BIOMECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF THE SYSTEM PROSTHESIS/DENTAL IMPLANT: ANALYSIS BY THE PHOTOELASTICITY METHOD

One of the main reasons for the failure in dental implant treatments is the overload, which can cause bone resorption and later, the osseointegration loss in the implant. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the tension generated around dental implants in the rehabilitation of three mandible posterior teeth, varying the connection type, the disposal, and the quantity of implants. The photoelasticity method was used in order to accomplish it. Through photoelasticity, the quantity and localization of the tensions around the implants in the different studied groups were compared (three straight line implants, three offset placement implants, two implants with a mesial cantilever, and two implants with a pontic). The results showed that the tension quantity and disposition around the dental implants of the connection external hexagon and internal hexagon were similar in all groups. In the group where the cantilever was used, an increase of the tension around the implant, adjacent to the cantilever, was observed. From the results it is concluded that the type of connection used in this study did not influence the tension quantity and distribution around the implants; however, the prosthetic configuration with the cantilever use, led to an increase of the tension around the implant, adjacent to the cantilever.

Marginal deterioration of the silicone for facial prosthesis with pigments after effect of storage period and chemical disinfection

The failure of facial prostheses is caused by limitations in the properties of existing materials, especially flexibility and durability. Therefore, this study evaluated the marginal deterioration of a silicone used for fabrication of facial prostheses (Silastic MDX4-4210, Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, MI, USA) according to the influence of artificial aging, daily disinfection, and 2 types of pigmentation. Thirty specimens were fabricated and subdivided in 6 groups: without pigmentation, pigmented with make-up powder and iron oxide, and evaluated with and without the action of the disinfectant. Analysis of marginal deterioration was performed on a scanning electron microscope (magnification, ×5000) immediately 6 months and 1 year after fabrication of specimens, following the guidelines of ASTM International. After visual analysis of the photomicrographs, it was noticed that all groups presented marginal deterioration and alterations in surface texture with time. The use of disinfection did not contribute to the marginal deterioration of polymer (silicone), regardless of the pigmentation and artificial aging.

Development of musculoskeletal models for the design and the pre-clinical validation of hip resurfacing prosthesis

Background. The surgical treatment of dysfunctional hips is a severe condition for the patient and a costly therapy for the public health. Hip resurfacing techniques seem to hold the promise of various advantages over traditional THR, with particular attention to young and active patients. Although the lesson provided in the past by many branches of engineering is that success in designing competitive products can be achieved only by predicting the possible scenario of failure, to date the understanding of the implant quality is poorly pre-clinically addressed. Thus revision is the only delayed and reliable end point for assessment. The aim of the present work was to model the musculoskeletal system so as to develop a protocol for predicting failure of hip resurfacing prosthesis. Methods. Preliminary studies validated the technique for the generation of subject specific finite element (FE) models of long bones from Computed Thomography data. The proposed protocol consisted in the numerical analysis of the prosthesis biomechanics by deterministic and statistic studies so as to assess the risk of biomechanical failure on the different operative conditions the implant might face in a population of interest during various activities of daily living. Physiological conditions were defined including the variability of the anatomy, bone densitometry, surgery uncertainties and published boundary conditions at the hip. The protocol was tested by analysing a successful design on the market and a new prototype of a resurfacing prosthesis. Results. The intrinsic accuracy of models on bone stress predictions (RMSE < 10%) was aligned to the current state of the art in this field. The accuracy of prediction on the bone-prosthesis contact mechanics was also excellent (< 0.001 mm). The sensitivity of models prediction to uncertainties on modelling parameter was found below 8.4%. The analysis of the successful design resulted in a very good agreement with published retrospective studies. The geometry optimisation of the new prototype lead to a final design with a low risk of failure. The statistical analysis confirmed the minimal risk of the optimised design over the entire population of interest. The performances of the optimised design showed a significant improvement with respect to the first prototype (+35%). Limitations. On the authors opinion the major limitation of this study is on boundary conditions. The muscular forces and the hip joint reaction were derived from the few data available in the literature, which can be considered significant but hardly representative of the entire variability of boundary conditions the implant might face over the patients population. This moved the focus of the research on modelling the musculoskeletal system; the ongoing activity is to develop subject-specific musculoskeletal models of the lower limb from medical images. Conclusions. The developed protocol was able to accurately predict known clinical outcomes when applied to a well-established device and, to support the design optimisation phase providing important information on critical characteristics of the patients when applied to a new prosthesis. The presented approach does have a relevant generality that would allow the extension of the protocol to a large set of orthopaedic scenarios with minor changes. Hence, a failure mode analysis criterion can be considered a suitable tool in developing new orthopaedic devices.

