in patients treated by the screw/sheath fixation system, related to the absence of local intolerance or infection compared to subjects with a standard tibial fixation.

Hip arthrosis and surgical intervention: what and when?

Osteoarthritis of the hip is a common pathology and involves forms of disability and need for treatments that affect the quality of life of patients and their families, and in general of the whole society. It should be considered as such degenerative joint disease is increasing as the increase in life expectancy and musculoskeletal trauma, the latter responsible for secondary forms of osteoarthritis. The treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip has changed a lot over the years, since the earlier diagnosis and, before, with prevention through proper lifestyle. More in-depth knowledge of the biology of the tissues involved, first of all hyaline cartilage, has lead to non-surgical treatments such as infiltration with hyaluronic acid (viscosupplementation) and autologous growth factors derived from platelets (platelet rich plasma). Surgical therapy with prosthetic replacement is finally a choice to share with the patient based on pain and functional limitation, bearing in mind always the best technology and tribology and the possibility of less invasive surgical access, while recognizing that there are not still eternal prosthesis. Of particular importance then is the age of the patient. There are also other types of surgery (hip arthroscopy, forage) for other pathologies of the hip which can be resolutive, or, in a sense, can delay the arrival to the prosthetic replacement. We will discuss below the decision-making process that leads the surgeon with the patient to the surgery option.

Joint line position in revision total knee arthroplasty: the role of posterior femoral off-set stems.

BACKGROUND: Elevation of the joint line frequently occurs in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) because of a wider flexion space than extension space. One solution to balance this flexion-extension space involves the introduction of couplers between the stem and femoral components, and the use of posteriorly offset femoral stems that we hypothesized would improve gap balancing and facilitate joint line restoration. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a selected series of 43 RTKA. Postoperative joint line height was subtracted from intended height using postoperative lateral radiographs. The value was negative if the joint line position was lowered, and positive if raised. RESULTS: Forty knees were followed for a mean of 3.5years. Mean postoperative joint line position change from intended position was 1.5mm (range -2.5-7.5mm). In 28 knees (70%), the joint line position was restored to within ±2mm of the intended position; in eight knees (20%), from 2-4mm; and in four knees (10%), >4mm. Joint line position was raised in 32 knees (80%) and lowered in eight (20%). In the offset stem knees, the intended joint line position was 0.9mm (range -1.2-3.4mm) as compared with 3.2mm (range -2.5-7.5mm) for the straight stem knees. CONCLUSIONS: A coupler system between the femoral stem and femoral component restored the joint line in 70% of cases. The posterior offset stem provided increased posterior condylar offset, addressed the wider flexion space, provided better positioning of the stem, and restored the joint line. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study Level IV.

Painful knee prosthesis: surgical approach.

There are many conditions that may be responsible of a painful knee prosthesis. The possible causes are not always easily diagnosed. Common causes of prosthetic failure, such as aseptic loosening, infection, instability, progressive patellar arthropathy and recurrent synovitis are associated with clearly defined radiographic and/or clinical evidence. Prosthetic infection should always be considered first until any other cause has been demonstrated. In the presence of an infected prosthesis we carry out a two-step revision. Aseptic loosening needs implant revision more often with increasing prosthesis stability. Varus-valgus, anteroposterior, global and patello-femoral instability are failures often due to technical errors; superstabilized or constrained implants are needed depending on the instability entity.In presence of patello-femoral pain it is necessary to evaluate the stability of the patellar component and any alterations in its motion. Patellar progressive arthropathy can often cause late-onset knee pain; in this case patella resurfacing is needed. Altered patellar tracking, may need a lateral release but in some cases is related to misalignment of the components and the revision procedure is mandatory. Nevertheless, the diagnosis and treatment of a painful knee prosthesis can be extremely difficult if there is no clear evidence of any of the most common causes of failure. Referred pain, ligament and tendon dysfunction, cutaneous neuromas, synovitis, a patellar clunk have to be diagnosed and treated.A possible aetiological understimated factor is painful knee prosthesis due to metals sensibilization, in particular to nickel. In this event the quantity of nickel in the revision prosthesis must be minimal.