Bollpaulsen5768

8% rate of aseptic loosening per sleeve. For cones, the reoperation rate was 18.7%, and the rate of aseptic loosening per cone was 1.7%.The reported survival of metal sleeves was 99.1% at three years, 98.7% at five years and 97.8% at 10 years. The reported survival free of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 100%, and survival free of any cone revision was 98%. Survival free of any revision or reoperation was 90% and 83%, respectively. Cite this article EFORT Open Rev 2021;61073-1086. DOI 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210007.To compare one-stage vs. two-stage bilateral unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) in terms of complications, mortality, reinterventions, transfusion rate, days to discharge, and outcomes for the treatment of bilateral mono-compartmental knee osteoarthritis.A systematic review was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and case series describing the use of bilateral UKA were retrieved. A meta-analysis was performed on complications, mortality, reinterventions, transfusion rate, and days to discharge comparing one-stage vs. two-stage replacement, and outcomes were also reported. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Fifteen articles were included on 1451 patients who underwent bilateral UKA (44.9% men, 55.1% women, mean age 66 years). The systematic review documented, for bilateral one-stage UKA 2.6% major and 5.4% minor complication rates, 0.5% mortality, 1.9% reintervention, 4.1% transfusion rates, and 4.5 mean days to discharge. No studies reported functional differences. The meta-analysis did not find differences for major complications, minor complications, mortality, reintervention, transfusion rates, or days to discharge versus two-stage bilateral procedures. The operative time was 112.3 vs. 125.4 minutes for one-stage and two-stage surgeries, respectively. The overall quality of the retrieved studies was high.Bilateral single-stage UKA is a safe procedure, with a few complications, and overall positive clinical results. No differences were found in terms of complications, mortality, reinterventions, transfusion rate, and days to discharge in comparison with the two-stage approach. Cite this article EFORT Open Rev 2021;61063-1072. DOI 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210047.The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize studies published since the last systematic review in 2015 that compare outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in older patients (≥ 80 years) and in younger patients ( less then 80 years), in terms of complication rates and mortality.An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane Register. Studies were included if they compared outcomes of primary TKA for osteoarthritis in patients aged 80 years and over to patients aged under 80 years, in terms of complication rates, mortality, or patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Thirteen studies were eligible. Surgical complications in older patients ranged from 0.6-21.1%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.3-14.6%. Wound complications in older patients ranged from 0.5-20%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.8-22.0%. Medical complications (cardiac, respiratory, thromboembolic) in older patients ranged from 0.4-17.3%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.2-11.5%.Mortality within 90 days in older patients ranged between 0-2%, while in younger patients it ranged between 0.0-0.03%.Compared to younger patients, older patients have higher rates of surgical and medical complications, as well as higher mortality following TKA. The literature also reports greater length of stay for older patients, but inconsistent findings regarding PROs. The present findings provide surgeons and older patients with clearer updated evidence, to make informed decisions regarding TKA, considering the risks and benefits within this age group. Patients aged over 80 years should therefore not be excluded from consideration for primary TKA based on age alone. Cite this article EFORT Open Rev 2021;61052-1062. DOI 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200150.Total hip arthroplasty is performed more frequently in younger patients nowadays, making long-term bone stock preservation an important topic. A mechanism for late implant failure is periprosthetic bone loss, caused by stress shielding around the hip stem due to different load distribution. Short stems are designed to keep the physical loading in the proximal part of the femur to reduce stress shielding. The aim of this review is to give more insight into how short and anatomic stems behave and whether they succeed in preservation of proximal bone stock.A systematic literature search was performed to find all published studies on bone mineral density in short and anatomic hip stems. Results on periprosthetic femoral bone mineral density, measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), were compiled and analysed per Gruen zone in percentual change.A total of 29 studies were included. In short stems, Gruen 1 showed bone loss of 5% after one year (n = 855) and 5% after two years (n = 266). Gruen 7 showed bone loss of 10% after one year and -11% after two years. In anatomic stems, Gruen 1 showed bone loss of 8% after one year (n = 731) and 11% after two years (n = 227). Gruen 7 showed bone loss of 14% after one year and 15% after two years.Short stems are capable of preserving proximal bone stock and have slightly less proximal bone loss in the first years, compared to anatomic stems. Cite this article EFORT Open Rev 2021;61040-1051. DOI 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210030.The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and