@article{ShekharHowellNedopiletal.2022, author = {Shekhar, Adithya and Howell, Stephen M. and Nedopil, Alexander J. and Hull, Maury L.}, title = {Excellent and good results treating stiffness with early and late manipulation after unrestricted caliper-verified kinematically aligned TKA}, series = {Journal of Personalized Medicine}, volume = {12}, journal = {Journal of Personalized Medicine}, number = {2}, issn = {2075-4426}, doi = {10.3390/jpm12020304}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-262094}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for stiffness within 6 to 12 weeks after mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) generally yields better outcome scores than an MUA performed later. However, the timing of MUA after unrestricted, caliper-verified, kinematically aligned (KA) TKA remains uncertain. A retrospective review identified 82 of 3558 (2.3\%) KA TKA patients treated with an MUA between 2010 and 2017. Thirty patients treated with an MUA within 3 months of the TKA (i.e., early) and 24 in the late group (i.e., >3 months) returned a questionnaire after a mean of 6 years and 5 years, respectively. Mean outcome scores for the early vs. late group were 78 vs. 62 for the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) (p = 0.023) and 42 vs. 39 for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (p = 0.037). Subjectively, the early vs. late group responses indicated that 83\% vs. 67\% walked without a limp, 73\% vs. 54\% had normal extension, and 43\% vs. 25\% had normal flexion. An MUA within 3 months after unrestricted KA TKA provided excellent FJS and OKS at final follow-up relative to a late MUA. A late MUA performed after 3 months is worth consideration because of the good FJS and OKS scores, albeit with a risk of a persistent limp and limitation in knee extension and flexion.}, language = {en} } @article{DhaliwalZamoraNedopiletal.2022, author = {Dhaliwal, Anand and Zamora, Tomas and Nedopil, Alexander J. and Howell, Stephen M. and Hull, Maury L.}, title = {Six commonly used postoperative radiographic alignment parameters do not predict clinical outcome scores after unrestricted caliper-verified kinematically aligned TKA}, series = {Journal of Personalized Medicine}, volume = {12}, journal = {Journal of Personalized Medicine}, number = {9}, issn = {2075-4426}, doi = {10.3390/jpm12091468}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288186}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background: Unrestricted caliper-verified kinematically aligned (KA) TKA restores patient's prearthritic coronal and sagittal alignments, which have a wide range containing outliers that concern the surgeon practicing mechanical alignment (MA). Therefore, knowing which radiographic parameters are associated with dissatisfaction could help a surgeon decide whether to rely on them as criteria for revising an unhappy patient with a primary KA TKA using MA principles. Hence, we determined whether the femoral mechanical angle (FMA), hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA), tibial mechanical angle (TMA), tibial slope angle (TSA), and the indicators of patellofemoral tracking, including patella tilt angle (PTA) and the lateral undercoverage of the trochlear resection (LUCTR), are associated with clinical outcome scores. Methods: Forty-three patients with a CT scan and skyline radiograph after a KA TKA with PCL retention and medial stabilized design were analyzed. Linear regression determined the strength of the association between the FMA, HKA angle, PTS, PTA, and LUCTR and the forgotten joint score (FJS), Oxford knee score (OKS), and KOOS Jr score obtained at a mean of 23 months. Results: There was no correlation between the FMA (range 2° varus to -10° valgus), HKAA (range 10° varus to -9° valgus), TMA (range 10° varus to -0° valgus), TSA (range 14° posterior to -4° anterior), PTA (range, -10° medial to 14° lateral), and the LUCTR resection (range 2 to 9 mm) and the FJS (median 83), the OKS (median 44), and the KOOS Jr (median 85) (r = 0.000 to 0.079). Conclusions: Surgeons should be cautious about using postoperative FMA, HKAA, TMA, TSA, PTA, and LUCTR values within the present study's reported ranges to explain success and dissatisfaction after KA TKA.}, language = {en} } @article{BoelchJakuscheitDoerriesetal.2018, author = {Boelch, S. P. and Jakuscheit, A. and Doerries, S. and Fraissler, L. and Hoberg, M. and Arnholdt, J. and Rudert, M.