Choice Of Prosthesis Research Articles

Isolated aseptic loosening in total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive 10-year review of partial vs. total component revisions

BackgroundIn total knee arthroplasty (TKA), isolated aseptic loosening (IAL) requires the replacement of prosthetic components, with ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of partial component revision (PCR) compared to total component revision (TCR). This study aims to compare implant survival and surgical outcomes between PCR and TCR in the context of IAL.MethodsThis retrospective study analyzed data from 285 patients who underwent revision TKA for IAL between January 2000 and December 2013. After applying exclusion criteria, 112 patients were included in the analysis—60 undergoing TCR and 52 undergoing PCR.ResultsPCR was associated with shorter operative times and hospital stays compared to TCR, alongside significant differences in the choice of revision prostheses. Although the prosthesis failure rates were comparable between the groups (13.6% for TCR and 18.33% for PCR), significant risk factors for failure were identified, including a canal filling ratio (CFR) below 0.8 and a discrepancy over 0.2 between CFR views. However, no significant differences in overall survivorship were observed between the groups.ConclusionsBoth PCR and TCR provide similar survival rates and clinical outcomes for managing IAL in TKA. PCR provides advantages in terms of surgical efficiency and patient recovery, while reducing the need for more constrained prosthetic solutions. The study identifies CFR as a critical predictor of prosthesis failure, highlighting the importance of detailed preoperative planning and implant selection. These findings contribute valuable insights for improving revision strategies in IAL, enhancing surgical outcomes in TKA.Level of evidenceIII.

Prosthesis choice in the adult USA population with partial edentulism.

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of prostheses and investigate how demographic and socioeconomic characteristics influence choices of restoration types in the adult population of the United States over 20 years of age. The study utilized data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) conducted from 2017 to March 2020 Pre-Pandemic Data. We examined demographic and socioeconomic variables, dentition status, and restoration types among participants with partial edentulism. The percentage of categorical variables between restoration types was compared using chi-square tests. Multinomial logistic regression models were employed to explore the relationship between prosthetic choices and demographic and socioeconomic factors, both unadjusted and adjusted for all characteristics, including the number of missing teeth. Out of 15,560 participants, 7,805 eligible individuals with a mean age of 47.8 and a male percentage of 48.4% were included in the analysis. The results indicated that individuals who were younger, male, of Mexican American or non-Hispanic Black ethnicity, possessed lower educational attainment, were never married, had a low income-to-poverty ratio, held private insurance, or were unemployed were more inclined to choose no restoration. Further, males, non-Hispanic Black individuals, those with lower educational attainment, lower income-to-poverty ratios, and those who were unemployed or retired were more likely to choose RPDs over FPDs. Furthermore, never-married individuals and those with private insurance were likelier to choose FPDs in the maxilla (p < 0.01). Significant differences were observed among restoration types, demographic and socioeconomic variables, and dentition status in both the upper and lower jaws. This study underscores the significance of socioeconomic variables in the restoration of partial edentulism.

Clinical Application of 3D-Printed Artificial Vertebral Body (3DP AVB): A Review.

Introduction: The choice of prosthesis for vertebral body reconstruction (VBR) remains a controversial issue due to the lack of a reliable solution. The subsidence rate of the most commonly used titanium mesh cages (TMC) ranges from 42.5% to 79.7%. This problem is primarily caused by the differences in the elastic modulus between the TMC and bone. This review aims to summarize the clinical and radiological outcomes of new 3D-printed artificial vertebral bodies (3DP AVB). Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar was conducted to extract relevant studies. After screening the titles and abstracts, a total of 50 articles were selected for full-text analysis. Results: Preliminary data suggest fewer implant-related complications with 3DP AVB. Most comparative studies indicate significantly lower subsidence rates, reduced operation times and decreased intraoperative blood loss. However, the scarcity of randomized clinical trials and the high variability of the results warrant caution. Conclusion: Most literature data show an advantage of 3DP AVB in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss and subsidence rate. However, long manufacturing times, high costs and regulatory issues are this technology's main drawbacks.