the inter- and intra-observer reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction for the planning of cemented or uncemented THA.This study was registered in the NIHR PROSPERO database (ID CRD42020216649) and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search of electronic databases in March 2021 found 29 papers overall. The quality of evidence was assessed using the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist and the CASP Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted, and the accuracy was presented as proportions and the inter- and intra-observer reliability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).Accuracy within one prosthesis size (±1) for cemented stems was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.95), cemented cups 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.89), uncemented stems 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.82) and uncemented cups 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.79) (test of group differences p = 0.010). Inter-observer reliability (ICC) for uncemented cups was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91), uncemented stems 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91), cemented stems 0.69 (95% CI 0.54-0.84) and cemented cups 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.81) (test of group differences p = 0.004). Due to lack of data, intra-observer reliability (ICC) could only be calculated for uncemented prostheses, which for the stems was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.92) and for the cups was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.90) (test of group differences p = 0.124).The accuracy of preoperative digital templating is greater for cemented prostheses, but the inter-observer reliability is greater for uncemented prostheses. The intra-observer reliability showed a high level of agreement for uncemented prostheses. Cite this article EFORT Open Rev 2021;61020-1039. DOI 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210048.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyse negative effects of smoking in orthopaedic and trauma patients.A PubMed search was carried out for studies published until July 2020 regarding effects of smoking on fracture risk, nonunion, infection after orthopaedic surgery, and persisting nonunion after scaphoid nonunion surgery. Random effects models calculated for outcome parameters, and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals are provided. No adjustments for covariates were made. NVP-DKY709 Heterogeneity was assessed with Higgins' I2, publication bias with Harbord's p (Hp), sensitivity analysis performed on funnel plots and quality of studies was analysed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Of 3362 retrieved entries, 69 were included in the final analysis. Unadjusted RR for smokers to develop vertebral (six studies, seven entries; RR 1.61; p = 0.008; I2 = 89.4%), hip (11 studies, 15 entries; RR 1.28; p = 0.007; I2 = 84.1%), and other fractures (eight studies, 10 entries; RR 1.75; p = 0.019; I2 = 89.3%) was significantly higher. Postoperative infection risk was generally higher for smokers (21 studies; RR 2.20; p less then 0.001; I2 = 58.9%), and remained upon subgroup analysis for elective spinal (two studies; RR 4.38; p less then 0.001; I2 = 0.0%) and fracture surgery (19 studies; RR 2.10; p less then 0.001; I2 = 58.5%). Nonunion risk after orthopaedic (eight studies; RR 2.15; p less then 0.001; I2 = 35.9%) and fracture surgery (11 studies; RR 1.85; p less then 0.001; I2 = 39.9%) was significantly higher for smokers, as was persisting nonunion risk after surgery for scaphoid nonunion (five studies; RR 3.52; p less then 0.001; I2 = 0.0%). Sensitivity analysis for each model reduced heterogeneity whilst maintaining significance (all I2 less then 20.0%).Smoking has a deleterious impact on fracture incidence, and (subsequent) development of nonunions and postoperative infections. Cite this article EFORT Open Rev 2021;61006-1019. DOI 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210058.Off-label use is frequently practiced in primary and revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended.Under certain circumstances, patients may benefit from selective application of mix & match. This can refer to primary hip arthroplasty (if evidence suggests that the combination of devices from different manufacturers has superior results) and revision hip or knee arthroplasty (when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced).Within the EFORT 'Implant and Patient Safety Initiative', evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in primary as well as revision hip and knee arthroplasty.Prior to the application of a medical device for hip or knee arthroplasty off-label and within a mix & match situation, surgeons should balance the risks and benefits to the patient, obtain informed consent, and document the decision process appropriately.Nevertheless, it is crucial for surgeons to only combine implants that are compatible. Mismatch of components, where their sizes or connections do not fit, may have catastrophic effects and is a surgical mistake.Surgeons must be fully aware of the features of the components that they use in off-label indications or during mix & match applications, must be appropriately trained and must audit their results.Considering the frequent practice of off-label and mix & match as well as the potential medico-legal issues, further research is necessary to obtain more data about the appropriate indications and outcomes for those procedures. Cite this article EFORT Open Rev 2021;6982-1005. DOI 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080.