femoral fracture (nÂ¼ 1; 1.5%), prosthesis luxation (7; 11%), cup loosening (2; 3%), and implant failure (1; 1.5%); 9 cases were successfully revised. Explantation ...
May 30, 2016 - introduction: In the Middle East, severe developmental dysplasia of the hip with subsequent high dislocation is often seen. We assessed the ...
575. INTRODUCTION. Total hip replacement (THR) provides a very effective ... arthroplasty, bilateral arthroplasty; those transferred or initially treated at other ...
niques is clear,1-4 the difference between first- and second-generation ... THRs were performed on 162 patients using second-generation femoral, acetabular and polyethylene components by a single surgeon. (JRM) at one centre. The outcome ... the inde
Total hip replacement combined with subtrochanteric shortening femoral osteotomy in .... the calcar of the femoral component in order to achieve rota-.
et al. 1976). Soon after operation, this may cause pain or interference with ... and describes a case of dyspareunia developing three years after operation.Missing:
advancement and fixation of the greater trochanter is easier when the hip is in wide abduction. In cases with an adequate calcar femorale and no requirement.
aseptic implant loosening and implant failure. While visiting the ... The Kyon hip prosthesis, also known as the âZurich cementless total hip arthroplastyâ, was the.
biocompatible is the titanium alloy extra low interstitial (ELI)2 Tiâ6Alâ4V; its composi- tion is 90 wt% Ti, 6 wt% Al, and 4 wt% V. The optimal properties for this material are produced by hot forging; any subsequent deformation and/or heat treat
Eklem Hastalık Cerrahisi. 2011;22(1):8-15. Cementless total hip arthroplasty for dysplastic and dislocated hips. Displastik ve çıkık kalçalarda çimentosuz total ...
Jun 8, 2016 - patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the longevity .... titanium femoral component (Zimmer-Biomet) was implanted with ...
cup placement beyond the ilioischial line (the protrusio socket technique) to avoid bone grafting and still achieve cemented acetabular cup stability in dysplastic.
Key words: Hip prosthesis; Prosthesis failure; Osteolysis; Granuloma, plasma cell; Case report ... total joint replacement and can present as joint pain or.
mental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) (Fig. 2) frequent- ly develop symptomatic secondary arthritis at a rel- atively young age (8). Treatment of this severe hip.
Methods: We followed 49 patients (56 hips) with DDH who were treated with cementless THA, where ... sue contractures, severe developmental dysplasia of the.
Mar 2, 2011 - A number of cementless femoral stems are associated with excellent ..... the calcar, which is more important with this stem than it is with tapered ...
Long-term follow-up on the use of cemented implants for total hip arthroplasty has demonstrated two major problems: aseptic loosening and bone loss.1,8 This ...
The Girdlestone procedure is not without complications, ... arthroplasty was performed on average. 34 years ... arthroplasties. During the operation, routine.
Society of Bone & Joint. Surgery doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B6. 31438 $2.00. Bone Joint J. 2013 ... patients will require. THR and TKR earlier than normal-weight ... no increased risk to obese patients undergoing total joint ... time since surgery. All
Introduction. âTechnique, technique, techniqueâ is a quote from David Hungerford, M.D. Technique is more important than design or material. In order for a surgical procedure to be considered a success, it must provide reproducible, satisfactory c
and reduction was performed after insertion of the head and a liner. Osteotomized trochanters were reattached to ... mm in all except for 2 hips with 22-mm metal heads. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Harris ... Dual geometry hemispherica
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a bone autograft is frequently required in the treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip. In almost all cases, bone is.
Mar 2, 2011 - signs. Most have porous coating on the proximal two-thirds and obtain three-point ..... Bojescul JA, Xenos JS, Callaghan JJ, Savory CG. Results of porous-coated ana- .... Burt CF, Garvin KL, Otterberg ET, Jardon OM. A femoral ...
