Search

Objective: Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a salvage procedure originally developed for reconstruction after resection of sarcomas and metastatic cancer. These techniques can also be adapted for the treatment of non-oncologic reconstruction for cases involving massive proximal bone loss. The direct anterior approach (DAA) is readily utilized for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there have been few reports of its use for proximal femoral replacement. Indications: Aseptic, septic femoral implant loosening, periprosthetic femoral fracture, oncologic lesions of the proximal femur. The most common indication for non-oncologic proximal femoral placement is a severe femoral defect Paprosky IIIB or IV. Contraindications: Infection. Surgical technique: In contrast to conventional DAA approaches and extensions, we recommend starting the approach 3 cm lateral to the anterior superior iliac spine and performing a straight incision directed towards the fibular head. After identification and incision of the tensor fasciae lata proximally and the lateral mobilization of the iliotibial tract distally, the vastus lateralis muscle can be retracted medially as far as needed. Special care should be taken to avoid injuries to the branches of the femoral nerve innervating the vastus lateralis muscle. If required, the distal extension of the DAA can continue all the way to the knee to allow implantation of a total femoral replacement. The level of the femoral resection is detected with an x‑ray. In accordance with preoperative planning, the proximal femur is resected. Ream and broach the distal femoral fragment to the femoral canal. With trial implants in place, leg length, anteversion of the implant and hip stability are evaluated. It is crucial to provide robust reattachment of the abductor muscles to the PFR prosthesis. Mesh reinforcement can be used to reinforce the muscular attachment if necessary. Postoperative management: We typically use no hip precautions other th

The primary means of femoral fixation in North America is cementless, and its use is increasing worldwide, despite registry data and recent studies showing a higher risk of periprosthetic fracture and early revision in elderly patients managed with such fixation than in those who have cemented femoral fixation. -Cemented femoral stems have excellent long-term outcomes and a continued role, particularly in elderly patients. -Contrary to historical concerns, recent studies have not shown an increased risk of death with cemented femoral fixation. -The choice of femoral fixation method should be determined by the patient's age, comorbidities, and bone quality. -We recommend considering cemented femoral fixation in patients who are >70 years old (particularly women), in those with Dorr type-C bone or a history of osteoporosis or fragility fractures, or when intraoperative broach stability cannot be obtained.

Objective: The advantages of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in primary total hip arthroplasty as a minimally invasive, muscle-sparing, internervous approach are reported by many authors. Therefore, the DAA has become increasingly popular for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in recent years, and the number of surgeons using the DAA is steadily increasing. Thus, the question arises whether femoral revisions are possible through the same interval. Indications: Aseptic, septic femoral implant loosening, malalignment, periprosthetic joint infection or periprosthetic femoral fracture. Contraindications: A draining sinus from another approach. Surgical technique: The incision for the primary DAA can be extended distally and proximally. If necessary, two releases can be performed to allow better exposure of the proximal femur. The DAA interval can be extended to the level of the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) in order to perform a tensor release. If needed, a release of the external rotators can be performed in addition. If a component cannot be explanted endofemorally, and a Wagner transfemoral osteotomy or an extended trochanteric osteotomy has to be performed, the skin incision needs to be extended distally to maintain access to the femoral diaphysis. Postoperative management: Depending on the indication for the femoral revision, ranging from partial weight bearing in cases of periprosthetic fractures to full weight bearing in cases of aseptic loosening. Results: In all, 50 femoral revisions with a mean age of 65.7 years and a mean follow-up of 2.1 years were investigated. The femoral revision was endofemoral in 41 cases, while a transfemoral approach with a lazy‑S extension was performed in 9 patients. The overall complication rate was 12% (6 complications); 3 patients or 6% of the included patients required reoperations. None of the implanted stems showed a varus or valgus position. There were no cases of mechanical loosening, stem fracture or subsidence.

Background: Athletes who return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) often have reduced physical performance and a high reinjury rate. Additionally, it is currently unclear how physical performance measures can change during the RTS transition and with the use of a functional knee brace. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of time since surgery (at RTS and 3 months after RTS) and of wearing a brace on physical performance in patients who have undergone ACLR. We hypothesized that physical performance measures would improve with time and would not be affected by brace condition. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 28 patients who underwent ACLR (9 males, 19 females) completed physical performance testing both after being released for RTS and 3 months later. Physical performance tests included the modified agilityttest (MAT) and vertical jump height, which were completed with and without a knee brace. A repeated-measures analysis of variance determined the effect of time and bracing on performance measures. Results: The impact of the knee brace was different at the 2 time points for the MAT side shuffle (P= .047). Wearing a functional knee brace did not affect any other physical performance measure. MAT times improved for total time (P< .001) and backpedal (P< .001), and vertical jump height increased (P= .002) in the 3 months after RTS. Conclusion: The present study showed that physical performance measures of agility and vertical jump height improved in the first 3 months after RTS. This study also showed that wearing a knee brace did not hinder physical performance.