This editorial reviews and summarises the current evidence(meta-analyses and Cochrane reviews) relating to the use of hip hemi-arthroplasty for neck of femur fractures. Regarding the optimal surgical approach,two rece...This editorial reviews and summarises the current evidence(meta-analyses and Cochrane reviews) relating to the use of hip hemi-arthroplasty for neck of femur fractures. Regarding the optimal surgical approach,two recent meta-analyses have found that posterior approaches are associated with: higher rates of dislocation compared to lateral and anterior approaches; and higher rates of re-operation compared to lateral approaches. Posterior approaches should therefore be avoided when performing hip hemi-arthroplasty procedures. Assessing the optimal prosthesis head component,three recent meta-analyses and one Cochrane review have found that while unipolar hemiarthroplasty can be associated with increased rates of acetabular erosion at short-term follow-up(up to 1 year),there is no significant difference between the unipolar hemi-arthroplasty and bipolar hemi-arthroplasty for surgical outcome,complication profile,functional outcome and acetabular erosion rates at longer-term follow-up(2 to 4 years). With bipolar hemi-arthroplasty being the more expensive prosthesis,unipolar hemi-arthroplasty is the recommended option. With regards to the optimal femoral stem insertion technique,three recent metaanalyses and one Cochrane Review have found that,while cemented hip hemi-arthroplasties are associated with a longer operative time compared to uncemented Hip Hemi-arthroplasties,cemented prostheses have lower rates of implant-related complications(particularly peri-prosthetic femoral fracture) and improved postoperative outcome regarding residual thigh pain and mobility. With no significant difference found between the two techniques for medical complications and mortality,cemented hip hemi-arthroplasty would appear to be the superior technique. On the topic of wound closure,one recent meta-analysis has found that,while staples can result in a quicker closure time,there is no significant difference in post-operative infections rates or wound healing outcomes when comparing staples to sutures. Therefore,either suture or staple w展开更多
BACKGROUND The Ankle Spacer was developed as a joint-sparing alternative to invasive endstage surgeries.Currently,there are no clinical studies on the Ankle Spacer.AIM To describe the operative technique and the clini...BACKGROUND The Ankle Spacer was developed as a joint-sparing alternative to invasive endstage surgeries.Currently,there are no clinical studies on the Ankle Spacer.AIM To describe the operative technique and the clinical efficacy of the Ankle Spacer for the treatment of multiple,cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus in patients with failed prior operative treatment.METHODS This is a prospective study during which patients were assessed preoperatively,at 2-and 6 wk,and at 3,6,12 and 24 mo postoperatively.Patients with multiple,cystic or large(≥15 mm)osteochondral lesions of the talus after failed prior surgery were included.The primary outcome measure was the numeric rating scale(NRS)for pain during walking at 2 years postoperatively.Secondary outcome measures included the NRS in rest and during stair climbing,the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Hindfoot Score,the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score,the Short-Form 36 physical and mental component scale,and the Range of Motion(ROM).Radiographic evaluations were conducted to evaluate prosthetic loosening and subsidence.Revision rates and complications were also assessed.RESULTS Two patients underwent an Ankle Spacer implantation on the talus.The NRS during walking improved from 6 and 7 preoperatively to 2 and 2 points postoperatively at 2 years,in patient 1 and 2,respectively.The other patient-reported outcome measures also improved substantially.There were no re-operations nor complications.Radiological imaging showed no loosening of the implant and no change of implant position.CONCLUSION The Ankle Spacer showed clinically relevant pain reduction during walking,improvement in clinical outcomes as assessed with PROMs,and no complications or re-operations.This treatment option may evolve as a joint-sparing alternative to invasive end-stage surgeries.展开更多
文摘This editorial reviews and summarises the current evidence(meta-analyses and Cochrane reviews) relating to the use of hip hemi-arthroplasty for neck of femur fractures. Regarding the optimal surgical approach,two recent meta-analyses have found that posterior approaches are associated with: higher rates of dislocation compared to lateral and anterior approaches; and higher rates of re-operation compared to lateral approaches. Posterior approaches should therefore be avoided when performing hip hemi-arthroplasty procedures. Assessing the optimal prosthesis head component,three recent meta-analyses and one Cochrane review have found that while unipolar hemiarthroplasty can be associated with increased rates of acetabular erosion at short-term follow-up(up to 1 year),there is no significant difference between the unipolar hemi-arthroplasty and bipolar hemi-arthroplasty for surgical outcome,complication profile,functional outcome and acetabular erosion rates at longer-term follow-up(2 to 4 years). With bipolar hemi-arthroplasty being the more expensive prosthesis,unipolar hemi-arthroplasty is the recommended option. With regards to the optimal femoral stem insertion technique,three recent metaanalyses and one Cochrane Review have found that,while cemented hip hemi-arthroplasties are associated with a longer operative time compared to uncemented Hip Hemi-arthroplasties,cemented prostheses have lower rates of implant-related complications(particularly peri-prosthetic femoral fracture) and improved postoperative outcome regarding residual thigh pain and mobility. With no significant difference found between the two techniques for medical complications and mortality,cemented hip hemi-arthroplasty would appear to be the superior technique. On the topic of wound closure,one recent meta-analysis has found that,while staples can result in a quicker closure time,there is no significant difference in post-operative infections rates or wound healing outcomes when comparing staples to sutures. Therefore,either suture or staple w
文摘BACKGROUND The Ankle Spacer was developed as a joint-sparing alternative to invasive endstage surgeries.Currently,there are no clinical studies on the Ankle Spacer.AIM To describe the operative technique and the clinical efficacy of the Ankle Spacer for the treatment of multiple,cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus in patients with failed prior operative treatment.METHODS This is a prospective study during which patients were assessed preoperatively,at 2-and 6 wk,and at 3,6,12 and 24 mo postoperatively.Patients with multiple,cystic or large(≥15 mm)osteochondral lesions of the talus after failed prior surgery were included.The primary outcome measure was the numeric rating scale(NRS)for pain during walking at 2 years postoperatively.Secondary outcome measures included the NRS in rest and during stair climbing,the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Hindfoot Score,the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score,the Short-Form 36 physical and mental component scale,and the Range of Motion(ROM).Radiographic evaluations were conducted to evaluate prosthetic loosening and subsidence.Revision rates and complications were also assessed.RESULTS Two patients underwent an Ankle Spacer implantation on the talus.The NRS during walking improved from 6 and 7 preoperatively to 2 and 2 points postoperatively at 2 years,in patient 1 and 2,respectively.The other patient-reported outcome measures also improved substantially.There were no re-operations nor complications.Radiological imaging showed no loosening of the implant and no change of implant position.CONCLUSION The Ankle Spacer showed clinically relevant pain reduction during walking,improvement in clinical outcomes as assessed with PROMs,and no complications or re-operations.This treatment option may evolve as a joint-sparing alternative to invasive end-stage surgeries.