}, title = {Periprosthetic infection is the major indication for TKA revision - experiences from a university referral arthroplasty center}, series = {BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders}, volume = {19}, journal = {BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders}, number = {395}, doi = {10.1186/s12891-018-2314-1}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-176983}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Background: We hypothesized, that periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounts for the major proportion of first (primary) and repeated (secondary) Total Knee Arthroplasty revisions at our university referral arthroplasty center. Methods: One thousand one hundred forty-three revisions, performed between 2008 and 2016 were grouped into primary (55\%) and secondary (45\%) revisions. The rate of revision indications was calculated and indications were categorized by time after index operation. The odds ratios of the indications for primary versus secondary revision were calculated. Results: In the primary revision group PJI accounted for 22.3\%, instability for 20.0\%, aseptic loosening for 14.9\% and retropatellar arthrosis for 14.2\%. PJI (25.6\%) was the most common indication up to 1 year after implantation, retropatellar arthrosis (26.8\%) 1-3 years and aseptic loosening (25.6\%) more than 3 years after implantation. In the secondary revision group PJI accounted for 39.7\%, aseptic loosening for 16.2\% and instability for 13.2\%. PJI was the most common indication at any time of revision with 43.8\% up to one, 35.4\% 1-3 years and 39.4\% more the 3 years after index operation. The odds ratios in repeated revision were 2.32 times higher (p = 0.000) for PJI. For instability and retropatellar arthrosis the odds ratios were 0.60 times (p = 0.006) and 0.22 times (p = 0.000) lower. Conclusions: PJI is the most common indication for secondary TKA revision and within one year after primary TKA. Aseptical failures such as instability, retropatellar arthrosis and aseptical loosening are the predominant reasons for revision more than one year after primary TKA.}, language = {en} } @article{WimmerRandauDemletal.2013, author = {Wimmer, Matthias D. and Randau, Thomas M. and Deml, Moritz C. and Ascherl, Rudolf and Forst, Raimund and Gravius, Nadine and Wirtz, Dieter and Gravius, Sascha}, title = {Impaction grafting in the femur in cementless modular revision total hip arthroplasty: a descriptive outcome analysis of 243 cases with the MRP-TITAN revision implant}, series = {BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders}, volume = {14}, journal = {BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders}, number = {19}, issn = {1471-2474}, doi = {10.1186/1471-2474-14-19}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-122061}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Background: We present a descriptive and retrospective analysis of revision total hip arthroplasties (THA) using the MRP-TITAN stem (Peter Brehm, Weisendorf, GER) with distal diaphyseal fixation and metaphyseal defect augmentation. Our hypothesis was that the metaphyseal defect augmentation (Impaction Bone Grafting) improves the stem survival. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the aggregated and anonymized data of 243 femoral stem revisions. 68 patients with 70 implants (28.8\%) received an allograft augmentation for metaphyseal defects; 165 patients with 173 implants (71.2\%) did not, and served as controls. The mean follow-up was 4.4 +/- 1.8 years (range, 2.1-9.6 years). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the study and control group regarding age, body mass index (BMI), femoral defects (types I-III as described by Paprosky), and preoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS). Postoperative clinical function was evaluated using the HHS. Postoperative radiologic examination evaluated implant stability, axial implant migration, signs of implant loosening, periprosthetic radiolucencies, as well as bone regeneration and resorption. Results: There were comparable rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications in the study and control groups (p > 0.05). Clinical function, expressed as the increase in the postoperative HHS over the preoperative score, showed significantly greater improvement in the group with Impaction Bone Grafting (35.6 +/- 14.3 vs. 30.8 +/- 15.8; p <= 0.05). The study group showed better outcome especially for larger defects (types II C and III as described by Paprosky) and stem diameters >= 17 mm. The two groups did not show significant differences in the rate of aseptic loosening (1.4\% vs. 2.9\%) and the rate of revisions (8.6\% vs. 11\%). The Kaplan-Meier survival for the MRP-TITAN stem in both groups together was 93.8\% after 8.8 years. [Study group 95.7\% after 8.54 years; control group 93.1\% after 8.7 years]. Radiologic evaluation showed no significant change in axial implant migration (4.3\% vs. 9.3\%; p = 0.19) but a significant reduction in proximal stress shielding (5.7\% vs. 17.9\%; p < 0.05) in the study group. Periprosthetic radiolucencies were detected in 5.7\% of the study group and in 9.8\% of the control group (p = 0.30). Radiolucencies in the proximal zones 1 and 7 according to Gruen occurred significantly more often in the control group without allograft augmentation (p = 0.05). Conclusion: We present the largest analysis of the impaction grafting technique in combination with cementless distal diaphyseal stem fixation published so far. Our data provides initial evidence of improved bone regeneration after graft augmentation of metaphyseal bone defects. The data suggests that proximal metaphyseal graft augmentation is beneficial for large metaphyseal bone defects (Paprosky types IIC and III) and stem diameters of 17 mm and above. Due to the limitations of a retrospective and descriptive study the level of evidence remains low and prospective trials should be conducted.}, language = {en} }