Amount and type of physical activity and sports from one year forward after hip or knee arthroplasty—A systematic review

Introduction After rehabilitation following total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA), patients are advised to participate in physical activity (PA) and sports. However, profound insight into whether people adopt a physically active lifestyle is lacking. Aim is to gain insight into the performed amount and type of PA (including sports) and time spent sedentarily by persons after THA/TKA. Methods A systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020178556). Pubmed, Cinahl, EMBASE and PsycInfo were systematically searched for articles reporting on amount of PA, and on the kind of activities performed between January 1995-January 2021. Quality of the articles was assessed with the adapted tool from Borghouts et al. Results The search retrieved 5029 articles, leading to inclusion of 125 articles reporting data of 123 groups; 53 articles reported on subjects post-THA, 16 on post-hip-resurfacing arthroplasty, 40 on post-TKA, 15 on post-unicompartimental knee arthroplasty and 12 on a mix of arthroplasty types. With respect to quality assessment, 14 articles (11%) met three or fewer criteria, 29 (24%) met four, 32 (26%) met five, 42 (34%) met six, and 6 (5%) met seven out of the eight criteria. PA levels were comparable for THA and TKA, showing a low to moderately active population. Time spent was mostly of low intensity. Roughly 50% of -subjects met health-enhancing PA guidelines. They spent the largest part of their day sedentarily. Sports participation was relatively high (rates above 70%). Most participation was in low-impact sports at a recreational level. Roughly speaking, participants were engaged in sports 3 hours/week, consisting of about three 1-hour sessions. Conclusion Activity levels seem to be low; less than half of them seemed to perform the advised amount of PA following health-enhancing guidelines Sports participation levels were high. However, many articles were unclear about the definition of sports participation, which could have led to overestimation.

Dislocation of a McMinn-Like Prosthesis with Distinctive Metallosis and Fracture of the Os Ilium

Osteoarthritis of the hip joint (coxarthrosis) is the most common hip disease in adults. Since the 1960s, total hip arthroplasty (THA) has made great progress and is nowadays one of the most frequently used procedures in orthopedic surgery. Different bearing concepts exist in various implant designs. A metal-on-metal bearing can create metal debris and lead to metallosis. We present a unique case of a 78-year old woman, who received hip resurfacing with a McMinn-like prosthesis 15 years ago. Over the cause of time, metallosis developed and created a bone cyst in the Os ilium, and osteolysis led to a dislocation of the femoral implant. A minor stumble fall led to a fracture of the Os ilium. We present our treatment method with implantation of a cemented THA and refill of the bone cyst with bone from allogene femoral heads. The surgery led to a reconstruction of the physiological center of rotation in the hip. Consequently, to the inpatient stay, the patient took part in a follow-up treatment with intensive physiotherapy. Taken together, the results after total hip arthroplasty are more superior to other hip surface replacements in terms of longevity and patient satisfaction. Especially, metal-on-metal bearing couples carry a great risk of metallosis, which goes a long with pseudotumors, osteolysis, and the elevated metal ions in the blood. Since this case is unique in the literature, no guidelines are noted for surgical treatment. In our opinion, a periprosthetic fracture of this type should be performed in a hospital using extensive endoprosthetic expertise.

Conversion of Failed Hip Resurfacings to Total Hip Arthroplasty- A Favorable Solution with Satisfactory Outcomes

