Martin, J. Ryan

Background: Pelvic discontinuity is uncommon and presents the surgeon with complex reconstructive challenges. The objective of this study is to report the results of current strategies used in the treatment of pelvic discontinuity. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data on 113 consecutive revision total hip arthroplasties performed for the treatment of unilateral pelvic discontinuity at a single institution. The study included 18 male and 95 female patients with a mean age of 63 years at the time of revision surgery. Preoperative, immediate postoperative, and latest follow-up radiographs were reviewed to assess healing of the discontinuity as well as acetabular component stability. Treatment modalities included an uncemented cup with a posterior column plate (50 hips; 44%), a cup-cage construct (27 hips; 24%), an antiprotrusio cage with or without a posterior column plate (26 hips; 23%), and an uncemented cup alone (10 hips; 9%). The average duration of follow-up for each of these types of surgical reconstruction was similar (range, 3.9 to 7.2 years). Results: Five-year revision-free survivorship of the implant was best with a cup-cage construct (100%) and worst with an uncemented cup with a posterior column plate (80%) and a cup alone (80%). Healing of the discontinuity was achieved in 50% of the hips with an uncemented cup alone, 74% of the hips with an uncemented cup and a posterior column plate, 74% of the hips with a cup-cage construct, and 88% of the hips with an antiprotrusio cage construct (91% of these hips when structural allograft was used). The overall complication rate was 26.5%. The average Harris hip score improved from 54 preoperatively to 69 postoperatively (95% confidence interval: 50 to 57 preoperatively and 65 to 72 postoperatively; p = 0.017). Conclusions: Improved survivorship and healing rates were seen in this series when a reconstruction cage was used as an adjunct to an uncemented cup (cup-cage) or in combination with structural allograft bone that bridged the discontinuity. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims We compared the outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in obese patients who previously underwent bariatric surgery and those who did not, in a matched cohort study. Patients and Methods There were 47 THAs in the bariatric group (42 patients), and 94 THAs in the comparison group (92 patients). The mean age of the patients was 57 years in both groups (24 to 79) and 57% of the patients in both groups were women. The mean time between bariatric surgery and THA was five years (four months to 12 years) in the bariatric group. The mean follow-up after THA was three years (2 to 9). Results The mean BMI improved from 49.7 kg/m2 (35 to 75) prior to bariatric surgery to 35.3 kg/m2 (21 to 49) at the time of THA (p < 0.001). Patients in the comparison group had an increased risk of re-operation (Hazard Ratio (HR) 3.2; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.3 to 9.5, p = 0.01) and revision (HR 5.4; 95% CI 1.5 to 34.5, p = 0.01) when compared with the bariatric group. Conclusion Patients had a dramatic improvement in BMI after bariatric surgery and those with prior bariatric surgery had a lower risk of re-operation and revision in the short- and mid-term after a subsequent THA. Larger prospective studies are required before it can be concluded that this extra surgery should be advised in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1180–4.

Bariatric surgery has been advocated as a means of reducing body mass index (BMI) and the risks associated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, this has not been proved clinically. In order to determine the impact of bariatric surgery on the outcome of TKA, we identified a cohort of 91 TKAs that were performed in patients who had undergone bariatric surgery (bariatric cohort). These were matched with two separate cohorts of patients who had not undergone bariatric surgery. One was matched 1:1 with those with a higher pre-bariatric BMI (high BMI group), and the other was matched 1:2 based on those with a lower pre-TKA BMI (low BMI group). In the bariatric group, the mean BMI before bariatric surgery was 51.1 kg/m2 (37 to 72), which improved to 37.3 kg/m2 (24 to 59) at the time of TKA. Patients in the bariatric group had a higher risk of, and worse survival free of, re-operation (hazard ratio (HR) 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2 to 6.2; p = 0.02) compared with the high BMI group. Furthermore, the bariatric group had a higher risk of, and worse survival free of re-operation (HR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.3; p = 0.2) and revision (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 6.5; p = 0.04) compared with the low BMI group. While bariatric surgery reduced the BMI in our patients, more analysis is needed before recommending bariatric surgery before TKA in obese patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1501–5.