Advertisement

Total Joint Replacement

  • Sharad Goyal
  • Tarang Tandon
  • Dhrumin Sangoi
  • Edward J. C. Dawe
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we focus on hip and knee replacements in greater detail while briefly looking at joint replacements in ankle, shoulder, wrist, and hand.

Over half a decade, since the advent of modern joint replacement surgery, tremendous progress has been made.

However, the weak link in hip replacement surgery is still the bearing material and the quest for the ideal material still continues.

In knee replacements, it has been observed that none of the implant designs have been able to replicate the kinematics of native knee, accounting probably for 20% of patients still dissatisfied with their outcomes, as observed in various studies worldwide.

Complex primary hip and knee replacements have been discussed with emphasis on pearls and pitfalls in execution of these difficult cases.

Infection, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fractures and instability are one of the most common indications for revision surgery.

The field of navigation and robotics is growing at an alarming rate in joint replacements. As this technology is embraced and research is done on this subgroup of patients, we may find that use of these technologies may translate into increased survival of implants and improved functional outcomes of our patients.

References

  1. 1.
    Hirschmann MT, Konala P, Cobb JP. The position and orientation of total knee replacement components: a comparison of conventional radiographs, transverse 2D-CT slices and 3D-CT reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(5):629–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwon YM, Cabanela ME, Jacobs JJ. Risk stratification algorithm for management of patients with dual modular total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(11):2060–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abele JT, Flemming JP. The accuracy of SPECT/T arthrography in evaluating aseptic loosening of hip and knee prosthesis. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(9):1647–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meding JB, Ritter MA. Cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty using the same femoral component. Hip Int. 2016;26(1):62–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association. National joint Replacement Registry:2015 annual reports. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com.
  6. 6.
    Long WJ, Lewallen DJ. Uncemented porous tantalum acetabular components: early follow-up and failures in 599 revisions total hip arthroplasties. Iowa Orthop J. 2015;35:108–13.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berry DJ, Morrey BF. 25 Year survivorship of 2000 consecutive primary charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg. 2002;84-A(2):171–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: Annual report 2014. http://www.shpr.se/en/.
  9. 9.
    Bichara DA, Malchau E. Vitamin E diffused highly cross-linked UHMWPE particles induce less osteolysis compared to highly cross-linked virgin UHMWPE particles in-vivo. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(9 suppl):232–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tan SC, Lanting BA. Effect of taper design on trunnionosis in metal on polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(7):1269–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Selvarajah E, Inglis G. The rates of wear of X3 highly cross-linked PE at 5 years when coupled with a 36mm diameter ceramic femoral in young patients. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(11):1470–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Owen DH, Walter WL. An estimation of the incidence of squeaking and revision surgery for squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacement: a meta-analysis and report from AOA NJR. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(2):181–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Traina F, Faldini C. Fracture of ceramic bearing surfaces following total hip replacement: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:157247.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J, et al. Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94:746–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Joint Registry for England and Wales: 8th Annual Report. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre
  16. 16.
    Glyn-Jones S, Pandit H, Kwon Y-M, et al. Risk factors for inflammatory pseudo tumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91:1566–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wegrzyn J, Guyen O. Cementless total hip arthroplasty in Paget’s disease of bone: a retrospective review. Int Orthop. 2010;34(8):1103–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stambough JB, Clohisy JC. Rapid recovery protocols for primary total hip arthroplasty can safely reduce length of stay without increasing readmissions. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(4):521–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB. Coventry award paper: multicentre determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2003;416:37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Walker SA, Tucker A. A multicentre analysis of axial femorotibial rotation after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2004;428:180–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haas BD, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Anderson DT, Northcut EJ. Kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate sacrifice versus substitution in a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2002;17:685–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Argenson JN, Parratte S, et al. Survival analysis of total knee arthroplasty at a minimum of 10 years follow up: a multicentre French nationwide study including 846 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(4):385–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ranawat AS, Rossi R, Loreti I, Rasquinha VJ, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS. Comparison of the PFC Sigma fixed-bearing and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty in the same patient: short-term results. J Arthroplast. 2004;19:35–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen K, Li G, Fu D, Yuan C, Zhang Q, Cai Z. Patellar resurfacing versus non resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int Orthop. 2013;37:1075–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pakos EE, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA. Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1483–95.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wallin A., and Dalholm A.B. The Swedish knee arthroplasty register—annual report. 2009.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ritter MA, Berend ME. Predicting ROM after total knee arthroplasty: clustering, log linear regression and regression free analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:1278–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barrack RL, Rorabeck C. Comparison of surgical approaches in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Langen S, Berend H. Lateral subvastus approach with TTO for primary TKA: clinical outcome and complications compared to medial parapatellar approach. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;26:215–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang JW, Wang CJ. Total knee arthroplasty for arthritis of knee with extra-articular deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(10):1769–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lonner JH, Lotke PA. Simultaneous femoral osteotomy and TKA for treatment of osteoarthritis associated with severe extra-articular deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(3):342–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Workgroup of the AAHKS Evidence based committee. Obesity and total joint arthroplasty: a literature based review. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(5):714–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cartier P, Khefacha A. Long term results with the first patellofemoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:1493–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D, et al. The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:40–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    National Joint Registry. National joint registry: 11th annual report.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sassoon A, Nam D, Nunley R, Barrack R. Systematic review of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: new but not improved. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:151–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kurtz W., Sinha R., Martin G., and Kimball K. Early outcomes utilizing a first-generation customized patient-specific TKA implant. In (eds): Presentation at the proceedings of British Association for Surgery of the Knee.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Steiger RN, Liu YL, Graves SE. Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:635–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roberts TD, Clatworthy MG, Frampton CM, Young SW. Does computer assisted navigation improve functional outcomes and implant survivability after total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast. 2015;30:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Orthopaedic Knowledge update: Hip and Knee Reconstruction, AAOS, 20:240 2017.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fracture of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meek RM, Norwood T, Smith R, et al. The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(1):96–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2992–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pastides P, Nathwani D. Update on the diagnosis and management of the periprosthetic knee joint infection. Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(1):53–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shubert D, Madoff S, Milillo R, Nandi S. Neurovascular structure proximity to acetabular retractors in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(1):145–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Soong M, Rubash HE, Macaulay W. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(5):314–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Whitehouse MR, Stefanowich-Lawbuary NS, et al. The impact of leg length discrepancy on patient satisfaction and functional outcome following total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(8):1408–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jastifer JR, Caughlin MJ. Long-term follow-up of mobile bearing total ankle arthroplasty in the United States. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(2):143–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Haddad SL, et al. Intermediate and long term outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis. A systemic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1899–905.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gougoulias N, et al. How successful are current ankle replacements? A systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):199–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Guus M. Vermeulen. Thesis submitted for the PhD on 29th January 2014, to the University of Erasmus MC, Netherlands on `Thumbs Up’ Surgical Management and outcome of Primary Osteoarthritis at the base of the Thumb by Guus M.Vermeulen, MD, PhD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharad Goyal
    • 1
  • Tarang Tandon
    • 1
  • Dhrumin Sangoi
    • 1
  • Edward J. C. Dawe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Trauma & OrthopaedicsSt Richards HospitalChichesterUK

Personalised recommendations