Ledford, Cameron K.

AimsBreast cancer survivors have known risk factors that might influence the results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with breast cancer history after primary THA and TKA.MethodsOur total joint registry identified patients with breast cancer history undergoing primary THA (n = 423) and TKA (n = 540). Patients were matched 1:1 based upon age, sex, BMI, procedure (hip or knee), and surgical year to non-breast cancer controls. Mortality, implant survival, and complications were assessed via Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes were evaluated via Harris Hip Scores (HHSs) or Knee Society Scores (KSSs). Mean follow-up was six years (2 to 15).ResultsBreast cancer patient survival at five years was 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89% to 95%) after THA and 94% (95% CI 92% to 97%) after TKA. Breast and non-breast cancer patients had similar five-year implant survival free of any reoperation or revision after THA (p ≥ 0.412) and TKA (p ≥ 0.271). Breast cancer patients demonstrated significantly lower survival free of any complications after THA (91% vs 96%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.4); p = 0.017). Specifically, the rate of intraoperative fracture was 2.4% vs 1.4%, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 1.4% and 0.5% for breast cancer and controls, respectively, after THA. No significant difference was noted in any complications after TKA (p ≥ 0.323). Both breast and non-breast cancer patients experienced similar improvements in HHSs (p = 0.514) and KSSs (p = 0.132).ConclusionBreast cancer survivors did not have a significantly increased risk of mortality or reoperation after primary THA and TKA. However, there was a two-fold increased risk of complications after THA, including intraoperative fracture and VTE.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):365–371.

Background: While there has been much interest in the increased dislocation rate in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients with a lumbar spine fusion (LSF), there is minimal literature comparing the risk based on surgical approach. The purpose of this study was to determine if a direct anterior (DA) approach was protective against dislocation when compared to the anterolateral and posterior approaches in this high-risk patient population. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of 6554 THAs performed at our institution from January 2011 to May 2021. 294 (4.5%) patients had a prior LSF and were included in the analysis. The surgical approach, timing of LSF in relation to THA, vertebral levels fused, timing of THA dislocation, and the need for revision surgery were recorded for statistical analysis. Results: In total, 39.7.3% of patients underwent a DA approach (n = 117), 25.9% underwent an anterolateral approach ( n = 76), and 34.3% underwent a posterior approach ( n = 101). There was no difference in number of vertebral levels fused between groups (mean 2.5, all p > 0.05). There was a total of 13 (4.4%) THA dislocation events, with an average time from surgery to dislocation of 5.6 months (0.3–30.5 months). There were fewer dislocations in the DA cohort (0.9%) in comparison to both the anterolateral (6.6%, p = 0.036) and posterior groups (6.9%, p = 0.026). Conclusions: The DA approach demonstrated a significantly lower THA dislocation rate compared to both the anterolateral and posterior approaches in patients with a concomitant LSF.

Background: Complex acetabular reconstruction for major bone loss can require advanced methods such as the use of a cup-cage construct. The purpose of this study was to review outcomes after the initial development of the cup-cage technique and the subsequent evolution to the use of a half cup-cage construct. Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center review of 57 patients treated with cup-cage reconstruction for major acetabular bone loss. All patients had major acetabular defects graded as Paprosky Type 2B through 3B, with 34 (60%) having an associated pelvic discontinuity. Thirty patients received a full cup-cage construct and 27, a half cup-cage construct. The mean follow-up was 5 years. Results: Both the full and half cup-cage cohorts demonstrated significantly improved Harris hip score (HHS) values, from 36 to 72 at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (p < 0.05). Early construct migration occurred in 4 patients, with stabilization prior to 2-year follow-up in all but 1 patient. Incomplete, zone-3, nonprogressive acetabular radiolucencies were observed in 2 (7%) of the full cup-cage constructs and 6 (22%) of the half cup-cage constructs. One patient with a full cup-cage construct underwent re-revision of the acetabular component for progressive migration and aseptic loosening. Short-term survivorship free from re-revision for any cause or reoperation was 89% (83% and 96% for full and half cup-cage cohorts, respectively). Conclusions: Both full and half cup-cage constructs demonstrated successful clinical outcomes and survivorship in the treatment of major acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Each method is utilized on the basis of individual intraoperative findings, including the extent and pattern of bone loss, the quality and location of host bone remaining after preparation, and the presence of pelvic discontinuity. Longer-term follow-up is required to understand the durability of these constructs in treating major acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims The number of revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) that are performed is expected to increase. However, previous reports of the causes of failure after TKA are limited in that they report the causes at specific institutions, which are often dependent on referral patterns. Our aim was to report the most common indications for re-operations and revisions in a large series of posterior-stabilised TKAs undertaken at a single institution, excluding referrals from elsewhere, which may bias the causes of failure. Patients and Methods A total of 5098 TKAs which were undertaken between 2000 and 2012 were included in the study. Re-operations, revisions with modular component exchange, and revisions with non-modular component replacement or removal were identified from the medical records. The mean follow-up was five years (two to 12). Results The Kaplan-Meier ten-year survival without a re-operation, modular component revision and non-modular component revision was 95.7%, 99.3% and 95.3%, respectively. The most common indications for a re-operation were: post-operative stiffness (58%), delayed wound healing (21%), and patellar clunk (11%). The indications for isolated modular component revision were acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (64%) and instability (36%). The most common indications for non-modular component revision were chronic PJI (52%), aseptic loosening (17%), periprosthetic fracture (10%), and instability (10%). Conclusion Post-operative stiffness remains the most common indication for re-operation after TKA. Infection is the most common indication for modular and non-modular component revision. Aseptic loosening was not an uncommon cause of failure, however, it was much less common than in national registry and non-registry data. Focusing on posterior-stabilised TKAs initially performed at our institution allowed for an accurate assessment of the causes of failure in a contemporary specialty practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:647–52.