header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

A SUMMING UP: WISDOM COMES WITH TIME AND AGE

Current Concepts in Joint Replacement (CCJR) Winter 2017 Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, December 2017.



Abstract

The extraordinary majesty of THR, as it burst onto the scene 60 years ago, both dazzled and blinded. It dazzled patients and surgeons alike and simultaneously obstructed a clear eyed assessment of the human costs. It behooves current practitioners, who have benefited mightily by our progress, to pause and reflect thoughtfully on that progress. Look no further than the fact that the treatment of a benign disease left one patient out of every 50 dead. Dead from a pulmonary embolus and that over 25% of the patients threw pulmonary emboli.

What were the big six major disadvantages: 1) Fatal pulmonary emboli; 2) Prosthetic joint infection; 3) Failure of fixation; 4) Dislocation; 5) Periprosthetic osteolysis; 6) Prolonged hospitalization.

Start with the observation that THR in the modern era began with Charnley's experiment with Teflon articulations. Of the nearly 300 such operations done, nearly 300 failed.

Ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene was better- much better. But still it produced wear and periprosthetic osteolysis, afflicting an estimated 1 million patients. Periprosthetic osteolysis became the most common reason for failure, the most common reason for reoperation, the most common reason for fracture, and the most common reason for extremely difficult re-operations requiring major grafting.

Reoperation rates in certain series were 20 to 30% from loosening and 20 to 40% from osteolysis. Dislocation catapulted the unsuspecting patient to the floor at a rate of one out of 20 patients and the initial rate of prosthetic joint infection was 10%. Most patients were hospitalised in the new neighborhood of 2.5 weeks, at huge expense.

Massive progress has been made but forget not that this striking progress was not obsessively linear. Recall the recent, extraordinary and continuing massive failure of metal-on-metal total hip replacements, despite 40 prior years of experience, predicting that metal-on-metal total joints should be ‘just fine’.

Over the past six decades every one of the six major disadvantages listed above has been reduced by an order of magnitude. The challenge to you is to continue that progress.