Conventional and immunohistochemical stains confirmed that application of metal clips to the sympathetic chain caused severe histological damage in the sympathetic trunk that remained visible 4 weeks after clip removal. However, after 12 weeks, these signs of damage had clearly decreased, which suggests in theory that application of metal clips to the sympathetic chain is a reversible procedure if only the observation period is prolonged. Further studies with longer periods between application and removal as well as investigations of nerve conduction should be encouraged, because we do not know whether histological reversibility at cellular level translates into physiological reversibility and possible correlation of nerve trauma with the duration of the applied clip.
Background Metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan is a common method to detect adverse reaction to metal debris in total hip arthroplasty (THA). It might be quicker and cheaper if ultrasonography (US) could screen for the need for an MRI. However, both require trained personnel. Purpose We aimed to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of US for detecting pseudotumors (PT) when performed by an orthopedic surgery resident compared to MRI. We also investigated the sensitivity and specificity of US to detect PTs in obese and non-obese patients. Material and methods We examined 205 patients with hip resurfacing arthroplasty, metal-on-metal or metal-on-polyethylene THA with both MRI and US. US was performed by an orthopedic surgery resident who was trained according to a standardized training program in musculoskeletal US. Results from MRI were used as gold standard. Results US had a sensitivity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.81–0.98) and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.89–0.97) for detecting PT. It had a positive predictive value of 0.84 (95% CI 0.73–0.91) and a negative predictive value of 0.97 (95% CI 0.93–0.99). US performed similarly in obese and non-obese patients. Conclusions US had a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting PT when performed by an orthopedic surgery resident. Trained orthopedic surgeons could screen for the need of an MRI scan when searching PTs.
Background and purpose: The bearings with the best survivorship for young patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA) should be identified. We compared hazard ratios (HR) of revision of primary stemmed cementless THAs with metal-on-metal (MoM), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), and ceramic-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene (CoXLP) with that of metal-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene (MoXLP) bearings in patients aged 20–55 years with primary osteoarthritis or childhood hip disorders.Patients and methods: From the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association dataset we included 1,813 MoM, 3,615 CoC, 5,947 CoXLP, and 10,219 MoXLP THA in patients operated on between 2005 and 2017 in a prospective cohort study. We used the Kaplan–Meier estimator for THA survivorship and Cox regression to estimate HR of revision adjusted for confounders (including 95% confidence intervals [CI]). MoXLP was used as reference. HRs were calculated during 3 intervals (0–2, 2–7, and 7–13 years) to meet the assumption of proportional hazards.Results: Median follow-up was 5 years for MoXLP, 10 years for MoM, 6 years for CoC, and 4 years for CoXLP. 13-year Kaplan–Meier survival estimates were 95% (CI 94–95) for MoXLP, 82% (CI 80–84) for MoM, 93% (CI 92–95) for CoC, and 93% (CI 92–94) for CoXLP bearings. MoM had higher 2–7 and 7–13 years’ adjusted HRs of revision (3.6, CI 2.3–5.7 and 4.1, CI 1.7–10). MoXLP, CoC, and CoXLP had similar HRs in all 3 periods. The 7–13-year adjusted HRs of revision of CoC and CoXLP were statistically non-significantly higher.Conclusion: In young patients, MoXLP for primary cementless THA had higher revision-free survival and lower HR for revision than MoM bearings. Longer follow-up is needed to compare MoXLP, CoC, and CoXLP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.