What Are the Relative Associations of Surgeon Performance and Prosthesis Quality With THA Revision Rates?

Many factors, including some related to the patient, implant selection, and the surgeon's skill and expertise, likely contribute to the risk of THA revision. However, surgeon factors have not been extensively analyzed in national joint replacement registries, and there is limited insight into their potential as a confounding variable for revision outcomes; for example, if surgeons with higher revision rates choose more successful prostheses, would this alone reduce their revision rate? This study used Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) data for patients receiving primary THA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis to answer the following questions: (1) Will the difference in revision rates among surgeons change or disappear when only procedures performed with the best prostheses or prostheses that have been identified as having higher revision rates are considered? (2) Is the benefit associated with using the best-performing prostheses different among surgeons with different revision rates? (3) Do the reasons for revision differ between surgeons with higher rates of revision compared with surgeons with lower rates of revision? All primary THA procedures performed and recorded in the AOANJRR for osteoarthritis from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2022, were considered for inclusion. Each THA prosthesis used was categorized per the AOANJRR as superior-performing, middle-performing, or identified as having a higher rate of revision by the AOANJRR benchmarking process. Surgeons who had performed at least 50 procedures and had a recorded 2-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) were included. After applying these restrictions, the study consisted of 302,066 procedures performed by 476 known surgeons. For the primary outcome measure of all-cause revision, we examined the variation in all-cause revision rates across individual surgeons when different classes of devices were used to assess whether differences between surgeons persisted when accounting for prosthesis selection. For the purposes of descriptively comparing reasons for revision between surgeons with higher-than-average or lower-than-average risk of revision, surgeons were classified into quartiles and outcomes compared when these surgeons used the same class of prosthesis. The difference in rates of revision among surgeons remained even after accounting for the effects of the prosthesis used. For any given surgeon, identified prostheses were associated with higher revision rates compared with both superior-performing prostheses (HR 1.73 [95% CI 1.57 to 1.92]; p < 0.01) and medium-performing prostheses (HR 1.31 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.43]; p < 0.01). All surgeons demonstrated a lower revision rate when using a superior-performing prosthesis, but the difference was greatest for surgeons with the highest rates of revision. Surgeons with the lowest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 3.9% (95% CI 3.0% to 5.0%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis compared with 5.4% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.3%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. Surgeons with the highest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 10.9% (95% CI 8.6% to 13.8%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis, and this increased to 20.4% (95% CI 18.0% to 23.1%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. The reasons for revision differ between surgeons, with causes of revision likely preventable and not related to the prosthesis choice being apparent for surgeons with high revision rates. The choice of implant and the surgeon performing the index procedure both affected the risk of revision as well as the reasons for revision. Surgeons could improve the survivorship of the arthroplasties they perform by choosing implants identified by registries as having lower revision rates. Acceptance of the fact that surgeons have different revision rates is needed, and detailed analysis is required to explain why surgeons with high revision rates have increased rates of likely preventable revisions, and outside of prosthesis choice, how revision rates can be lowered. The influence of training, fellowship completion, ongoing education, patient selection, indications for surgery, and factors underlying prosthesis decision-making should be assessed. The surgeon performing THA is an important confounder that should be considered in future registry analyses. Level III, therapeutic study.

Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.

