Zusammenfassung Hintergrund und Planung Die Schaftrevision stellt in ihrer Operationsvorbereitung und technischen Durchführung eine große Herausforderung dar. Die Ergebnisse sind maßgeblich von der Defektsituation, der Qualität der Implantatentfernung sowie der Wahl des Revisionsimplantates abhängig. Patientenspezifische Faktoren wie das Alter, die Komorbiditäten, die Knochenqualität oder auch die Lokalisation des Zementes haben entscheidenden Einfluss auf die operative Strategie. Eine entsprechende präoperative Vorbereitung inklusive des Vorhandenseins von notwendigen Spezialinstrumenten, die essenziell für die schonende Implantatentfernung sind, ist unabdingbar, um das bestmögliche Ergebnis zu erzielen. Therapie Die knochenschonende Explantation stellt gerade bei festsitzenden Schäften und Zementresten, die ggf. weit über den Isthmus reichen können, eine besondere Herausforderung dar. In solchen Situationen sollte ein transfemoraler Zugang erwogen werden. Die zementfreie Reimplantation unter Verwendung von modularen oder nichtmodularen Titanschäften ist für die meisten Revisionen die derzeit bevorzugte Therapie der Wahl. Bei älteren Patienten mit niedrigem Leistungsanspruch oder schlechter Knochenqualität bleibt die zementierte Versorgung eine gute alternative Therapieoption.

Background Lumbo-sacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) are one of the most common congenital variances of the spine. They are associated with an increased frequency of degeneration in the cranial adjacent segment. Hypermobility and concomitant increased loads are discussed as a possible reason for segmental degeneration. We therefore examined the lumbar and segmental motion distribution in patients with LSTV with flexion-extension radiographs. Methods A retrospective study of 51 patients with osteochondrosis L5/S1 with flexion and extension radiographs was performed. Of these, 17 patients had LSTV and were matched 1:1 for age and sex with patients without LSTV out of the collective of the remaining 34 patients. The lumbar and segmental range of motion (RoM) by segmental lordosis angle and the segmental wedge angle were determined. Normal distribution of parameters was observed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test. Parametric data were compared by paired T-test. Non-parametric data were compared by Wilcoxon-rank-sum-test. Correlations were observed using Spearman’s Rank correlation coefficient. A p-value <0.05 was stated as statistically significant. Results Patients with LSTV had mean age of 52.2±10.9, control group of 48.9±10.3. Both groups included 7 females and 10 males. Patients with LSTV presented with reduced RoM of the lumbar spine (LSTV 37.3°±19.2°, control 52.1°±20.5°, p = 0.065), however effects were statistically insignificant. LSTV significantly decreased segmental RoM in the transitional segment (LSTV 1.8°±2.7°, control 6.7°±6.0°, p = 0.003). Lumbar motion distribution differed significantly; while RoM was decreased in the transitional segment, (LSTV 5.7%, control 16.2%, p = 0.002), the distribution of lumbar motion to the cranial adjacent segment was increased (LSTV 30.7%, control 21.6%, p = 0.007). Conclusion Patients with LSTV show a reduced RoM in the transitional segment and a significantly increased motion distribution to the cranial adjacent segment in flexion-extension radiographs. The increased proportion of mobility in the cranial adjacent segment possibly explain the higher rates of degeneration within the segment.

Study design Narrative review. Objectives With an aging population, the prevalence of osteoporosis is continuously rising. As osseous integrity is crucial for bony fusion and implant stability, previous studies have shown osteoporosis to be associated with an increased risk for implant failure and higher reoperation rates after spine surgery. Thus, our review’s purpose was to provide an update of evidence-based solutions in the surgical treatment of osteoporosis patients. Methods We summarize the existing literature regarding changes associated with decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and resulting biomechanical implications for the spine as well as multidisciplinary treatment strategies to avoid implant failures in osteoporotic patients. Results Osteoporosis is caused by an uncoupling of the bone remodeling cycle based on an unbalancing of bone resorption and formation and resulting reduced BMD. The reduction in trabecular structure, increased porosity of cancellous bone and decreased cross-linking between trabeculae cause a higher risk of complications after spinal implant-based surgeries. Thus, patients with osteoporosis require special planning considerations, including adequate preoperative evaluation and optimization. Surgical strategies aim towards maximizing screw pull-out strength, toggle resistance, as well as primary and secondary construct stability. Conclusions As osteoporosis plays a crucial role in the fate of patients undergoing spine surgery, surgeons need to be aware of the specific implications of low BMD. While there still is no consensus on the best course of treatment, multidisciplinary preoperative assessment and adherence to specific surgical principles help reduce the rate of implant-related complications.