Leakage of the arterial prosthesis of an Impella RVAD

Seromas occurring around a vascular graft are a rare complication. We report a life-threatening plasma leakage that occurred through the polytetrafluoroethylene vascular prosthesis of an Impella right ventricular assist device (Impella RD [Impella Cardiosystems GmbH, Aachen, Germany]) implanted in a 62-year-old patient with acute right ventricular failure after cardiac transplantation. The leakage became progressively massive. Weaning the patient from the right ventricular assist device was not possible. The prosthesis was thus wrapped within a pericardial patch to contain the leakage. Three days later the patient could be successfully weaned and the pump was removed. The clinical evolution was favorable.

Treatment of joint prosthesis infection in accordance with current recommendations improves outcome

BACKGROUND: Recently recommended treatment modalities for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) were evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 68 patients with PJI of hip or knee who were treated from 1995 through 2004 was conducted at the University Hospital Bern (Bern, Switzerland). RESULTS: A 2-stage exchange was the most frequent (75.0%) surgical strategy, followed by retention and debridement (17.6%), 1-stage exchange (5.9%), and resection arthroplasty or suppressive antimicrobial treatment (1.5%). The chosen strategy was in 88% agreement with the recommendations. Adherence was only 17% for retention and debridement and was 0% for 1-stage exchange. Most PJIs (84%) were treated with an adequate or partially adequate antimicrobial regimen. Recurrence-free survival was observed in 51.5% of PJI episodes after 24 months of follow-up. The risk of treatment failure was significantly higher for PJI treated with a surgical strategy other than that recommended (hazard ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-4.70; P = .01) and for PJIs treated with antibiotics not corresponding to recommendations (hazard ratio, 3.45; confidence interval, 1.50-7.60; P = .002). Other risk factors associated with lack of healing were a high infection score at the time of diagnosis (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40; P < .001) and presence of a sinus tract (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-5.0; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the value of current treatment recommendations. Inappropriate choice of conservative surgical strategies (such as debridement and retention) and inadequate antibiotic treatment are associated with failure.

Unusual cause of myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure in a patient with prosthetic valve endocarditis

In a patient with staphylococcus lugdunensis prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis and coronary septic embolism accompanied by antero-lateral myocardial infarction, embolic material was successfully aspirated from the bifurcation of the left anterior descending coronary artery and the first diagonal branch. A good angiographic result was documented six months thereafter when the patient presented with a second complication, pulsatile compression of the left main coronary artery by an abscess cavity originating between the aortic and mitral annulus, leading to congestive heart failure. The patient underwent successful surgical replacement of the aortic valve prosthesis with concomitant patch reconstruction of the annulus as well as tricuspid annuloplasty.

High failure rate of trochanteric fracture osteosynthesis with proximal femoral locking compression plate

INTRODUCTION Stable reconstruction of proximal femoral (PF) fractures is especially challenging due to the peculiarity of the injury patterns and the high load-bearing requirement. Since its introduction in 2007, the PF-locking compression plate (LCP) 4.5/5.0 has improved osteosynthesis for intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. This study reports our early results with this implant. METHODS Between January 2008 and June 2010, 19 of 52 patients (12 males, 7 females; mean age 59 years, range 19-96 years) presenting with fractures of the trochanteric region were treated at the authors' level 1 trauma centre with open reduction and internal fixation using PF-LCP. Postoperatively, partial weight bearing was allowed for all 19 patients. Follow-up included a thorough clinical and radiological evaluation at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months. Failure analysis was based on conventional radiological and clinical assessment regarding the type of fracture, postoperative repositioning, secondary fracture dislocation in relation to the fracture constellation and postoperative clinical function (Merle d'Aubigné score). RESULTS In 18 patients surgery achieved adequate reduction and stable fixation without intra-operative complications. In one patient an ad latus displacement was observed on postoperative X-rays. At the third month follow-up four patients presented with secondary varus collapse and at the sixth month follow-up two patients had 'cut-outs' of the proximal fragment, with one patient having implant failure due to a broken proximal screw. Revision surgeries were performed in eight patients, one patient receiving a change of one screw, three patients undergoing reosteosynthesis with implantation of a condylar plate and one patient undergoing hardware removal with secondary implantation of a total hip prosthesis. Eight patients suffered from persistent trochanteric pain and three patients underwent hardware removal. CONCLUSIONS Early results for PF-LCP osteosynthesis show major complications in 7 of 19 patients requiring reosteosynthesis or prosthesis implantation due to secondary loss of reduction or hardware removal. Further studies are required to evaluate the limitations of this device.

Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses

PURPOSE To identify the influence of fixed prosthesis type on biologic and technical complication rates in the context of screw versus cement retention. Furthermore, a multivariate analysis was conducted to determine which factors, when considered together, influence the complication and failure rates of fixed implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to limit the search. Data were analyzed statistically with simple and multivariate random-effects Poisson regressions. RESULTS Seventy-three articles qualified for inclusion in the study. Screw-retained prostheses showed a tendency toward and significantly more technical complications than cemented prostheses with single crowns and fixed partial prostheses, respectively. Resin chipping and ceramic veneer chipping had high mean event rates, at 10.04 and 8.95 per 100 years, respectively, for full-arch screwed prostheses. For "all fixed prostheses" (prosthesis type not reported or not known), significantly fewer biologic and technical complications were seen with screw retention. Multivariate analysis revealed a significantly greater incidence of technical complications with cemented prostheses. Full-arch prostheses, cantilevered prostheses, and "all fixed prostheses" had significantly higher complication rates than single crowns. A significantly greater incidence of technical and biologic complications was seen with cemented prostheses. CONCLUSION Screw-retained fixed partial prostheses demonstrated a significantly higher rate of technical complications and screw-retained full-arch prostheses demonstrated a notably high rate of veneer chipping. When "all fixed prostheses" were considered, significantly higher rates of technical and biologic complications were seen for cement-retained prostheses. Multivariate Poisson regression analysis failed to show a significant difference between screw- and cement-retained prostheses with respect to the incidence of failure but demonstrated a higher rate of technical and biologic complications for cement-retained prostheses. The incidence of technical complications was more dependent upon prosthesis and retention type than prosthesis or abutment material.

Are Complications Associated With the Repiphysis(®) Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis Acceptable for Its Continued Use?

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of the distal femur after resection for malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. The use of megaprostheses has become increasingly popular in this patient group since the introduction of custom-made, expandable devices that do not require surgery for lengthening, such as the Repiphysis(®) Limb Salvage System. Early reports on the device were positive but more recently, a high complication rate and associated bone loss have been reported. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) what are the clinical outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system after 5-year minimum followup in patients treated with this prosthesis at one center; (2) what are the problems and complications associated with the lengthening procedures of this implant; and (3) what are the specific concerns associated with revision of this implant? METHODS: At our institute, between 2002 and 2007, the Repiphysis(®) expandable prosthesis was implanted in 15 children (mean age, 8 years; range, 6-11 years) after distal femoral resection for malignant bone tumors. During this time, the general indication for use of this implant was resection of the distal femur for localized malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients. Alternative techniques used for this indication were modular prosthetic reconstruction, massive (osteoarticular or intercalary) allograft reconstruction, or rotationplasty. Age and tumor extension were the main factors to decide on the surgical indication. Of the 15 patients who had this prosthesis implanted during reconstruction surgery, five died with the implant in situ or underwent amputation before 5 years followup and the remaining 10 were evaluated at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 104 months; range, 78-140 months). No patients were lost to followup. These 10 patients were long-term survivors and underwent the lengthening program. They were included in our study analysis. The first seven lengthening procedures were attempted in an outpatient setting; however, owing to pain and burning sensations experienced by the patients, the procedures failed to achieve the desired lengthening. Therefore, other procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia. We reviewed clinical data at index surgery for all 15 patients. We further analyzed the lengthening procedures, implant survival, radiographic and functional results, for the 10 long-term survivors. Functional results were assessed according to the MSTS scoring system. Complications were classified according to the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) classification system. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 survivors underwent revision of the implant for mechanical failure. They had a mean MSTS score of 64% (range, 47%-87%) before revision surgery. At final followup the 10 long-term surviving patients had an average MSTS score of 81% (range, 53%-97%). In total, we obtained an average lengthening of 39 mm per patient (range, 17-67 mm). Exact expansion of the implant was unpredictable and difficult to control. Nine of 10 of the long-term surviving patients underwent revision surgery of the prosthesis-eight for implant breakage and one for stem loosening. At revision surgery, six patients had another type of expandable prosthesis implanted and three had an adult-type megaprosthesis implanted. In five cases, segmental bone grafts were used during revision surgery to compensate for loss of bone stock. CONCLUSIONS: We could not comfortably expand the Repiphysis(®) prosthesis in an outpatient setting because of pain experienced by the patients during the lengthening procedures. Furthermore, use of the prosthesis was associated with frequent failures related to implant breakage and stem loosening. Revisions of these procedures were complex and difficult. We no longer use this prosthesis and caution others against the use of this particular prosthesis design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Are Complications Associated With the Repiphysis(®) Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis Acceptable for Its Continued Use?

