ObjectiveTo summarize the prevention and treatment of iatrogenic medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsThe relevant literature about iatrogenic MCL injuries in TKA was summarized, and the symptoms, causes, preventions, and treatments were analyzed.ResultsPreventions on the iatrogenic MCL injuries in TKA is significantly promoted. With the occurrence of MCL injuries, the femoral avulsion can be fixed with the screw and washer or the suture anchors; the tibial avulsion can be treated with the suture anchors fixation, bone staples fixation, or conservative treatment; the mid-substance laceration can be repaired directly; the autologous quadriceps tendon, semitendinosus tendon, or artificial ligament can be used for the patients with poor tissue conditions or obvious residual gap between the ligament ends; the use of implant with greater constraint can be the last alternative method.ConclusionNo consensus has been reached to the management of iatrogenic MCL injuries in TKA. Different solutions and strategies can be integrated and adopted flexibly by surgeons according to the specific situation.
ObjectiveTo summarize the principle, classification, and treatment methods of knee extension device disruption after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsBy extensively consulted the relevant domestic and abroad literature, the principle, classification, and treatment methods of injury according to different parts of the knee extension device after TKA were summarized and analyzed.ResultsThe knee extension device disruption after TKA mainly occurs in the quadriceps tendon, patella tendon, and patella. Once the knee extension device is injured, it will seriously affect the functional recovery of the patient after surgery, resulting in delayed knee extension, limited range of motion, difficulty walking, and joint pain, etc. The current treatment methods are diverse, including conservative treatment and surgical treatment. Surgical treatment includes direct suture repair (traditional perosseous fixation and suture anchoring techniques), reconstruction and reinforcement repair (reconstruction using synthetic patches, autografts, and allografts). For the treatment of different parts, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the patient’s knee joint tissue condition, the presence or absence of underlying diseases, and the presence or absence of donors.ConclusionThere is no uniform conclusion on the treatment of knee extension device disruption after TKA. Different injury situations need to be considered comprehensively to choose the appropriate treatment method.
Objective To explore the coronal alignment of tibial prosthesis after osteotomy using personalized extramedullary positioning technique on tibia side in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods A clinical data of 170 patients (210 knees) who underwent primary TKA between January 2020 and June 2021 and met the selection criteria was retrospectively analyzed. Personalized and traditional extramedullary positioning techniques were used in 93 cases (114 knees, personalized positioning group) and 77 cases (96 knees, traditional positioning group), respectively. The personalized extramedullary positioning was based on the anatomical characteristics of the tibia, a personalized positioning point was selected as the proximal extramedullary positioning point on the articular surface of the tibial plateau. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, body mass index, surgical side, course of osteoarthritis, and Kellgren-Lawrence classification (P>0.05). The preoperative tibial bowing angle (TBA) formed by the proximal and distal tibial coronal anatomical axes in the personalized positioning group was measured and the tibia axis was classified, and the distribution of personalized positioning point was analyzed. The pre- and post-operative hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), the lateral distal tibial angle (LDTA), and the postoperative tibia component angle (TCA), the excellent rate of tibial prosthesis alignment in coronal position were compared between the two groups. Results In the personalized positioning group, 58 knees (50.88%) were straight tibia, 35 knees (30.70%) were medial bowing tibia, and 21 knees (18.42%) were lateral bowing tibia. The most positioning points located on the highest point of the lateral intercondylar spine (62.07%) in the straight tibia group, while in the medial bowing tibia and lateral bowing tibia groups, most positioning points located in the area between the medial and lateral intercondylar spines (51.43%) and the lateral slope of the lateral intercondylar spine (57.14%), respectively. The difference in HKA between pre- and post-operation in the two groups was significant (P<0.05); while the difference in LDTA was not significant (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in preoperative LDTA and HKA and the difference between pre- and post-operation between groups (P>0.05). But there was significant difference in postoperative TCA between groups (P<0.05). The postoperative tibial plateau prosthesis in the traditional positioning group was more prone to varus than the personalized positioning group. The excellent rates of tibial prosthesis alignment in coronal position were 96.5% (110/114) and 87.5% (84/96) in personalized positioning group and traditional positioning group, respectively, showing a significant difference between groups (χ2=7.652, P=0.006). Conclusion It is feasible to use personalized extramedullary positioning technique for coronal osteotomy on the tibia side in TKA. Compared with the traditional extramedullary positioning technique, the personalized extramedullary positioning technique has a higher excellent rate of tibial prosthesis alignment in coronal position.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) combined with subtrochanteric osteotomy in the treatment of Crowe type Ⅳdevelopmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).MethodsBetween April 2008 and June 2016, 71 patients with unilateral Crowe type Ⅳ DDH were treated with THA. Of 71 cases, 44 were performed with subtrochanteric osteotomy (osteotomy group) and 27 were performed without subtrochanteric osteotomy (non-osteotomy group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass, height, body mass index, affected side, and preoperative Harris score between 2 groups (P>0.05). The complications were recorded and the effectiveness was assessed by Harris score. Besides, the femoral dislocation height and the settling depth of sleeve were measured in the pelvic anteroposterior X-ray film pre- and post-operatively.ResultsOsteotomy group was followed up 12-90 months (mean. 34.77 months), and non-osteotomy group was followed up 12-79 months (mean, 34.33 months). There was no significant difference in follow-up time between 2 groups (t=–0.088, P=0.930). There was 11 cases of intraoperative or postoperative complications in osteotomy group, and 3 cases of postoperative complications in non-osteotomy group. Among the osteotomy group, 1 case had nonunion due to infection and received revision after 20 months. No loosening or dislocation of the implant occurred in both 2 groups. Significant differences were found in femoral dislocation height and settling depth of sleeve between 2 groups (t=–8.452, P=0.000; t=6.783, P=0.000). Moreover, the osteotomy length was not correlated with the settling depth of sleeve (r=–0.038, P=0.806). At last follow-up, there was no significant difference in Harris score between 2 groups (t=–1.160, P=0.254).ConclusionTHA combined with subtrochanteric osteotomy can provide a favorable outcome for treating Crowe type Ⅳ DDH. Furthermore, patients with higher femoral dislocation and severely narrow femoral proximal canals are prone to be peformed with subtrochanteric osteotomy.