The choice of prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains challenging. The risk of anticoagulation complications vs. the risk of aortic valve reintervention should be weighed. This study compared the outcomes of bioprosthetic vs. mechanical AVR in patients older and younger than 50. This retrospective study was conducted from 2009 to 2019 and involved 292 adult patients who underwent isolated AVR. The patients were divided according to their age (above 50 years or 50 years and younger) and the type of valves used in each age group. The outcomes of bioprosthetic valves (Groups 1a (>50 years) and 1b (≤50 years)) were compared with those of mechanical valves (Groups 2a (>50 years) and 2b (≤50 years)) in each age group. The groups had nearly equal rates of preexisting comorbidities except for Group 1b, in which the rate of hypertension was greater (32.6% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.025). This group also had higher rates of old stroke (8.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.011) and higher creatinine clearance (127.62 (108.82-150.23) vs. 110.02 (84.87-144.49) mL/min; p = 0.026) than Group 1b. Patients in Group 1a were significantly older than Group 2a (64 (58-71) vs. 58 (54-67) years; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the NYHA class between the groups. The preoperative ejection fraction and other echocardiographic parameters did not differ significantly between the groups. Re-exploration for bleeding was more common in patients older than 50 years who underwent mechanical valve replacement (p = 0.021). There was no difference in other postoperative complications between the groups. The groups had no differences in survival, stroke, or bleeding rates. Aortic valve reintervention was significantly greater in patients ≤ 50 years old with bioprosthetic valves. There were no differences between groups in the changes in left ventricular mass, ejection fraction, or peak aortic valve pressure during the 5-year follow-up. The outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic valve replacement were comparable in patients older than 50 years. Using bioprosthetic valves in patients younger than 50 years was associated with a greater rate of valve reintervention, with no beneficial effect on the risk of bleeding or stroke.

Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement

ObjectiveBiologic valves dominate tricuspid valve replacement, yet data on different valve types are lacking. We compare the survival and durability of porcine and pericardial tricuspid prostheses. MethodsA retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement with porcine (N = 542) or pericardial (N = 144) prostheses between 1975 and 2022 was performed using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Concurrent procedures were included. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression were performed. ResultsPatients who received the porcine prosthesis, compared with pericardial, were younger (56 ± 17 years vs 63 ± 15 years) and more likely to present urgently (55% porcine, 44% pericardial); however, there were no differences in redo status or concomitant operations. Ten-year survival was not significantly different between the porcine and pericardial groups (35% ± 3% vs 28% ± 4%, respectively, P = .2). The 10-year cumulative incidence of structural valve deterioration (porcine 9% ± 2%, pericardial 11% ± 3%, P = .8), reoperation for structural valve deterioration (porcine 5% ± 1%, pericardial 4% ± 2%, P = .06), and severe regurgitation (porcine 4% ± 1%, pericardial 5% ± 2%, P = .7) were not significantly different between groups. The failure mode was similar, with no difference in severe stenosis (porcine 32/47 [68%], pericardial 11/16 [69%], P = .9) or severe regurgitation (porcine 18/47 [38%], pericardial 7/16 [44%], P = .7). On regression analysis, valve type was not associated with survival (P = .6). Valve type was not associated with structural valve deterioration (P = .1) or reoperation for structural valve deterioration (P = .9). ConclusionsIn our series, there were no differences in survival or durability between porcine and pericardial valves. In most patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement, the choice of porcine versus pericardial prosthesis is unlikely to affect clinical outcomes.

Clinical Practice Patterns for Surgical Shunts and Penile Prosthesis Placement in Men With Priapism: A Retrospective Large Claims Database Analysis.

The objective of this study was to assess the rates of surgical shunting and prosthesis placement for acute ischemic priapism using a large multi-institutional claims database. A US claims database network (TriNetX Diamond Network) was queried from 2010 to 2020. We constructed a cohort of men ages ≥ 16 years who (1) had a diagnosis of priapism and (2) underwent an irrigation of the corpora cavernosa for priapism. We assessed the number of men who then had a surgical penile shunt or penile prosthesis placement. Demographics, time to surgical procedure, and order of procedures were collected. A total of 6392 men were identified with the diagnosis of priapism and the procedure of corpora cavernosal irrigation. Of these men, 693 (11%) proceeded to surgical shunt. One hundred forty-four men (2%) underwent initial penile prosthesis placement. Of the men undergoing initial penile prosthesis, only 17 of 144 (12%) cases occurred within the first month of corpora cavernosal irrigation. Finally, when assessing choice of initial shunts vs initial penile prosthesis before and after 2015, overall rates of initial shunt (10.0% vs 8.5%, P < .0001) and initial prosthesis (3.1% vs 2.1%, P < .0001) were lower after 2015 when compared with rates prior to 2015. In this US claims-based analysis of men presenting with ischemic priapism and treated with initial irrigation, a small percentage (11%) of men went on to receive surgical shunting, and only 2% received an initial prosthesis. Men receiving initial prostheses were more likely to have more comorbidities, and overall surgical management of priapism has decreased over time.