Study Design. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Objective. To report the decision-making process for decompression alone (DA) and decompression and fusion (DF) at a tertiary orthopedic center and compare the operative outcomes between both groups. Background. Controversy exists around the optimal operative treatment for DLS, either with DF or DA. Although previous studies tried to establish specific indications, clinical decision-making algorithms are needed. Materials and Methods. Patients undergoing spinal surgery for DLS at L4/5 were retrospectively analyzed. A survey of spine surgeons was performed to identify factors influencing surgical decision-making, and their association with the surgical procedure was tested in the clinical data set. We then developed a clinical score based on the statistical analysis and survey results. The predictive capability of the score was tested in the clinical data set with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. To evaluate the clinical outcome, two years follow-up postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), postoperative low back pain (LBP) (Numeric Analog Scale), and patient satisfaction were compared between the DF and DA groups. Results. A total of 124 patients were included in the analysis; 66 received DF (53.2%) and 58 DA (46.8%). Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative ODI, LBP, or satisfaction. The degree of spondylolisthesis, facet joint diastasis and effusion, sagittal disbalance, and severity of LBP were identified as the most important factors for deciding on DA or DF. The area under the curve of the decision-making score was 0.84. At a cutoff of three points indicating DF, the accuracy was 80.6%. Conclusions. The two-year follow-up data showed that both groups showed similar improvement in ODI after both procedures, validating the respective decision. The developed score shows excellent predictive capabilities for the decision processes of different spine surgeons at a single tertiary center and highlights relevant clinical and radiographic parameters. Further studies are needed to assess the external applicability of these findings.

Aims Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty in the elderly may occur but has been subject to limited investigation. This study analyzed infection characteristics, surgical outcomes, and perioperative complications of octogenarians undergoing treatment for PJI in a single university-based institution. Methods We identified 33 patients who underwent treatment for PJIs of the hip between January 2010 and December 2019 using our institutional joint registry. Mean age was 82 years (80 to 90), with 19 females (57%) and a mean BMI of 26 kg/m2 (17 to 41). Mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was 3 (1 to 4) and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6 (4 to 10). Leading pathogens included coagulase-negative Staphylococci (45%) and Enterococcus faecalis (9%). Two-stage exchange was performed in 30 joints and permanent resection arthroplasty in three. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses were performed. Mean follow-up was five years (3 to 7). Results The two-year survivorship free of any recurrent PJI was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56 to 89; 18 patients at risk). There were a total of nine recurrent PJIs at a mean of one year (16 days to eight years), one for the same pathogen as at index infection. One additional surgical site infection was noted at two weeks, resulting in a 69% (95% CI 52 to 86; 17 patients at risk) survivorship free of any infection at two years. There were two additional revisions for dislocations at one month each. As such, the two-year survivorship free of any revision was 61% (95% CI 42 to 80; 12 patients at risk). In addition to the aforementioned revisions, there was one additional skin grafting for a decubitus ulcer, resulting in a survivorship free of any reoperation of 54% (95% CI 35 to 73; ten patients at risk) at two years. Mean Clavien-Dindo score of perioperative complications was two out of five, with one case of perioperative death noted at six days. Conclusion Octogenarians undergoing surgery for PJI of the hip are at low risk of acute mortality, but are at moderate risk of other perioperative complications. One in two patients will undergo a reoperation within two years, with 70% attributable to recurrent infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):135–139.