ObjectiveTo evaluate short-term effectiveness of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with porous-coated metaphyseal Sleeve and MBT implant.MethodsA clinical data of 23 patients (24 knees) who underwent revision TKA by using porous-coated metaphyseal Sleeve combined with MBT implant between March 2015 and April 2017 was retrospectively analyzed. There were 8 males (8 knees) and 15 females (16 knees). The age ranged from 48 to 85 years (mean, 65.4 years). The cause of revision TKA included infection in 14 knees, aseptic loosening in 8 knees, instability in 1 knee, and stiff knee in 1 knee. Bone defects were classified according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) bone defect classification. The femoral defect was rated as type ⅡA in 5 knees, type ⅡB in 17 knees, and type Ⅲ in 2 knees; the tibial defect was rated as type ⅡA in 2 knees, type ⅡB in 20 knees, and type Ⅲ in 2 knees. The mean time between primary TKA and revision TKA was 30.6 months (range, 6-86 months). The preoperative range of motion (ROM) was (56.0±24.9)°. The preoperative Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) total score was 41.9±14.2; and the pain and function scores were 8.5±5.2 and 33.4±13.5, respectively.ResultsAll patients were followed up 12-39 months (mean, 25.6 months). The mean operation time was 2.2 hours (range, 1.6-2.9 hours). The mean intraoperative blood loss was 580 mL (range, 400-1 000 mL). There were 2 knees (8.3%) of intraoperative fracture associated with Sleeve insertion and 1 knee (4.2%) of acute postoperative infection at 25 days after revision TKA. All incisions healed by first intention. No deep venous thrombosis of lower extremity occurred. X-ray film showed that all implants were stable. At last follow-up, slight discomfort after exercise occurred in 4 knees (16.7%); end-of-stem pain in the tibia occurred in 1 knee (4.2%). The ROM was (114.6±5.1)°, which had significant improvement compared with the preoperative result (t=11.698, P=0.000). The HSS total score (89.0±10.9), pain score (26.9±6.6), and function score (62.1±5.8) also had significant improvement compared with the preoperative results (t=15.616, P=0.000; t=12.522, P=0.000; t=10.076, P=0.000).ConclusionThe porous-coated metaphyseal Sleeve combined with MBT implant in revision TKA has a significant improvement in short-term effectiveness and no signs of implant loosening.
ObjectiveTo investigate revision reasons and prosthesis selection of Crowe Ⅳ developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). MethodsA clinical data of 14 patients (15 hips) with Crowe Ⅳ DDH, who underwent a revision hip arthroplasty between January 2008 and May 2018, was retrospectively reviewed. There were 1 male (1 hip) and 13 females (14 hips). The age ranged from 27 to 63 years (mean, 45.0 years). There were 7 cases of left hip, 6 cases of right hip, and 1 case of bilateral hips. The prosthetic interfaces of primary THA were metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) in 9 hips, ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) in 4 hips, ceramic-on-polyethylene (COP) in 1 hip, and ceramic-on-metal in 1 hip. The time from primary THA to revision was 3-204 months (mean, 65.0 months). The causes of revision included aseptic loosening in 7 hips, dislocation in 3 hips, periprosthetic joint infection in 2 hips, osteolysis in 1 hip, nonunion of osteotomy in 1 hip, and a small-angle of femoral anteversion in 1 hip. Preoperative Harris score was 54.1±17.8 and the range of motion (ROM) of flexion was (92.7±20.2)°. Preoperative X-ray films showed the acetabular bone defect in 11 hips and osteolysis of femoral side in 4 hips. During the revision, the prostheses with COP and COC interfaces were used in 5 hips and 10 hips, respectively. Both acetabular and femoral revisions were performed in 11 hips and only femoral revision was performed in 4 hips.ResultsThe mean operation time was 3.7 hours (range, 1.5-6.0 hours). The mean intraoperative blood loss was 940.0 mL (range, 200-2 000 mL). All patients were followed up 16-142 months (mean, 73.9 months). Postoperative X-ray films showed no difference in inclination and anteversion between primary THA and revision (P>0.05). The height of rotation center and offset after revision were higher than those after primary THA, and the difference in offset was significant (P<0.05). At last follow-up, the Harris score and ROM of flexion were 85.0±7.3 and (115.0±17.0)°, respectively, which were significantly higher when compared with those before revision (t=8.909, P=0.000; t=4.911, P=0.000). Three hips underwent a re-revision operation. All protheses were fixed well and no radiolucent line, loosening, or subsidence was observed at last follow-up.ConclusionThe most common reason for revision in patients with Crowe Ⅳ DDH after THA was aseptic loosening. Due to high activity demand of this population, the prosthesis with MOP interface should be prevented and the prosthesis with COC interface could be alternative. Metal block, cup-cage, and reinforcement ring were reasonable solutions for reconstruction of acetabulum with severe bone defects and have satisfactory effectiveness. S-ROM prosthesis should be the preferred stem for neither primary THA or revision.