Personalized digital simulation‑assisted acetabular component implantation in revision hip arthroplasty.

The number of artificial total hip revision arthroplasties is increasing yearly in China, and >50% of these cases have acetabular defects. Accurately locating and quantifying the bone defect is one of the current challenges of this surgery. Thus, the objective of the present study was to simulate acetabular implantation with the aid of Mimics 17.0 software (Materialise NV) in patients with loosened acetabular prosthesis, to evaluate the 'ideal acetabular center' and the 'actual acetabular center' to guide the choice of prosthesis and surgical method. From January 2017 to June 2021, the present study included 10 hips from 10 patients [seven men (seven hips) and three women (three hips)]. In all patients, the Mimics software was applied to simulate the dislocation of the femoral prosthesis and acetabular prosthesis implantation before surgery; calculate the height difference between the 'ideal acetabular center' and the 'actual acetabular center' to assess the bone defect; confirm the size of the acetabular prosthesis, abduction angle, anteversion angle and bone coverage of the acetabular cup; and measure the intraoperative bleeding and postoperative follow-up Harris score of the hip joint. After statistical analysis, the present study revealed that digital simulation assistance could improve the accuracy of hip revision acetabular prosthesis implantation, reduce postoperative shortening of the affected limb, especially for surgeons with relatively little experience in hip revision surgery, and greatly reduce the occurrence of complications such as hip dislocation because of poor postoperative prosthesis position.

Operative techniques and materials in ossiculoplasty

Successful ossiculoplasty aims to improve conductive hearing loss by restoring the mechanical transmission of energy from the tympanic membrane to the oval window. Ossiculoplasty is typically performed under general anesthesia with facial nerve monitoring as standard practice in our institution. Titanium implants have become the mainstay choice of prosthesis, due to its low density, high durability, and lower extrusion rate compared to other alloplastic implants. While microscopic techniques for ossiculoplasty have been the traditional approach, endoscopic ossiculoplasty has risen in popularity due to improved visualization of the middle ear.

Hip joint and muscle loading for persons with bilateral transfemoral/through-knee amputations: biomechanical differences between full-length articulated and foreshortened non-articulated prostheses

BackgroundCurrently, there is little available in-depth analysis of the biomechanical effect of different prostheses on the musculoskeletal system function and residual limb internal loading for persons with bilateral transfemoral/through-knee amputations (BTF). Commercially available prostheses for BTF include full-length articulated prostheses (microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees with dynamic response prosthetic feet) and foreshortened non-articulated stubby prostheses. This study aims to assess and compare the BTF musculoskeletal function and loading during gait with these two types of prostheses.MethodsGait data were collected from four male traumatic military BTF and four able-bodied (AB) matched controls using a 10-camera motion capture system with two force plates. BTF completed level-ground walking trials with full-length articulated and foreshortened non-articulated stubby prostheses. Inverse kinematics, inverse dynamics and musculoskeletal modelling simulations were conducted.ResultsFull-length articulated prostheses introduced larger stride length (by 0.5 m) and walking speed (by 0.3 m/s) than stubbies. BTF with articulated prostheses showed larger peak hip extension angles (by 10.1°), flexion moment (by 1.0 Nm/kg) and second peak hip contact force (by 3.8 bodyweight) than stubbies. There was no difference in the hip joint loading profile between BTF with stubbies and AB for one gait cycle. Full-length articulated prostheses introduced higher hip flexor muscle force impulse than stubbies.ConclusionsCompared to stubbies, BTF with full-length articulated prostheses can achieve similar activity levels to persons without limb loss, but this may introduce detrimental muscle and hip joint loading, which may lead to reduced muscular endurance and joint degeneration. This study provides beneficial guidance in making informed decisions for prosthesis choice.

Outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical mitral valve replacement for infective endocarditis in the United States

ObjectiveIn patients who underwent mitral valve replacement for infectious endocarditis, we evaluated the association of prosthesis choice with readmission rates and causes (the primary outcomes), as well as with in-hospital mortality, cost, and length of stay (the secondary outcomes). MethodsPatients with infectious endocarditis who underwent isolated mitral valve replacement from January 2016 to December 2018 were identified in the United States Nationwide Readmissions Database and stratified by valve type. Propensity score matching was used to compare adjusted outcomes. ResultsA weighted total of 4206 patients with infectious endocarditis underwent bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (n = 3132) and mechanical mitral valve replacement (n = 1074) during the study period. Patients in the bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement group were older than those in the mechanical mitral valve replacement group (median 57 vs 46 y, P < .001). After propensity matching, the bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement group (n = 1068) had similar in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs compared with the mechanical mitral valve replacement group (n = 1056). Overall, 90-day readmission rates were high (28.9%) and comparable for bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (30.5%) and mechanical mitral valve replacement (27.5%, P = .4). Likewise, there was no difference in readmissions over a calendar year by prosthesis type. Readmissions for infection and bleeding were common for both bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement and mechanical mitral valve replacement groups. ConclusionsOutcomes and readmission rates were similar for mechanical mitral valve replacement and bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in infectious endocarditis, suggesting that valve choice should not be determined by endocarditis status. Additionally, strategies to mitigate readmission for infection and bleeding are needed for both groups.

Penile implants in low flow priapism.

Priapism is a persistent or prolonged erection, in the absence of sexual stimulation, that fails to subside. Prolonged ischaemic or low flow priapism is defined as a full or partial erection persisting for more than 4 h and unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation, characterised by little or no cavernous blood flow. Low flow priapism leads to progressive corporal fibrosis, which could, in turn, lead to long-lasting erectile dysfunction if left untreated. Penile prosthesis implantation is recognised as a management option in refractory and delayed low flow priapism for restoring erectile function with high patient satisfaction rates. However, the ensuing corporal fibrotic scarring poses a surgical challenge to clinicians, given the higher complication rates in this patient subset. Postoperative patient satisfaction has been closely linked to preoperative expectations and perceived loss of penile length. Therefore, thorough patient counselling concerning the risk and benefits of penile implants should be a priority for all clinicians. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus on the ideal prosthesis choice and procedural timing in refractory low flow priapism. In this review, we will examine the existing literature on penile implants in patients with priapism and discuss the options for managing complications associated with penile prosthesis surgery.

Lower limb prosthetic prescription.

Lower limb amputations are the most common level of amputation. Mobilization of patients with lower limb amputations is an important rehabilitation goal. It is critical to prescribe the most appropriate prosthesis for the patient to achieve the rehabilitation goal in lower extremity amputations. Appropriate prosthesis prescription in lower extremity amputations is based on the selection of the correct prosthetic parts. The choice of prosthesis should be based on the patient's activity level and potential. The prosthesis decision should be made by a team, particularly with the participation of the patient.

Revisiting aortic valve prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years: 10 years results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.

This population-based cohort study investigated mid-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve prosthesis in patients aged <50 years in a European social welfare state. We analysed patient data from the main social insurance carriers in Austria (2010-2020). Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcome. Survival, reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure, embolic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage, bleeding other than intracerebral haemorrhage and major adverse cardiac events were evaluated as outcomes. A total of 991 patients were analysed. Regarding demographics, no major differences between groups were observed. Multivariable Cox regression revealed no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.352) with a median follow-up time of 6.2 years. Reoperation-free survival was decreased (hazard ratio = 1.560 [95% CI: 1.076-2.262], P = 0.019) and the risk for reoperation was increased (hazard ratio = 2.770 [95% CI: 1.402-5.472], P = 0.003) in patients who received bioprostheses. Estimated probability of death after reoperation was 0.23 (CL: 0.08-0.35) after 2 years and 0.34 (CL: 0.06-0.53) after 10 years over both groups. Regarding further outcomes, no significant differences between the two groups were observed. In patients below 50 years of age receiving aortic valve replacement, implantation of bioprostheses when compared to mechanical heart valve prostheses was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and reduced reoperation-free survival. Nevertheless, we could not observe a difference in overall survival. However, long-term follow-up has to evaluate that a significantly lower rate of reoperations may translate in consistently improved long-term survival.