Background: Hip resurfacing had been utilized since the 1950s. The concept favored for young active patients owing to its proposed advantages. Revision rate of hip resurfacing in most national registries nearly 3.5%. Conversion to total hip replacement may be the correct option for old patients and those whose activity levels changed and the need for hip resurfacing no longer required.Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess the mid-term outcomes of converting failed hip resurfacing arthroplsty to total hip arthroplasty. Primary outcomes included improvement of Oxford, WOMAC, Harris and UCLA hip scores. Also; radiological follow-up has been evaluated for component stability or signs of loosening. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection, residual groin pain, and heterotopic ossification. Most of patients (22 patients (88%) reported relief of pain and good to excellent patient satisfaction. Study design: Prospective case series study.Level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.Patients and Methods:Twenty–five patients (fifteen males) with failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty converted to total hip arthroplasty enrolled in this study. Mean age 56.8 years. Mean time to revision 36.8 months. Indications for revision included: femoral neck fractures (10 cases), femoral neck thinning (3 cases), component loosening (4 cases) component dislocation (2 cases) persistent groin pain and clicking (3 cases) and wear of components (3 cases). Nineteen patients revised both components while remaining six underwent revision of femoral component only. Results:The average duration of follow up was 26.8 months (28-48 months). The study was an intermediate term follow-up. Clinical outcome evaluated through Oxford, WOMAC, Harris and UCLA hip scores. Preoperative scores 21.3, 78.3, 35,7 and 2 respectively improved to 39.8, 11.1, 92.3 and 7 respectively at last follow-up representing statistically significant improvements over pre-operative scores (p < 0.0001 for each score) Radiological follow-up evaluated for component stability or signs of loosening. No cases of neurological, vascular, deep infection or implant failure. There were 3 cases (3%) with complications. one case complicated by surgical site infection with serous drainage for more than seven days and treated with oral antibiotics and daily dressings. One case had residual groin pain, and third case had mild heterotopic ossification. All patients were satisfied particularly by their pain relief. Average post operative Oxford, Harris and WOMAC hip scores were 17.4, 89.8 and 6.1 respec-tively. representing statistically significant improvements over pre operative scores (p < 0.0001 for each score)Conclusions: study shows conversion of hip resurfacing to THA has high satisfaction rates. These results compare favorably with those for revision total hip arthroplasty

Prevalence of groin pain after primary dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty

Background: Instability remains a challenging problem following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual-mobility (DM) components are used with increasing frequency to mitigate this potential complication. As has been shown with larger metal-on-metal (MoM) THA, the larger size femoral head may pose an increased risk of groin pain. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of groin pain following primary DM THA compared to other THA constructs. Methods: We identified 190 primary THAs (183 patients) performed with DM components at a single academic institution from 2008 to 2017. We retrospectively reviewed standardised patient questionnaires and the electronic medical record to determine the prevalence of groin pain. DM patients were compared to historical controls of 39 MoM hip resurfacing, 26 large-head MoM THA, and 217 conventional THA. Mean age was 64 years, 58% were female, mean body mass index was 30 kg/m2, and mean follow-up was 3.5 years (range 2–8 years). Results: The prevalence of groin pain in patients with DM components was 5%, similar to the prevalence reported by patients with conventional THA (7%). There was a decreased prevalence of groin pain in DM patients compared to hip resurfacing (18%) and MoM THA (15%). Among the 9 DM patients with groin pain, 1 was treated with iliopsoas injection, and 1 underwent radiofrequency ablation of the articular nerve. Conclusions: This study documents a relatively low prevalence of groin pain among primary DM THA patients. This is comparable with historical controls of conventional THA and decreased compared to hip resurfacing and large head MoM THA.

Harris Hip Score and SF-36 following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing - a randomized controlled trial with 5-years follow up including 75 patients

Background The metal-on-metal large-diameter-head (MoM-LDH) hip replacements increased in popularity during the start of the twenty-first century. Subsequently reports raised concerns regarding adverse reactions due to elevated chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co) concentrations as well as high rates of other complications and revisions. The purpose was to compare Harris Hip Score and SF-36 at 5-years follow up following MoM-LDH total hip arthroplasty (MoM-LDH-THA) or MoM hip resurfacing (MoM-HR). Methods The study was conducted between November 2006 to January 2012 in a tertiary health care center in Denmark. Patients with primary or secondary osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive a Magnum (MoM-LDH-THA) or a Recap (MoM-HR) prosthesis. Randomization was computer generated and allocation was concealed in an opaque envelope. Neither patients nor care provider were blinded. Primary outcome was Harris Hip Score at 5-years follow up. Results Seventy-five were included and allocated to the MoM-LDH-THA (n = 39) and MoM-HR (n = 36) group. The study was prematurely stopped due to numerous reports of adverse events in patients with MoM hip replacements. Thirty-three in the MoM-LDH-THA and 25 in the MoM-HR group were available for primary outcome analysis. Median Harris Hip Score was 100 (IQR: 98–100) for MoM-LDH-THA and 100 (IQR: 93–100) for MoM-HR (p = 0.486). SF-36 score was high in both groups with no significant difference between groups. Conclusion Harris Hip Score and SF-36 score was excellent in both groups with no significant difference at 5-years follow up. Our findings suggest that there is no clinical important difference between the two prostheses implanted 5 years after implantation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04585022, Registered 23 September 2020 – Retrospectively registered. This study was not prospectively registered in a clinical trial database since it was not an entirely implemented standard procedure in the international orthopedic society when the study was planned.