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of the distal femur after resection for malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. The use of megaprostheses has become increasingly popular in this patient group since the introduction of custom-made, expandable devices that do not require surgery for lengthening, such as the Repiphysis(®) Limb Salvage System. Early reports on the device were positive but more recently, a high complication rate and associated bone loss have been reported. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) what are the clinical outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system after 5-year minimum followup in patients treated with this prosthesis at one center; (2) what are the problems and complications associated with the lengthening procedures of this implant; and (3) what are the specific concerns associated with revision of this implant? METHODS: At our institute, between 2002 and 2007, the Repiphysis(®) expandable prosthesis was implanted in 15 children (mean age, 8 years; range, 6-11 years) after distal femoral resection for malignant bone tumors. During this time, the general indication for use of this implant was resection of the distal femur for localized malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients. Alternative techniques used for this indication were modular prosthetic reconstruction, massive (osteoarticular or intercalary) allograft reconstruction, or rotationplasty. Age and tumor extension were the main factors to decide on the surgical indication. Of the 15 patients who had this prosthesis implanted during reconstruction surgery, five died with the implant in situ or underwent amputation before 5 years followup and the remaining 10 were evaluated at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 104 months; range, 78-140 months). No patients were lost to followup. These 10 patients were long-term survivors and underwent the lengthening program. They were included in our study analysis. The first seven lengthening procedures were attempted in an outpatient setting; however, owing to pain and burning sensations experienced by the patients, the procedures failed to achieve the desired lengthening. Therefore, other procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia. We reviewed clinical data at index surgery for all 15 patients. We further analyzed the lengthening procedures, implant survival, radiographic and functional results, for the 10 long-term survivors. Functional results were assessed according to the MSTS scoring system. Complications were classified according to the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) classification system. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 survivors underwent revision of the implant for mechanical failure. They had a mean MSTS score of 64% (range, 47%-87%) before revision surgery. At final followup the 10 long-term surviving patients had an average MSTS score of 81% (range, 53%-97%). In total, we obtained an average lengthening of 39 mm per patient (range, 17-67 mm). Exact expansion of the implant was unpredictable and difficult to control. Nine of 10 of the long-term surviving patients underwent revision surgery of the prosthesis-eight for implant breakage and one for stem loosening. At revision surgery, six patients had another type of expandable prosthesis implanted and three had an adult-type megaprosthesis implanted. In five cases, segmental bone grafts were used during revision surgery to compensate for loss of bone stock. CONCLUSIONS: We could not comfortably expand the Repiphysis(®) prosthesis in an outpatient setting because of pain experienced by the patients during the lengthening procedures. Furthermore, use of the prosthesis was associated with frequent failures related to implant breakage and stem loosening. Revisions of these procedures were complex and difficult. We no longer use this prosthesis and caution others against the use of this particular prosthesis design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.