Surgical Challenges in Infective Endocarditis: State of the Art.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is still a life-threatening disease with frequent lethal outcomes despite the profound changes in its clinical, microbiological, imaging, and therapeutic profiles. Nowadays, the scenario for IE has changed since rheumatic fever has declined, but on the other hand, multiple aspects, such as elderly populations, cardiovascular device implantation procedures, and better use of multiple imaging modalities and multidisciplinary care, have increased, leading to escalations in diagnosis. Since the ESC and AHA Guidelines have been released, specific aspects of diagnostic and therapeutic management have been clarified to provide better and faster diagnosis and prognosis. Surgical treatment is required in approximately half of patients with IE in order to avoid progressive heart failure, irreversible structural damage in the case of uncontrolled infection, and the prevention of embolism. The timing of surgery has been one of the main aspects discussed, identifying cases in which surgery needs to be performed on an emergency (within 24 h) or urgent (within 7 days) basis, irrespective of the duration of antibiotic treatment, or cases where surgery can be postponed to allow a brief period of antibiotic treatment under careful clinical and echocardiographic observation. Mainly, guidelines put emphasis on the importance of an endocarditis team in the handling of systemic complications and how they affect the timing of surgery and perioperative management. Neurological complications, acute renal failure, splenic or musculoskeletal manifestations, or infections determined by multiresistant microorganisms or fungi can affect long-term prognosis and survival. Not to be outdone, anatomical and surgical factors, such as the presence of native or prosthetic valve endocarditis, a repair strategy when feasible, anatomical extension and disruption in the case of an annular abscess (mitral valve annulus, aortic mitral curtain, aortic root, and annulus), and the choice of prosthesis and conduits, can be equally crucial. It can be hard for surgeons to maneuver between correct pre-operative planning and facing unexpected obstacles during intraoperative management. The aim of this review is to provide an overview and analysis of a broad spectrum of specific surgical scenarios and how their challenging management can be essential to ensure better outcomes and prognoses.

Hemodynamics after TAVR matter.

Key Points Adverse hemodynamics after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are more common in patients with a small aortic annulus (SAA) and affect clinical outcomes. In this observational study of 628 patients with a very SAA, 89% of whom were women, severe prothesis patient mismatch (PPM) was associated with an up to fivefold increase in 1‐year mortality. As younger and more active patients are treated with TAVR, it will be important to consider strategies including prosthesis choice as well as surgical root enlargement to avoid severe PPM.

Symmetry Function in Trans-Tibial Amputees Gait Supplied with the New Concept of Affordable Dynamic Foot Prosthesis—Case Study

The development of modern technologies has made it much easier to regain the ability to walk after losing a lower limb. The variety of prosthetic feet available on the market allows for optimal choice and appropriate adjustment of the foot prosthesis to the trans-tibial amputee patient’s needs. Unfortunately, the best solutions are often not available to everyone due to their high prices. This study compares the gait patterns of patients using the new concept of an affordable dynamic foot with those of other commonly available but much more expensive foot prostheses. The kinematic and spatio-temporal parameters of gait obtained using the motion capture system were analyzed. For a clear picture of changes in bilateral deficits during gait for the pelvis, hip, knee, and ankle joints, the symmetry function was used. The results indicate that the new and cheaper concept of foot prostheses offers a very similar level of gait quality to that provided by more expensive and popular solutions. The authors suggest that the use of symmetry function thresholds of 10% does not work for amputees.

