Search

The article presents a college thesis which investigated the determinants of the outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery and is based on several papers previously published by F. G. Sigmundsson, B. Jönsson and B.Strömqvist, including papers which appeared in a 2013 issue of "Acta Orthopaedica", a 2012 issue of "Acta Orthopaedica" and a 2014 issue of "Spine".

Background and purpose — The use of a cemented cup together with an uncemented stem in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become popular in Norway and Sweden during the last decade. The results of this prosthetic concept, reverse hybrid THA, have been sparsely described. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) has already published 2 papers describing results of reverse hybrid THAs in different age groups. Based on data collected over 2 additional years, we wanted to perform in depth analyses of not only the reverse hybrid concept but also of the different cup/stem combinations used. Patients and methods — From the NARA, we extracted data on reverse hybrid THAs from January 1, 2000 until December 31, 2013. 38,415 such hips were studied and compared with cemented THAs. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the prosthesis survival and the relative risk of revision. The main endpoint was revision for any reason. We also performed specific analyses regarding the different reasons for revision and analyses regarding the cup/stem combinations used in more than 500 cases. Results — We found a higher rate of revision for reverse hybrids than for cemented THAs, with an adjusted relative risk of revision (RR) of 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3–1.5). At 10 years, the survival rate was 94% (CI: 94–95) for cemented THAs and 92% (95% CI: 92–93) for reverse hybrids. The results for the reverse hybrid THAs were inferior to those for cemented THAs in patients aged 55 years or more (RR =1.1, CI: 1.0–1.3; p < 0.05). We found a higher rate of early revision due to periprosthetic femoral fracture for reverse hybrids than for cemented THAs in patients aged 55 years or more (RR =3.1, CI: 2.2–4.5; p < 0.001). Interpretation — Reverse hybrid THAs had a slightly higher rate of revision than cemented THAs in patients aged 55 or more. The difference in survival was mainly caused by a higher incidence of early revision due to periprosthetic femoral fracture in the reversed hybrid THAs. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background and purpose Modular cementless revision prostheses are being used with increasing frequency. In this paper, we review risk factors for the outcome of the Link MP stem and report implant survival compared to conventional cemented long-stem hip revision arthroplasties. Patients and methods We used data recorded in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. 812 consecutive revisions with the MP stem (mean follow-up time 3.4 years) and a control group with 1,073 cemented long stems (mean follow-up time 4.2 years) were included. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine implant survival. The Cox regression model was used to study risk factors for reoperation and revision. Results The mean age at revision surgery for the MP stem was 72 (SD 11) years. Decreasing age (HR == 1.1, 95% CI: 1--1.1), multiple previous revisions (HR == 2.6, 95% CI: 1.1--6.2), short stem length (HR == 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1--5.2), standard neck offset (HR == 5, 95% CI: 1.5--17) and short head-neck length (HR == 5.3, 95% CI 1.4--21) were risk factors for reoperation. There was an overall increased risk of reoperation (HR == 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3--2.4) and revision (HR == 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2--3.1) for the MP prostheses compared to the controls. Interpretation The cumulative survival with both reoperation and revision as the endpoint was better for the cemented stems with up to 3 years of follow-up. Thereafter, the survival curves converged, mainly because of increasing incidence of revision due to loosening in the cemented group. We recommend the use of cemented long stems in patients with limited bone loss and in older patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our clinical experience has suggested that the presently recommended patch-test concentration (1.0%) for formaldehyde in the baseline series might be too low. Therefore, consecutively patch-tested dermatitis patients were tested simultaneously with formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% (w/v) in aqua. Formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% were applied with a micro-pipette (15 μl) to filter paper discs in Finn Chambers (0.30 mg/cm² and 0.60 mg/cm², respectively). A total of 1397 patients with dermatitis were patchtested. In all, 68 (4.9%) patients reacted positively to formaldehyde; 37 reacted only to 2.0%, 29 reacted to both concentrations, and 2 reacted only to 1.0%. Significantly more patients were thus diagnosed with contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% compared with 1.0% (p<0.001). We detected 0.1%, 0.4%, and 29.6% irritant reactions to 1.0%, 2.0%, and 3.0% formaldehyde, respectively. We conclude that, with an optimized patch-test technique, doubling the dose per area detects significantly more contact allergies to formaldehyde, but an even higher test concentration causes too many irritant reactions to be usable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]