Cementless Total Hip Replacement Complications Three clinical papers in this issue of the Journal address the problems of loosening and recurrent luxation of cementless total hip replacement prostheses in the dog (1–3). The first two of these papers focus on the early loosening of a short stem, threaded femoral component in Helica® total hip arthroplasty in dogs (1, 2). Loosening of this femoral stem was a complication in six of 16 dogs within one year of surgery. Despite detailed radiographic analysis of the geometric orientation of this femoral implant, risk factors for loosening were not identified in this study (1). The concept of aligning and anchoring a short stem femoral implant in the femoral neck in canine hip arthroplasty, rather than the proximal one third of the femoral medullary cavity, is not new but dates back more than fifty years. This began with the hemiarthroplasty procedure in which the femoral implant, consisting of a spherical head and supporting short stem, articulated with the hyaline articular cartilage of the acetabulum. Two surgeons, the Judet brothers, introduced a polymethylmethacrylate acrylic femoral head hemi-arthroplasty procedure to human orthopaedics in 1946. Short-term mechanical failures were common due to abrasion and breakage of the acrylic; only in a few exceptional cases did the hemi-arthroplasty endure long-term (4). Similarly, this type of prosthesis implanted in dogs was found to be too weak to withstand the load along the neck, and it failed by breakage (5). Numerous modifications of the femoral implant made of stainless steel, vitallium and titanium were made, and some of these were evaluated at Michigan State University by Brown (6). Although the hemi-arthroplasty procedure of the canine hip joint fell into disuse clinically, it was an important stepping stone in the long road to development of total hip arthroplasty in the dog. It would appear that loosening of the short stem femoral component represents a failure of
early osteointegration. On-growth of bone to porous coated prostheses is influenced by many factors such as the composition and topography of the surface, as well as the local biological and mechanical environment in the immediately adjacent bone. Given that the short stem femoral implant is orientated in a more oblique to transverse trajectory, it might be subjected to greater bending moments and cyclic micromotion, than conventional, axially directed medullary stems. Further research is needed to understand the factors about this implant design and its implantation that leads to excessive micromotion at the bone–implant interface and impaired osteointegration. With the increase in number of canine total hip arthroplasties being performed, there are now more cases requiring revision procedures. Whereas revision often involved conversion to a femoral head ostectomy, especially in cases of infection and recurrent luxation, there is now more interest in performing a revision arthroplasty. Two case reports of successful revision of short stem femoral implants with the Zurich femoral component or with the cementless BioMedtrix® components suggest some potential options using currently available implants (2, 7). Also, recurrent luxation of cementless BioMedtrix prosthetic hips in two large dogs was successfully managed by revision surgery to increase the femoral head diameter (3). The rationale being that the larger femoral head increased the impingement-free range-ofmotion of the joint, and also increased the transition distance required for luxation. Design modifications such as increasing femoral head diameter could be a promising option to reduce recurrent luxation in large and giant breed dogs undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty. We look forward to future research evaluating the outcome of such design modifications in larger patient cohorts.
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1/2015 Downloaded from www.vcot-online.com on 2017-05-01 | IP: 126.96.36.199 For personal or educational use only. No other uses without permission. All rights reserved.
Finally, I would direct your attention to our announcement of our winner of the best resident paper award for 2014, appearing in this issue of the Journal. We had many worthy potential recipients of this award, so the competition was fierce. The contribution of our residents to new research published in VCOT is greatly appreciated.
References 1. Agnello KA, Cimino Brown D, Aoki K, et al. Risk factors for loosening of cementless threaded femoral implants in canine total hip arthroplasty. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28: 48-53. 2. Roe SC, Marcellin-Little DJ, Lascelles BDX. Revision of a loose cementless short-stem threaded femoral component using a standard cementless stem in a canine hip arthroplasty. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28: 54-59. 3. Roe SC, Sidebotham C, Marcellin-Little DJ. Acetabular cup liner and prosthetic head exchange to increase the head diameter for management of
4. 5. 6. 7.
recurrent luxation of a prosthetic hip in two dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28: 60-66. Kovač S, Pišot V, Trebše R, et al. Fifty-one-year survival of a Judet polymethylmethacrylate hip prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19: 664–667. Hickman J. Veterinary Orthopaedics. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd; 1964. pg. 242–244. Markowitz. J, Archibald J, Downie HG. Experimental Surgery. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1964. pg. 307–310. Andreoni AA, Guerrero TG, Hurter K, et al. Revision of an unstable HELICA endoprosthesis with a Zurich cementless total hip replacement. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 177–181.
Kenneth A. Johnson Editor-in-Chief Sydney
ACVS and ECVS Diplomates and related Dear Readers and Authors, For those of you who plan on submitting a paper to VCOT, and on using this paper, should it be published, as part of your ACVS or ECVS Boards credentials requirement, or related, please do not wait too long to submit. The review process can be rather time consuming, and we recommend to allow at least 5 months for the
entire process of submission, review, and revision work. We will of course do all we can on our end to help out, by keeping track of these papers and doing what we can to move these through the review process on a timely basis. However, in the end, we cannot guarantee that a paper will be accepted in time, nor can we guarantee that a paper will be accepted.
When submitting your papers, please do not forget to state which credentials program your paper is for, as well as the relevant deadline, in your cover letter or contact the Editorial Office directly at [email protected] or +49 711 22 987 58. Sincerely, Kenneth A. Johnson, Editor-in-Chief Laura Lenz, Managing Editor
Best Resident Paper Award As first announced in 2013, VCOT will have an annual award for the best resident paper which was published during the year. 2014 marks the 2nd year of this award, and you can find out who won by turning to page VIII in this issue. To be eligible for this award, the first author of the paper must have been enrolled in an accredited residency program at the time of submission of the paper, and the paper has to be published under the category
of Original Research or Clinical Communication. This annual award will consider all applicable resident papers which were published in that year. Judging will be done by an anonymous panel made up of our Editorial Board members and Referees. In addition to being announced in the first issue of the new year and online, the winner will also receive a prize of €500 and a free one-year subscription to VCOT from Schattauer publishers.