No abstract

No abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the results obtained through using an intramedullary or extramedullary guide for sectioning the tibia in total knee arthroplasty procedures, with a view to identifying the accuracy of these guides and whether one might be superior to the other.MethodsThis was a randomized double-blind prospective study on 41 total knee arthroplasty procedures performed between August 2011 and March 2012. The angle between the base of the tibial component and the mechanical axis of the tibia was measured during the immediate postoperative period by means of radiography in anteroposterior view on the tibia that encompassed the knee and ankle.ResultsThere was no demographic difference between the two groups evaluated. The mean alignment of the tibial component in the patients of group A (intramedullary) was 90.3° (range: 84–97°). In group B (extramedullary), it was 88.5° (range: 83–94°).ConclusionIn our study, we did not find any difference regarding the precision or accuracy of either of the guides. Some patients present an absolute or relative contraindication against using one or other of the guides. However, for the other cases, neither of the guides was superior to the other one.

Objective: To compare the clinical, radiographic and medium-term follow-up results from two fixation methods for the tibial component in revision procedures on total knee prostheses: cemented (tray and stem) and hybrid (cemented tray and uncemented, nonporous canal-filling stem). Methods: Between August 1999 and November 2005, 30 revision procedures on total knee arthroplasties were performed on 26 patients, who were divided between group I (cemented fixation; 21 knees) and group II (hybrid fixation; nine knees). The mean follow-up was 52 months and no patients were lost from the follow up. Results: No differences in the scores from the WOMAC and Knee Society questionnaires were observed between the two groups. One patient in group I presented radiographic signs of loosening. Two patients (one in each group) complained of pain in the diaphyseal region, compatible with the location of the stem tip. The pedestal radiographic sign was observed in 89% of the knees with uncemented stems and in none of the cemented group. Conclusion: The comparative analysis between the two methods did not show any differences regarding clinical and radiographic parameters, or arthroplasty survival.

ObjectiveTo characterize arthroplasty procedures, calculate the surgical infection rate and identify related risk factors.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study. Data on operations performed between 2010 and 2012 were gathered from documental sources and were analyzed with the aid of statistical software, using Fisher's exact test, Student's t test and the nonparametric Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon tests.Results421 total arthroplasty procedures performed on 346 patients were analyzed, of which 208 were on the knee and 213 on the hip. It was found that 18 patients (4.3%) were infected. Among these, 15 (83.33%) were reoperated and 2 (15.74%) died. The prevalence of infection in primary total hip arthroplasty procedures was 3%; in primary total knee arthroplasty, 6.14%; and in revision of total knee arthroplasty, 3.45%. Staphylococcus aureus was prevalent. The length of the surgical procedure showed a tendency toward being a risk factor (p = 0.067).ConclusionThe prevalence of infection in cases of primary total knee arthroplasty was greater than in other cases. No statistically significant risk factors for infection were identified.