Search

Background and Objective: Due to growing numbers of primary total hip replacement (THR), the revision THR burden is also increasing. Common indications for revision are osteolysis, infection, instability, and mechanical failure of implants, which can cause acetabular bone loss. Massive acetabular bone defects and pelvic discontinuity are extremely challenging problems. Many techniques have been utilized to address bone loss while maintaining a stable revision THR. Structural allografts, cemented prosthesis, reconstruction cages, and custom triflanged implants have all been used successfully albeit with relatively high complications rates. We have tried to highlight emerging trends to utilize Custom Made Monoflange or Triflange Acetabular Components to reconstruct massive acetabular defects with favourable midterm implant survival, better functional outcomes, relatively lesser complications, and almost similar cost of prosthesis as compared to conventional reconstruction techniques. However, long-term data and study is still recommended to draw a definitive conclusion., Methods: In this narrative review article, we searched PubMed and Cochrane for studies on managing acetabular bone loss in revision THR with a focus on recent literature for mid to long-term outcomes and compared results from various studies on different reconstruction methods., Key Content and Findings: Hemispherical cementless acetabular prosthesis with supplemental screws are commonly utilized to manage mild to moderate acetabular bone loss. Recent trends have shown much interest and paradigm shift in patient specific custom triflange acetabular components (CTAC) for reconstructing massive acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Studies have reported high patient satisfaction, improved patient reported daily functioning, high mid-term implant survival, similar complications, and encouraging all cause re-revision rate. However, more prospective and quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate the superiority of CTACs over conventional acetabular implants., Conclusions: There is no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing massive acetabular defects. Thorough preoperative workup and planning is an absolute requirement for successful revision THR. While most of the moderate acetabular bone loss can be managed with cementless hemispherical acetabular shells with excellent long-term outcomes, reconstructing massive acetabular bone defects in revision THR remains a challenge. Depending on the size and location of the defect, various constucts have demonstrated long-term success as discussed in this review, but complications are not negligible. CTACs provide a treatment for massive bone loss that may be otherwise difficult to achieve anatomic stability with other constructs. Although long-term data is sparse, the cost and complication rate is comparable to other reconstruction methods., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://aoj.amegroups.org/article/view/10.21037/aoj-23-23/coif). The series “Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. A.F.K. reports that he receives IP royalties from Innomed; is a paid consultant for BodyCad, Zimmer, Ortho Development and United Ortho; is a board or committee member of AAOS and AAHKS; and has stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble and Zimmer. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Annals of Joint. All rights reserved.)

There are many methods for long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) tenodesis, but a consensus on a superior method has yet to be met. In this article, we introduce a method for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis using a tenodesis screw in the bicipital tunnel. The intra-articular portion of the biceps tendon is transected. The subdeltoid space is then viewed via a lateral portal, and the tendon is mobilized from the bicipital tunnel. The tendon is retrieved through the anterior portal, and 5 whipstitch passes and a second distal stitch are placed. Three of the suture tails are passed through the tenodesis screwdriver, and the tendon is maneuvered to the previously reamed bone socket located 1.5 cm superior to the pec tendon, just inferior to the bicipital groove. Once the tenodesis screw is fixated in sufficient bone stock, 5 alternating half hitches reinforce the construct by creating a closed loop through the screw. This described technique allows full visualization of the LHBT dissection and tenodesis throughout the procedure. Additionally, this technique provides a method to incorporate whipstitching with an arthroscopic tenodesis screw to provide additional strength to tendon fixation.

Background: There is increasing interest in outpatient shoulder arthroplasty (SA); however, the clinical evidence behind this practice is sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of outpatient SA performed in an ambulatory surgery center and to determine patient factors that are associated with increased risk for perioperative complications or dissatisfaction., Methods: Patient demographics and operative variables were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing outpatient SA at 2 ambulatory surgery centers with a minimum follow-up of 90 days. Patients completed a postsurgery questionnaire about their experience, satisfaction, pain control, and health care use., Results: Forty-one anatomic total SAs (n = 32) and reverse SAs (n = 9) with a mean follow-up of 60 weeks (16.4 weeks-3 years) were included. The mean age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class were 60.6 ± 4.8 years, 31.8 ± 6.6, 2.9 ± 1.9, and 2.3 ± 0.6, respectively. Three (7.3%) minor complications occurred within 90 days of the SA, none before first follow-up. Two patients stayed in the ambulatory surgery center 23-hour observation unit. Thirty-five patients (85.4%) completed the questionnaire, of whom 97.0% (n = 32) were satisfied with the outpatient procedure. Two patients had difficulties with postoperative pain control and were taking chronic narcotic medication before surgery., Conclusion: Outpatient SA in an ambulatory surgery center is safe with high patient satisfaction and low rates of perioperative complications. Although larger cohorts are required to adequately determine which patients will be appropriate candidates for an outpatient SA, our findings do suggest that patients with a history of preoperative narcotic use may have difficulties or dissatisfaction with outpatient SA.

Preservation of the meniscus has been shown to influence the progression of degenerative changes of the knee. As more meniscus is preserved, the propensity for development of osteoarthritis is lessened. Surgical treatment of a torn discoid meniscus has typically been a subtotal meniscectomy or partial meniscectomy. Similar to tears of a normal meniscus, partial meniscectomy compared with subtotal meniscectomy of the discoid meniscus confers better long-term results. With the abnormal morphology predisposing the discoid meniscus to tearing, several characteristic tear patterns can be observed-the horizontal tear being commonly encountered. We present a technique that not only creates a more normal morphology of a discoid meniscus but also preserves the tissue by using an all-inside, intrameniscal repair technique. This technique restores the central rim of the meniscus in the setting of a horizontal cleavage plane, thus restoring a more normal meniscus morphology.

Injuries to the glenoid labrum can result in shoulder instability and pain. These lesions may occur anywhere around the glenoid labrum, and thus, the arthroscopist must be prepared to approach all aspects of the glenoid from multiple angles. The pan-labral or circumferential (360°) tear of the glenoid labrum presents a unique challenge to even the experienced arthroscopist. The extent of the lesion requires the use of accessory portals and percutaneous techniques to establish adequate visualization and to facilitate the proper trajectory for anchor placement. The pan-labral tear also demands intraoperative planning throughout the repair to ensure proper tensioning and alignment of the labrum and capsular tissue. The purposes of this article are to report a technique for repairing a pan-labral lesion and to emphasize the use of accessory portals and percutaneous techniques for complete access to the glenoid.

Given the prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in young athletes, it is essential to elucidate and illustrate surgical interventions that return the most favorable outcomes. Although most ACL injuries are full-thickness tears, occasionally either the anteromedial (AM) or posterolateral (PL) bundle is torn in isolation, allowing consideration of an ACL reconstruction or augmentation. Because the ACL-deficient knee has been shown to exhibit less proprioceptive feedback, the preservation of the intact bundle may offer an inherent component of stability. After arthroscopy has confirmed a partial ACL tear, the decision to augment the intact bundle can be made. The technique is adapted from principles of the double-bundle reconstruction such that the graft follows the path of either the native AM bundle or the native PL bundle, depending on the location of the partial tear. We present our surgical technique for ACL AM bundle augmentation with PL bundle reconstruction using a semitendinosus tendon autograft.