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A “SURGEON OUTLIER” POLICY FOR THE NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY

At the end of 2018, the NZ Joint Registry introduced a “Surgeon Outlier” policy, whereby each year, if an individual surgeons’ lower 95% confidence interval of their revision rate, measured in revision/100 component years(r/ocys), was above the NZ mean (0.71 r/ocys), that surgeon was required to audit their results with a nominated peer. This study investigates whether outlier surgeons also have high early (1 month and 1 year) revision rates.In 2018, 236 surgeons performed 9,186 total hip arthroplasties in NZ. At the end of 2018, 11 surgeons received notification they were outliers. Results from all surgeons for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 were combined to form the first (pre-notification) time interval, and results from years 2019, 2020 and 2021 were combined to form the second time interval (post-notification). Outlier surgeons performed 2001 total hip replacements in the first time interval and 1947 hips in the second. Early revision rates (1 month and 1 year) of both outlier and nonoutlier surgeons for both time intervals were analysed.Non-outlier surgeons had a consistent mean early revision rate of 0.75% at one month and 1.6% at one year for both time intervals. The 11 outlier surgeons had a higher earlier revision rate of 1.35% at one month and 2.45% at one year for the pre-notification time interval. These values reduced for the post-notification time interval to a revision rate of 1.23% for one month and 2.36% for one year.Poor joint registry results of individual surgeons are often attributed to a poor choice of prosthesis. This study shows early revision rates of outlier surgeons, where prosthesis selection has minimal influence, are also high.A slight improvement in early revision rates of outlier surgeons since introduction of the policy shows it is working.

Prosthesis Choice in Dialysis Patients Undergoing Mitral Valve Replacement

BackgroundPatients with renal disease on dialysis have significant comorbidity limiting life expectancy; however, these patients may experience accelerated prosthetic valve degeneration. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of prosthesis choice on outcomes in dialysis patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR) at our high-volume academic center. MethodsAdults undergoing MVR were retrospectively reviewed between January 2002 and November 2019. Patients were included if they had documented renal failure and dialysis requirements before presentation. Patients were stratified by mechanical vs bioprosthetic prosthesis. Death and recurrent severe valve failure (3+ or greater) or redo mitral operation were used as primary outcomes. ResultsThere were 177 dialysis patients identified who underwent MVR. Of these, 118 (66.7%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 59 (33.3%) received mechanical valves. Those who received mechanical valves were younger (48 vs 61 years; P < .001) and had less diabetes (32% vs 51%; P = .019). Prevalence of endocarditis and atrial fibrillation was similar. Postoperative length of stay was not different between groups. Risk-adjusted hazard for 5-year mortality was similar between groups (P = .668). Early mortality was high, with both groups having <50% actuarial survival at 2 years. No differences were noted in rates of structural valve deterioration or reintervention. More stroke events were noted on follow-up in patients receiving mechanical valves (15% vs 6%; P = .041). Endocarditis was the leading reason for reintervention; 4 patients received repeated surgery for bioprosthetic valve failure. ConclusionsMVR in dialysis patients carries significant morbidity and increased midterm mortality. Decreased life expectancy should be considered in the tailoring of prosthesis choice to dialysis-dependent patients.

Specificity of long-term management of a woman patient of reproductive age after surgical mitral valve repair against the background of infective endocarditis

As a clinical case, we present the "portrait" of a woman patient with acquired mitral valve (MV) defect against the background of infective endocarditis which was diagnosed during the third trimester of pregnancy. The patient underwent mitral valve replacement surgery with biological prosthesis "KemKor" followed by two successful deliveries. In 18 years after the correction of the mitral valve defect, she developed valve prosthesis dysfunction therefore, she underwent endovascular transcatheter implantation of bioprosthesis by method "prosthesis-into-prosthesis" in the mitral position.This clinical case is unique in terms of the reasoning the biological prosthesis choice to correct acquired MV defect in a patient of reproductive age, the long-term period of the bioprosthesis functioning and the correction of further developed valve dysfunction using the techniques of transcatheter implantation.